The Brief

The Los Angeles Unified School Board will vote Tuesday on a plan to eliminate jobs as the district contends with several years of spending more money than it brings in.

The reduction in force (RIF) vote is the first step in a monthslong process that could result in layoffs at the district’s central office and schools.

In meeting materials posted late Friday night, the district proposed issuing notices to thousands of employees and closing hundreds of additional positions at the central office.

The move would save approximately $250 million, part of an overall $1.4 billion “fiscal stabilization plan.”

“Even with approval,” the plan states, “with available reserves already being fully utilized, further reductions will be necessary based on the multi-year projections.”

Why is the board voting on potential job cuts?

For the past two years, the district has relied on reserves to backfill a multi-billion-dollar deficit. That deficit comes as enrollment has declined steeply but expenses have not.

There are more than 40% fewer students compared to the early 2000s. At the same time, as costs have increased, the district has not closed schools or significantly reduced staff. LAUSD hired more staff to support students during the pandemic, and now the federal relief dollars that initially funded those positions are gone.

What’s in the plan?

Reductions in force are proposed for several categories including “un-funded” positions, central office staff and at schools that support higher needs students.

The RIF proposal would:

• Authorize notices to about 2,600 certificated and classified contract management employees and certificated administrators. Update: An LAUSD spokesperson told LAist on Tuesday that teachers and counselors in classroom and school positions are not under consideration in the RIF proposal released Friday.
• Close 657 central office and centrally funded classified positions. More than a third of these are IT technicians, by far the largest group.
• Reduce hours for 52 positions.
• Reduce pay for 22 positions.

“In total this represents less than 1% of the total Los Angeles Unified workforce,” the materials note.

It is unclear how many positions included in the proposed reduction in force will ultimately result in people being laid off. Superintendent Alberto Carvalho said in a previous board meeting that a RIF did not guarantee layoffs, as staff could be reassigned to other positions or given the opportunity to transfer schools.

The district's budget outlook could also change as employees retire or move to jobs elsewhere, etc.

What happens now? 

LAUSD must vote on the reduction in force before March 15, the deadline for California school districts to notify staff they may be laid off. Decisions have to be finalized by the end of June.

In a letter sent earlier this month, the unions representing LAUSD teachers, support staff and principals asked the board to delay the RIF vote until there is more information available about state funding and the public has more time to understand the proposed cuts.

There's also questions about what impact ongoing labor negotiations will have on the budget. United Teachers Los Angeles members recently gave their leadership the power to call a strike if the union can’t reach a contract deal with the district.

How can I weigh in?

The board meets Tuesday at 10 a.m. You can register for public comment here. Speakers can comment by phone or in person and are generally limited to two minutes.

You can watch the meeting here:

You can also email all board members here or find your individual representative below or leave a voicemail message at (213) 443-4472, by 5 p.m. the day before the meeting.

After opening a modern Korean pub called Yi Cha in 2025, chef Debbie Lee decided to pay homage to her heritage with Mokja, this time serving Korean goods and convenience.

Lee sat down with AirTalk Friday host Austin Cross to talk about her vision for gourmet Korean style snacks in L.A.

Grab-and-go convenience with a twist

Lee says the idea behind Mokja was to take the model of American convenience stores and blend it with Korean flavors.

It’s a place for people who want to grab something for the road, stop by for a quick snack or even meal prep for the week. The store also partnered with Frank and Michele La, creators of Be Bright Coffee, to offer Korean-style coffee drinks to pair with the snacks.

Daru Yu, Frank La, Debbie Lee and Michelle La

(

Stan Lee

/

Courtesy Mokja

)

The Korean word Mokja translates to "let's eat."

“If your mom or your grandma was calling you over the table, they'd say, ‘Bali Mokja,’ which means, ‘Hurry, let's eat’”

What you’ll find at Mokja

One of the quick, to-go items you’ll find is Lee’s northern style mandu dumplings, stuffed with fatty pork and shrimp and inspired by her grandmother’s recipe.

Build your own ramen tray

(

Stan Lee

/

Courtesy Mokja

)

Build your own Ramen station

(

Stan Lee

/

Courtesy Mokja

)

Grab n' Go Banchan

(

Stan Lee

/

Courtesy Mokja

)

For optimal convenience, the king-sized dumplings are offered in the grab-and-go fridge. Lee recommends popping them in the microwave at the store and enjoying them with a coffee.

Mokja also features a make-your-own ramen station, which Lee says has become incredibly popular for families with kids.

Korean hand pies with southern flair

One of the highlights on the menu is the oxtail hand pie, which features a braised Korean-style oxtail known as kkori-jjim. It’s inspired by southern soul food influences her parents picked up on.

Braised Oxtail aka “Gori Jjim” Hand Pie

(

Stan Lee

/

Courtesy Mokja

)

“My mom learned how to cook from the Black cooks in Jackson, Mississippi, and she learned good old soul Southern food.”

Kimchee Cheese Biscuits

(

Stan Lee

/

Courtesy Mokja

)

Yuja Cha Ice Box Pie

(

Stan Lee

/

Courtesy Mokja

)

Lee said Mokja is all about telling the story through food.

The restaurant also features other Korean/Southern fusion, including a Yuju cha ice box pie and Kimchi cheese biscuits.

State lawmakers have reached a deal that would provide school districts some relief from the costs of childhood sexual abuse lawsuits filed after a 2020 law allowed victims to sue for abuse by public employees going back decades, EdSource has learned.

It was not immediately clear Thursday afternoon whether the last-minute deal, brokered days before the legislative session is set to end on Aug. 31, has enough support to reach Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk.

At issue is Assembly Bill 218, a law that lifted the statute of limitations to sue for childhood sexual abuse and enabled a blitz of costly litigation against schools and public agencies. In some cases, victims have received tens of millions of dollars for sexual assaults and abuses they say took place decades ago at the hands of teachers and other public employees.

Details of the deal are included in amendments made to Senate Bill 577 co-authored by Sen. John Laird, D-Santa Cruz. According to the amended bill text, the deal would raise the legal standard required for people who are 40 years or older to sue for sexual assaults that occurred before Jan. 1, 2024. It also calls for schools and other agencies to have sexual assault prevention plans and codes of conduct.

“California stands with survivors, whose voices have shaped this process every step of the way, and the Legislature is taking action to defend and preserve survivors’ path to justice — that is not negotiable,” Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, said in a statement. “With this solution, the state is safeguarding schools and public services, while investing in prevention and protecting against future abuse. California is committed to the safety of every child.”

The amendments do not appear to address a limit or cap on jury awards or settlement amounts for childhood sexual abuse cases in the state. Caps were a major demand from public agencies, including schools, counties and obscure agencies called joint powers authorities that serve as insurance pools for school districts.

Laird, who had attempted to pass an AB 218 reform bill last year, said in a phone interview Thursday evening that the negotiations that led to the compromise were difficult. Putting a complete cap on settlement amounts “was a bridge too far” for many lawmakers, Laird said.

Troy Flint, spokesperson for the California School Boards Association, said the group was grateful for lawmakers’ efforts, but added that it’s “highly questionable” whether the deal would do enough to prevent school districts from getting slammed with seven-figure settlements.

“We’re grateful to Speaker Rivas and Pro Tem (Monique) Limón for their efforts to address this issue,” Ben Adler, director of public affairs for the California State Association of Counties, said in a statement. “It’s clear the status quo is broken, and the unintended consequences have grown out of control.”

Democratic California lawmakers are pushing a last-minute bill to ban federal agents from using electric shock gloves, becoming one of the first states in the nation to respond to reports that Immigration and Customs Enforcement plans to purchase thousands of gloves next year as part of the Trump administration’s crackdown.

Democrats this week advanced Assembly Bill 2760, which would prohibit ICE agents and state and local officers from wearing any device that can deliver electric shocks. It would also block California police departments from purchasing the devices with state money.

San Diego Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins, a Democrat, introduced the bill only last week, with days remaining in the legislative session, in a process known as a “gut and amend,” in which an unrelated bill is rewritten and fast–tracked.

The eleventh-hour move follows a notice published earlier this month by the Department of Homeland Security that said ICE is seeking to spend up to $20 million to buy thousands of taser-like gloves from Compliant Technologies, a Kentucky-based company. The product, called G.L.O.V.E. for Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter, is marketed as a non-lethal, de-escalation device on the company’s website. The Associated Press first reported about the notice.

ICE announced on Thursday it was awarding the Kentucky company a $16.7 million contract for 6,000 pairs of gloves.

“While the gloves are not currently being used in California, waiting for a tragedy to act, in my personal opinion, and so many others, would be something that California could not handle,” Sharp-Collins said at a hearing on Wednesday.

She said the gloves pose a public safety risk and cited the case of a Kentucky man who died after allegedly being shocked 27 times with the gloves and 13 times with a Taser while in jail last year.

On Thursday, U.S. Sen Alex Padilla and other congressional Democrats wrote a letter to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin urging the department to cancel its contract with the company providing the gloves, calling them “hand-worn tasers disguised as restraint equipment.”

Civil rights groups strongly support the bill and argue that electric shock gloves are inhumane and an excessive use of force.

“Electroshock gloves by any law enforcement agency makes Californians less safe,” Anallely Martin, of the California Immigrant Policy Center, said at the hearing.

The California State Sheriffs’ Association and numerous other law enforcement groups oppose the bill, arguing it would unnecessarily limit officers’ ability to de-escalate a situation.

“This is a bad policy from a California law enforcement perspective, and it’s really only gonna be a message to the feds that’s going to fail to land,” California State Sheriffs’ Association lobbyist Cory Salzillo said at the hearing.

It’s the latest move by California lawmakers to clamp down on ICE agents in response to President Donald Trump’s sweeping immigration raids. Just this week, Democrats passed a bill that would ban federal agents from working for state or local police agencies and another to make it easier for people to sue agents for civil rights violations.

In April, a federal court struck down a 2025 law forcing masked immigration agents to identify themselves. Judges ruled the state had stepped out of bounds when it tried to enforce rules against federal officers.

Similar to that law, if Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signs the new bills, they’re expected to face nearly identical legal challenges.

“States simply can’t regulate how federal officers do their jobs, even if we don’t like how they do their jobs. That’s up to the federal government,” UC Davis law professor Vikram Amar said.

Without a clear argument on how the gloves violate people’s constitutional rights, the legislation would likely hold little weight in court, Amar said.

“It makes a lot of bills like this kind of more performative than real,” Amar said.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

Have you ever had trouble getting or updating a government ID … like a driver's license or state ID card? Or was it super simple? LAist wants to hear from you.

Proposition 39 is on the ballot this fall, which would require voters to show a government-issued ID when casting a ballot. For mail-in ballots, voters would have to include the last four digits of that ID on the envelope. 

This would be a big change from how voting currently works in California. So we want to know: What will that mean for eligible voters? Tell us, and your answers could help shape our coverage.

Wait, voters don't currently have to show ID?

Currently, California law asks voters to prove their identity when they register to vote, but not when they actually cast a ballot. And the state accepts a wide variety of documents as proof of voter eligibility, including a student ID or bank statement. That would also change under Prop. 39.

What we want to know

How easy, or hard, is it to get a government-issued ID? Have you faced barriers to getting an official ID? What were they?

Go deeper

• A voter ID measure will be on California's November ballot: Here's what you need to know
• A guide to Proposition 39: Take our quiz to weigh the pros and cons
• Voter ID: Initiative gathers enough signatures for the ballot