Candidates and Propositions in Tuesday’s L.A. Election

In a March 30 editorial you endorsed three persons for the Los Angeles Community College District Board of Trustee vacancies. Two of the seats are contested. I have no quarrel with your right to make recommendations, but I am disappointed in the naive criteria you used to make your selection. When a college is supported exclusively by public funds, i.e., taxes, the board of trustees must serve a twofold function: to set policy for the college and to represent the various publics extant within the district. Why then should community college experience or union representation be used as criteria to choose the most competent candidate?

Not only were your recommendations for the contested seats the same as those of the teachers collective bargaining unit, the American Federation of Teachers, but attorney Althea Baker was the chief negotiator for that union. More than a score of community college districts in California are already controlled by the faculty unions, LACCD being one. Why in the world would The Times advocate strengthening the hand of the AFT which is already in command? You mention that there is “comparative labor peace.” With the union controlling the LACCD board of trustees, why wouldn’t there be labor peace? The union gets everything it wants, and woe be unto the board member who votes against it.

When will policy be set for the good of the students rather than the faculty? When will those who are not employed by the colleges get their fair share of representation? At present the LACCD is a superb example of the inmates being in charge of the institution.

M. STEPHEN SHELDON

Studio City