College Trustees Shelve Plan for $100,000 Personal Account : Education: The money would have been divided among the seven board members to spend on staff or favored projects.

Trustees of the money-short Los Angeles Community College District on Wednesday shelved a proposal that would have given each of them a small pool of funds to spend on staff or favored projects.

The three trustees who had proposed taking $100,000 and dividing it among the seven board members said their action had been based on their understanding that the funds were already available in the board’s budget.

“It was never the intent to drain funds” from other needs of the nine-college district, said Trustee Wallace Knox. With Trustees Julia Li Wu and Patrick Owens in agreement, Knox withdrew the motion, indicating it may be considered again once they can get a clear reading on the status of money they had believed was available.

District finance officials said earlier this week that a board account that the trustees had hoped to tap was empty.

Under the just-shelved proposal, individual trustees could have spent their $14,250 share of the funds without first getting approval from a majority of their colleagues, as is currently required.

Critics of the measure, including Trustee Lindsay Conner, called it a “slush fund” and objected to the notion of individual trustees being able to spend taxpayers’ money without agreement from their peers.

But David Lopez-Lee, who implied that the motion had been his idea, was infuriated by the slush-fund characterization.

“That implies a dishonest image,” said Lopez-Lee, who added that the money might well be used “for political purposes but not in a pejorative sense.”

“No limits at all amounts to a slush fund,” retorted Conner. “I think it’s wrong. I don’t think we can afford $100,000 for trustee pet projects.”

Citing confusion over the status of the board account, Lopez-Lee said the controversy illustrates the importance of trustees having their own staff members who would “work at our pleasure” and provide services needed to keep the power in balance between administrative and legislative branches of government.

He accused the board of “backing away from something that is badly needed” in reaction to a Times story about the controversy Wednesday.

The district, faced with rapidly growing enrollment and shrinking state financing, has endured tough financial times. To keep from making further cuts in classes and teachers, the district for two years has nearly emptied its reserve funds. That brought it a reprimand from state community college officials.

Additionally, employee groups agreed earlier this year to forgo pay raises to help stave off cuts in instructional programs.