Community College Trustees Reject Staff Fund Plan : Finance: Board members would have shared $100,000 to employ researchers or field representatives.

A sharply divided Los Angeles Community College District Board of Trustees on Wednesday night rejected a proposal that would have enabled each trustee to hire his or her own part-time staff member.

The 3-to-2 vote, with two abstentions, doomed the latest in a series of attempts to win discretionary funds or staff members for individual trustees, who serve part time.

As originally proposed, the measure called for the financially pressed district to set aside $100,000 a year and divide it equally among the seven trustees, each of whom could have decided whether to spend the money on staff, materials, projects or other “district-related needs,” as long as the expenditure met federal, state and district regulations.

After opponents charged that the funds could be spent on activities ranging from meals for influential people to handing out plaques that would do more to advance a trustee’s political career than benefit the district, the proposal’s sponsors restricted it to salaries and expenses for field representatives or researchers.

“I’m only interested in (that) one part it,” said Trustee David Lopez-Lee, who has argued repeatedly that the part-time, elected officials need their own staff members, in part, he said, because they are “outgunned” by the nine-college district’s administration when it comes to researching and formulating policy. Lopez-Lee said trustees need independent sources of information and a staff member who must answer only to one boss.

But the amendment appeared to have cost supporters votes, as several board members said they were not interested in having their own staff members but would have liked to have had funds for other things the district needs. Trustee Patrick Owens, for example, said he would have used his share to establish alumni organizations to help persuade voters to approve a bond measure for badly needed buildings.

During often-caustic debate, opponents argued that the board would be wrong to add staff members when the district cannot provide enough classes to meet demand and has many other pressing needs.

“How dare we take $100,000 of our precious funds and sock it away for ourselves so we can ‘outgun’ each other,” said Trustee Kenneth Washington. “That is the height of selfishness.”

Gwen Hill, president of the Faculty Guild, said she could see some benefit in trustees having independent researchers. But Aric Anderson, student body president at Harbor College, urged trustees to use the money instead to “open up those classes we need.”

The district has been struggling with rapid growth and deteriorating buildings in the face of tightening state allocations. Despite nearly emptying reserves and persuading employees to forgo raises to prevent more elimination of classes, the district has had to turn away thousands of students from full classrooms.

Washington was joined in voting against the measure by Althea Baker and Lindsay Conner. Conner also objected to the proposal’s provision for allowing individual board members control of their own funds. A majority vote is required for all spending matters that come to the board.

Trustee Wallace Knox joined Lopez-Lee in favor of the proposal, while Trustees Julia Li Wu and Owens abstained.