Plan for Rose Bowl Saved by the Bell : Management: A proposal to turn over operation to a quasi-independent group was on the ropes until the phone rang. It was absent Councilman : Isaac Richard, asking that the debate be postponed.

The embryonic Rose Bowl Operating Co. seemed on the verge of being swept aside in a heated dispute over who should be on its board when, as the City Council debated the matter Tuesday, a telephone rang.

City Manager Philip Hawkey reached under the horseshoe-shaped table around which the council deliberates and picked up the phone, which was clanging like a wind-up alarm clock.

“Isaac?” he said.

It was absent Councilman Isaac Richard, a strong proponent of turning over the administration of the Rose Bowl to a quasi-independent operating company. He was calling to ask that the debate be delayed until he could get to the meeting. A few hours later, with Richard present, the motion to continue city administration of the 101,000-seat stadium was pushed back.

Afterward, Richard explained that he had been unable to arrive earlier because of business commitments. During a break, he had called his field representative, Maria Baber-Smith, who told him about the course of the council debate, he said. Richard, an investment banker with an Orange County firm, called Hawkey’s office, which transferred him to the council chamber hot line.

Now, if all goes according to plan, the Rose Bowl Operating Co. will begin running the stadium sometime next year. The goal is to make the bowl, which has lost money in five out of the last six years, a more efficient enterprise, city officials say.

With a quasi-independent, nine-member board in charge, the Rose Bowl administration will be able to book acts and make purchases without going through lengthy reviews by the City Council.

The question Tuesday was about who should be on the board. Two weeks ago, the council agreed on a panel composed of three community members, a city manager’s appointee, a council member, two experts in finance or facilities management and representatives from the bowl’s two major clients--the Tournament of Roses and UCLA.

But Councilman William Paparian said he was having second thoughts about representation on the board by UCLA.

“It’s difficult to deal with UCLA at arm’s length when it’s on the board,” he said. “When their contract is up for renewal, a competing use might be offered--for example, a professional football team.”

Councilman William Thomson threw up his hands in frustration. Such a move might be interpreted as “a slap in the face” of a prime tenant, which plays its five home football games at the bowl, he said, adding that the UCLA representative could excuse himself during discussion of the school’s contract with the bowl.

“Maybe we ought to step back and put the matter on hold,” he said.

Councilman Chris Holden, who favors leaving the bowl under city control, made a motion that would have delayed the formation of an operating company until next year, leaving the stadium under the supervision of city staff.

But with Richard present, that motion was never considered. After Paparian withdrew his second, he proposed a motion of his own: that the new board be formed without a UCLA representative. That idea died on a 3-3 tie, with Holden abstaining.

After several hours of disagreement, the Rose Bowl Operating Co. was back where it had been.

The next step:

In November, the City Council and other parties will put together a nine-member operating company task force, which will evolve sometime next year into the board of directors.

According to the arrangement worked out by the council, Richard and Councilwoman Kathryn Nack, whose districts share the Rose Bowl’s locale, will each appoint one representative. Then the two must agree on a third member.

Mayor Rick Cole will appoint three members from a list of candidates suggested by the entire council. The city manager, UCLA and the Tournament of Roses will each appoint one member.