Davis Vetoes Bill to Elect Community College Trustees by District

Gov. Gray Davis vetoed a plan Wednesday to elect Los Angeles Community College District trustees by district, which would have eliminated the current at-large system. The decision surprised college trustees and leaders of district employee groups, who believed the bill--AB 1328--would have helped ensure better community representation on the college board.

In a statement, Davis said the state should not be involved in this issue. “The decision to create single-member trustee areas is best made at the local level, not by the state.”

The bill’s sponsor, Assemblyman Tony Cardenas (D-Sylmar), said he was confused by the decision, as were the college trustees, who last year drafted a letter of support for the proposal.

Even district union members who initially opposed--but recently backed the bill--were surprised by the news.

Carl Friedlander, president of the district’s College Guild unit of the American Federation of Teachers, said his union opposed the measure last year but later reversed its stance due to intense political pressure.

“We said, well, we’ll get out of the way of this train,” he said. But the train never came. “I’m a little surprised, I wasn’t aware of any opposition to [AB 1328].”

Supporters of the present system, however, maintain that it encourages trustees to govern the district as a whole, instead of considering parochial interests.

Trustee Mona Field said she was stunned by the veto. “I had all ready, in my hands, a resolution in preparation for him signing it, so we could immediately get consultants and start drawing lines after the census next year.”

Davis aides declined comment, but Patrick McCallum, the district’s legislative analyst, surmised that Davis wanted to send a message to other at-large districts like San Francisco and San Diego.

“I think he was worried that every district in the state will go to the Legislature,” McCallum said. “I think he vetoed it for the sake of precedent.”

McCallum also speculated that Davis vetoed the bill to avoid allocating state funds for such projects, which district officials estimate would cost $500,000.

Board members concede that redistricting could be done at the local level by gathering signatures from the community and going before the Los Angeles County Committee on School District Organization. But few district trustees know exactly what steps to take and fewer still, say officials, have any desire to start the process.

“It’s very bureaucratic,” said Field. “We would have to go through this humongous process that would be an energy drain and very time consuming.

“I’ve got to tell you, this is not going to be our top priority.”

Critics of the current electoral system say Los Angeles is too large and diverse a district to be adequately represented by seven at-large candidates. They say that at-large elections dilute a community’s right to fair and equal representation.

Until Georgia Mercer became a trustee last year, none of the trustees lived in the San Fernando Valley--home to three community colleges. Cardenas complained that recent problems at Mission College, the only campus in his district, were exacerbated by lack of any trustees from the Sylmar area and unresponsive representation.

“Prior to this most recent election we’ve had a district that is 880 square miles and have had all of seven members living in a 50-square-mile area,” Cardenas said. “At-large elections do not result in appropriate representation of the entire community.”

At-large districts also complicate elections, critics say, forcing candidates into citywide campaigns.

“We’re looking at a part-time position where you have to reach out to about 2 million voters,” said Cardenas. Trustee elections have also become increasingly expensive with some candidates spending tens of thousands of dollars earlier this year.

Trustee Sylvia Scott-Hayes, who was elected to the board last spring, said the legislation could have helped trustee candidates connect better with voters.

“Running for this position is like running for judge,” she said. “No one knows who you are and no one knows what you are running for.”

Cardenas said he would reintroduce the bill in January.

“I don’t agree with [Davis’] reasoning that the state shouldn’t be handling this,” said Cardenas, who complained that several phone calls to the governor went unanswered in the past few days. “I found the governor’s veto to be a total surprise. We have been working to have better communication with the governor.”