There may be some truth to rumors of growing “tension” between Santa Monica College district administrators and the newer members of its board of trustees.
At the January 9, 2006, trustees meeting, a discussion about hiring independent legal counsel for the board of trustees raised issues of micromanaging, distrust of staff and another costly spending program that may not be needed.
According to Tom Donner, acting president of the SMC district, “The district does have ‘hourly, as needed’ contracts with attorneys to represent it (and trustees) in areas such as bond financing, liability, human resources, construction and brings in additional counsel, with board approval, if a need should arise.” He disclosed that the district currently uses 12 law firms.
Land-use attorney Chris Harding and former Santa Monica City Attorney Robert Myers were both hired recently to assist college administrators in a dispute with the city concerning street access for the new Bundy campus.
Donner reminded the board that the protocol is for attorneys to report to the president or chancellor. “The responsibility for seeing that the college is complying with board policy or government codes is the responsibility of the president. The only time the trustees need their own counsel is when they hire or fire a president, superintendent or chancellor.”
Recently elected trustee Rob Rader, himself a lawyer, felt differently and argued for independent counsel for a board that wants to be more hands on. He stated, “This board wants to have direct communication with its own attorney(s) and if people are not comfortable with that in the district, that makes me feel that I need outside counsel more, not less.” Not all the trustees agreed with him, however.
There also seemed to be confusion about legal services currently utilized. Board chair Nancy Greenstein said, “The board does not have a sense of our litigation program. The board is not aware of all the legal consultants we use and the depth of their services.”
Before suggesting an “audit” to determine if legal services were being handled effectively, newly elected trustee Susan Aminoff complained, “Although the board has approved contracts for legal services, we don’t learn very much about the services that these firms are performing.” So, whose fault is that?
Donner said that he and his staff are available at any time to answer questions about legal issues. But, it seems that few, if any, questions have been raised by trustees until now.
A motion to gather information on evaluating legal services for the district in general and on hiring “an independent person to interpret legal issues for trustees” was narrowly approved. It seems it’s the newer trustees who desire the more involved approach that’s fueling rumors about a growing “us versus them” rift.
The board’s proactiveness has also raised questions about interference with district administrators. Trustee Margaret Quinones said this was sending a message that we don’t trust staff and that we’re micromanaging district affairs. However, she still voted for the motion calling for formation of a subcommittee of trustees, not staff, to explore ways legal services should be provided to the board — and the district.
To their credit, longtime trustees Dorothy Ehrhart-Morrison, Herbert Roney and Carole Currey all questioned the cost of hiring even more lawyers.
I don’t think there’s need for this level of board oversight and fully agree with trustees who think that the timing of this action is especially bad in light of a new president coming on board in a few weeks. Dr. Chiu L. Tsang will take over as the permanent full-time president of the district. He needs an opportunity to demonstrate his management skills without micromanaging and second guessing from board members.
I would hope the board determines there’s no need for a permanent counsel and the squandering of district resources on more lawyers and a bigger bureaucracy. After all, is this going to make SMC better?
If this results in a more effective and efficient legal process for SMC, that’s good. But, it seems more as if the board is heading down a slippery slope — one that could hamper the relationship between those who serve the district and those who oversee it, and cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars extra each year. (Bill Bauer is a longtime Santa Monica resident and a freelance writer.)
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on January 30, 2006. Read the original PDF.