PROFILE: MICHAEL NOLAN : Water Board Member Rocks the Boat, and He Enjoys It : Burbank: The City Council will weigh questions about $39,792 in travel expenses last year and his abrasive demeanor in considering his renomination.

By JOHN JOHNSON and GREG BRAXTON

June 16, 1991 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITERS

Depending on whom you talk to, Metropolitan Water District board member Michael Nolan is either a refreshing renegade challenging the water bureaucracy’s old-boy network, or an unsophisticated revolutionary whose abrasiveness undermines his work.

And recent questions about his extensive travel--$39,792 worth of trips last year alone--are either part of a quiet campaign to oust a vocal maverick or the rightful comeuppance for a bully who runs up huge bills on the MWD tab even while questioning the spending practices of others, his supporters and critics say.

“What goes around comes around,” gloated former Burbank Mayor E. Daniel Remy, a target in years past when Nolan, 44, was a political gadfly buzzing around City Hall. “He was very critical about what he called wasting of dollars. He’d rave on and on about misuse of funds.”

The Burbank City Council will try to sort through these contrasting portraits of Nolan when it meets Tuesday to decide whether to reappoint him to the 51-member board that governs an agency supplying water to 13 million Southern Californians.

Speculation at City Hall and among Nolan’s detractors on the MWD board suggests that he is on his way out. Several residents, including former Burbank Mayor Larry Stamper, have applied for Nolan’s position on the board.

“It’s absolutely an embarrassment for Burbank,” Vice Mayor Robert R. Bowne said of Nolan’s expenses, which were more than $13,000 higher than any other director.

The controversy has raised more questions about Nolan than answers. MWD officials said he has not filed any reports justifying his expenditures since 1988. Burbank council members said last week they were waiting for explanations from Nolan about some of the expenses, including a lunch at the Sacramento Hyatt for $360.50 and a dinner in Palm Springs for $428.87.

MWD documents showed that Nolan, who lives with his father and lists his occupation as “private investor,” has about $75,000 in expenses that have not been accounted for.

Asking Nolan himself for answers didn’t bring the issue into any clearer focus.

“Do you want blood from me? I don’t have it . . . pal, wait in line. I’ve had it,” he raged when asked for an interview. After a string of expletives, he slammed the phone down.

Nolan isn’t the only member of his family under scrutiny. His brother, Assemblyman Pat Nolan (R-Glendale), is one of four legislators whose Sacramento offices were searched by the FBI in an August, 1988, raid on the Capitol following a sting operation in which campaign contributions were made by representatives of a phony company seeking legislative favors. Although he is not yet charged, Pat Nolan is still targeted, sources in the federal prosecutors’ offices have said.

Amid the controversy swirling around Michael Nolan, the only thing certain at this point is that he relishes the role of the man who challenges established wisdom in whatever form it presents itself. He has always prided himself on fighting for the underdog, the little guy, a trait that dates back to his days as a political gadfly at Burbank City Hall.

For many years before his 1985 appointment to the board by the Burbank City Council, he was known as one of the most vocal critics of council members and other city officials for what he called “outrageous” expense accounts. He said the officials were spending too much on meals and travels.

He didn’t hesitate to act when he felt the council was not serving the public interest. He filed suit in 1977 to stop the council from selling redevelopment land for less than he thought it was worth. The council later filed suit against him, charging that he had cost the city money by delaying the project. That suit was thrown out of court.

A frequent scene at the council had Nolan angrily attacking the actions of council members during the portion of the meeting when the public is allowed to speak.

Expense reports of council members are public records and Remy said Nolan took “great delight in being critical of those reports. I just couldn’t abide this ‘holier-than-thou’ attitude. It was pretty easy for us to defend what we did and why we did it. But it didn’t matter to him. He said we should not be wasting taxpayers’ dollars.”

Soon after Remy lost a reelection bid in 1985, Nolan was appointed to the MWD board. Some council watchers said the appointment was an attempt by the council to placate Nolan and get him off its back.

He took his appointment to the board that directs water policy for 27 member agencies across Southern California very seriously. He quickly developed a reputation for doing his homework. Unlike some board members, he read everything, remembered everything and was willing to challenge the district staff if he felt it was varnishing facts.

Sometimes, even his critics admit, he discovered errors that led to the saving of thousands of dollars.

“He probably does his homework better than anybody else on the board,” admitted one detractor.

His abrasive attitude can be a problem, supporters and critics alike said.

“The way he crucifies staff in public is the greatest thing against him. Mike will rip them apart for enjoyment,” said a board member who asked not to be identified.

“Much more than most directors, he doesn’t trust a lot of key people,” said Timothy Brick, a board member from Pasadena. Brick said Nolan has a habit of thinking he needs to be looking for something wrong. “If you begin with that concept, you’re going to find something,” he said.

“Mike can be very abrasive, argumentative,” agreed Christine Reed, a board member from Santa Monica who is a Nolan supporter. “But he also is one of the few directors who will ask publicly about issues other directors mutter about in the hallway.”

Some supporters such as Reed believe Nolan has become a target for the built-up resentment of the MWD board.

“Part of the problem at the Met is it has been an old-boys club a long time,” Brick said. “There is some resentment from the old-guard people” toward Nolan because of his style.

Ironically, however, according to Brick and others, Nolan shares the views of many of the traditionalists. “A lot of the policies he is advocating are traditional policies,” Brick said. “He is not on the cutting edge of social reform.”

One critic encapsulated Nolan’s approach this way: “His whole technique is a Neanderthal technique. It is, ‘Let’s go to Sacramento and beat them up and get the Peripheral Canal.’ ”

The Peripheral Canal would bring more water to Southern California but is opposed by Northern California environmental interests.

One board member complained that Nolan spends too much time lobbying in Sacramento, sometimes contrary to district policy.

“He’s wandering around the Capitol expressing opinions about what the Met is up to,” complained this board member. “I talked to a staff member who said it is pretty undermining” of any effort to try to convince a legislator to support one position when Nolan has outlined a different one.

“There is a significant undermining of trust at the district largely attributed to him,” the member added.

Nolan’s supporters say his travel has just given opponents an opportunity to savage him. They say they doubt that Nolan abused his privilege as a board member.

“No doubt, Mike spends a lot of time traveling around the state,” Brick said. “But I never had the feeling there was the slightest abuse. I’ve sat at a table with 10 people having dinner, members and wives, and Mike picks up the tab. It can amount to $400 for 10 people.”

Several MWD officials said that when water districts get together and eat, it is naturally assumed that the MWD, considered to have the deepest pockets, will pick up the tab.

Most Burbank council members said the controversy over Nolan has reflected badly on the city.

Councilman Tom Flavin said: “There’s always two sides to every issue. But I would have to say that spending $40,000 in one calendar year is very significant. That’s about $800 a week for what is essentially a part-time, non-paid position.”

One thing staff and board members alike were unanimous on is that Nolan works hard and has stood up for the water rights of cities in the face of agricultural interests and developers. The question Burbank is now asking is, has Nolan become more of a liability than an asset?

“It’s never been a question of his conscientiousness,” Burbank Vice Mayor Bowne said. “It’s more a question of his effectiveness in working with a group of people who have various backgrounds and personalities to form policy decisions.”

“Mike has incurred an awful lot of enemies because people do not like to be shown up,” said a colleague. “It has gotten to the point that Mike couldn’t convince people of anything.”

Observers said Nolan’s position was already in jeopardy because he is considered an ally of former Councilwoman Mary Lou Howard, who often clashed with the majority of the council. Howard lost her reelection bid for the council in April.

“Mike has been a good representative for Burbank,” Mayor Michael R. Hastings said. “But maybe it’s time for someone else to be in there.”