When an 85% No-Show Vote Wins : At-large voting for the L.A. community college board disenfranchises and discourages most of the community it serves.

Next week, Angelenos will have the opportunity to elect new members to the Los Angeles Community College District Board of Trustees. Unlike both the Cal State Board of Trustees and the UC Board of Regents, community college trustees are elected, not political, appointments. For many voters, this merits little attention or concern. Even though the budgets of community colleges surpass the general revenue of several cities, voter apathy is the rule. Given that this is an off-year election, turnout could be as low as in 1991, when 15% of the eligible voters went to the polls. Los Angeles District may be the largest community college district in the nation, with total revenue of $268 million, but it is still controlled by only a handful of voters.

Despite the scant public interest, the community college system is vital to the health of higher education in the state. Community colleges enroll about 60% of all students in public higher education, and each district has become a sort of Ellis Island that determines entry into California’s elite four-year institutions. Moreover, the demographics of community colleges are rapidly mirroring the demographics of public schools throughout the state: increasingly nonwhite and ethnically diverse. In the Los Angeles Community College District, almost three out of four students are nonwhite; almost 40% of the student population is Latino.

Key management issues will face the Los Angeles trustees over the next several years, including balancing access to higher education promised in the state’s Master Plan for Higher Education with the threat of shrinking budgets; high projected retirements of full-time faculty within the next 15 years and the need to plan for qualified replacements; the pressure of increased racial and ethnic polarization of faculty, staff and students, and the growing strain of balancing the need for remedial education with the curriculum requirements of all students. Those elected as trustees should not only represent the interests of the voters, but also be well versed in these problem areas.

Unfortunately, the recent board makeup illustrates that few of those elected are grounded in higher education. Half of the current board members are lawyers, and few have substantive experience in higher education administration or full-time teaching. Many candidates see the board as a steppingstone for higher office. Past trustees include former Gov. Jerry Brown, former Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner, Supervisor Michael Antonovich and Assemblywoman Gwen Moore.

Moreover, the board is one of the last vestiges of an at-large system of elections, so there are no geographic links to representation and no limits to the number of representatives elected from a particular area of the district. At-large elections disenfranchise ethnic and racial minorities by diluting their voting strength, and greater financial leverage is required to win a citywide or countywide election. Poorer communities are less likely to advance candidates to elected office in an at-large system.

Critics argue that most of the current trustees would not be reelected if there were single-member districts. The influence of narrow special interests that dominate this election, such as the powerful faculty union, would be balanced with that of those who use Los Angeles community colleges. Candidates who have successfully run at-large also would be forced to go beyond their individual pocketbooks and assess whether they can authentically represent a specific constituency.

For ethnic minorities in the district, a shift away from the current at-large system for the community college district may signal that, despite Proposition 187, there is a commitment that no group be excluded and that all are equal participants in determining the future of higher education for the next century.