As part of my civic duty, I hereby vow never to call anyone at the public relations firm of Fleishman-Hillard ever again.

This is tough promise for a journalist writing about local politics to make, but I don't feel right knowing that every time I chat with one of the folks there, some public agency is likely to get a big fat bill.

Last week, it would have been the Los Angeles Community College District, because I had some questions about the LACCD's $400,000-a-year contract with the downtown PR giant. Fleishman-Hillard was hired to tell people how well the district is spending the $2.1 billion in bonds (aka loans) that taxpayers approved to pay for new buildings on the nine L.A. community college campuses.

I was planning on calling Doug Dowie, head of Fleishman-Hillard's Los Angeles office, to ask him to clarify some of the PR activities his firm does on behalf of the building program. But Dowie bills his clients $425 an hour for his services. It would cost the district as much as $200 for even a brief interview.

The LACCD spends taxpayer money. I am a taxpayer. Therefore, in a sense, I would be paying from my own pocket for the privilege of an interview. I don't get paid enough to do that.

But the flacks at Fleishman-Hillard do.

The LACCD contract is chump change for the global corporation. The firm also has a $3 million deal with the L.A. Department of Water and Power. (I'm still skeptical of why the public needs to be spun on the greatness of the DWP. We own it. There's no danger we'll switch utility brands since it's a monopoly.) Fleishman-Hillard also works campaigns for the port of Los Angeles, the airport and the L.A. Convention Bureau, in addition to traditional corporate clients.

The firm, which is just one outpost of a global PR empire, has received a lot of flak lately, and not just because that's what it gets paid to do. Nor is it because the company charges exorbitant fees. (It does, but in the world of corporate PR, $425 an hour for some first-class image-making is an acceptable expense.) It's because of all the fingers it has in the city's public pies.

It might be OK for PepsiCo or Home Depot Inc., but it makes many people uneasy when public entities spend taxpayer money on that kind of expense.

Fleishman-Hillard's main objective for the LACCD is to "build confidence in the district's ability to deliver the bond project on time and within budget." That's verbatim from a memo sent from Dowie to the LACCD board of trustees last week.

To that end, the PR company must engage in many activities, such as writing, coordinating and strategizing. Among other tasks, Fleishman-Hillard executives get paid to write letters to the editor and opinion pieces for newspapers on behalf of top district officials about how great the bond project is going. It copy-edits resource guides, and calls reporters to suggest stories that make the bond program look fabulous. It even helps the LACCD's highly educated officials plan for events and appearances on local cable talk shows.

Here are some actual descriptions of services Fleishman-Hillard rendered and billed to the LACCD between September and November 2003, taken from invoices.

Reviewed a resource guide, reviewed a mailing list, worked on a communications plan: $1,275.

Helped LACCD board member Michael Waxman secure and prepare for an appearance on a local cable channel talk show: $500.

Wrote a letter on behalf of the president for Mission College: $555.

Worked on a PowerPoint college construction update: $350.

Discussed media pitches and outreaches: $1,020.

I could go on, but there's not enough space in the newspaper for the pages and pages of work Fleishman-Hillard has done to make the people of Los Angeles feel good about the billions in bond money they've coughed up.

One invoice item in particular helped me solidify my vow not to call the PR firm. In November, Fleishman-Hillard billed the district $1,295 to meet with Daily News higher-education reporter Lisa Sodders, as well as discuss an article idea with Southern Sierran magazine. Ouch!

Blair Sillers, assistant to acting LACCD Chancellor Peter Landsberger, defends the use of Fleishman-Hillard as a good deal. It's paid out of the bond money, and not the general fund, he says. Plus, the bond requirement explicitly states the district must keep the public informed about the building projects, and really, he claims, $400,000 isn't all that much for the hard work Fleishman-Hillard does.

I've no doubt that Fleishman-Hillard executives are working hard for the LACCD. What I doubt is that the district needs it.

I'm a big fan of community colleges. They are the hardest working and least respected branch of public education. The LACCD, the largest community college district, alone serves about 130,000 students a year, 80 percent of whom are non-white and nearly half below the poverty line. Community colleges provide an entree into higher education for millions of people, myself included, who would otherwise be shut out and left to flipping burgers for life.

It's because I appreciate the amazing job they do with such modest resources -- resources made even more modest with the ongoing state budget crisis -- that it pains me to see any money spent on glitzy schmooze campaigns. Especially when the message is how awesome the district's building project is. I know! That's why I joined a majority of voters to pass the two bonds that would allow them to modernize, expand and renovate the campuses.

There's something fundamentally wrong with a government spending the public's money to manipulate the public's opinion, particularly at champagne prices. I can't stomach that, and I certainly can't help justify the Fleishman-Hillard contract.

So that's why I'm removing the Fleishman-Hillard card from my Rolodex. I just hope they don't call me.