The editorial did get the number and subject matter of the bill correct, but it completely misinterpreted the intent of the bill and the goals of the author.

The Bee is correct that AB 2339 would allow ex officio members of the California State University board of trustees to designate a deputy to act on their behalf at the meetings. However, this does not represent a "major change in governance," as alleged in the editorial.

Numerous boards and commissions that have ex officio members allow those members to send a deputy to act on their behalf. These include the board of administration for the California Public Employees' Retirement System, the Teachers' Retirement Board, the Franchise Tax Board and the Board of Equalization, just to name a few.

The bill's goal is simple - increased participation and representation by the ex officio members and their offices. I believe it is unrealistic to expect the governor to clear his schedule so that he can attend the seven two-day meetings of the CSU board of trustees. It is not unrealistic, however, to expect him to appoint a deputy to act on his behalf, and whose actions he would be responsible for, so that the views of the governor's office would be represented at these meetings.

These ex officio members represent all 35 million Californians on various boards and commissions every day. Their staffs provide them with the necessary and pertinent information on all of these issues daily. Without trusted staff and constant communication it would be difficult, if not impossible, for these officials to adequately represent the needs of their constituent groups.

I am additionally concerned that under current law, the CSU and the University of California can and do meet at the same time, forcing these ex-officio members to make a choice. I believe that if the ex officios are required to attend and to make a choice on attending only one of these important institutes' meetings, they will choose UC.

Do the voters of California need to have their governor, superintendent, lieutenant governor and the speaker of the Assembly at each of the seven meetings CSU has? Or would we be better served providing our most trusted elected officials flexibility to provide the leadership our state needs now more than ever?

Opposing View
Assemblywoman Gloria Negrete McLeod is responding to The Bee's editorial "Leave CSU board alone / Reject attempt to change governance," which appeared April 28. She can be reached at assemblymember.mcleod@assembly.ca.gov.