Rio Hondo College is considering a new Board Policy that would formally establish the responsibilities and authority of its General Counsel. The proposed policy, BP 2905, is currently moving through the College's shared governance process before eventual consideration by the Board of Trustees.
The proposal comes as publicly available campaign finance records raise questions about financial relationships involving the law firm that currently provides the District's general counsel.
According to official Los Angeles County campaign finance records, Olivarez Madruga Law Organization (OMLO) contributed $15,000 to Evergreen PAC in September and October 2022. Ricardo Olivarez, a partner at the firm, separately contributed $10,000 on October 6, 2022.
Just one day later, on October 7, 2022, Evergreen PAC contributed $2,500 to Oscar Valladares's campaign for the Rio Hondo Community College District Board of Trustees, according to another official campaign finance filing.
The same political committee, operating under the name Blue Sky PAC, had previously contributed another $2,500 to Valladares's campaign in July 2021.
Earlier, California Secretary of State CAL-ACCESS records list a $1,000 monetary contribution by Olivares Madruga LLP on December 13, 2019, to "VALLADARES FOR RIO HONDO COLLEGE, OSCAR." The entry identifies the activity as "SUPPORT" and the category as "OTHER."
CAL-ACCESS records also list a $1,500 monetary contribution by Olivares Madruga LLP on July 9, 2021, to "LOMELI FOR RIO HONDO COLLEGE BOARD 2022, ROSAELVA," according to the committee's 2021 contribution records. This entry likewise identifies the activity as "SUPPORT" and the category as "OTHER."
Today, OMLO attorney Adrian De Leon is identified on the law firm's website as the General Counsel for Rio Hondo Community College District.
These records document financial relationships involving the law firm, a political committee, and the campaigns of Trustees Oscar Valladares and Rosaelva Lomeli. They do not establish that the firm directed the PAC's particular contributions, that any law was violated, or that OMLO held its current District role when the contributions occurred.
Nevertheless, the relationships raise questions about public confidence and safeguards against potential conflicts of interest.
A Proposed Policy That Grants Significant Authority
Under proposed BP 2905 General Counsel, the General Counsel would serve as the District's chief legal advisor, work directly with the Board of Trustees and Superintendent/President, oversee litigation, and potentially supervise and recommend outside law firms.
The policy also requires monthly invoices, which could improve financial accountability.
However, one provision deserves particular attention:
"At the Board’s discretion, the Board will work with the Superintendent/President to issue a Request for Qualifications or Proposals for General Counsel legal services, as long as such services are provided by a third party firm external to the District."
As written, this provision leaves competitive selection of legal counsel to the Board's discretion. The proposed policy does not expressly require periodic competitive evaluations, establish a mandatory review schedule, or address political contributions involving trustees and the law firms representing the District.
That raises several questions worth examining before the policy is approved.
- Should outside legal counsel be subject to periodic competitive review rather than leaving the decision entirely to the Board's discretion?
- Should law firms providing legal services disclose contributions to sitting trustees' campaigns and to political committees that support those trustees?
- What safeguards ensure that legal advice is independent when a law firm's financial interests or political relationships could intersect with Board decisions?
- Who prepared and reviewed BP 2905, and what opportunity do employees and shared governance representatives have to recommend stronger accountability provisions?
- Should the District establish an independent process for evaluating legal counsel's performance, costs, and potential conflicts?
Public Confidence Matters
These questions extend beyond the legal services contract.
Public colleges rely on fair contracting practices and competitive procurement to protect taxpayer resources. Employees, students, community members, and prospective vendors should be confident that decisions are based on qualifications, performance, and the best interests of the institution.
Even when political contributions are lawful, financial relationships involving individuals or firms that conduct business with public institutions can create concerns about the appearance of preferential treatment.
Could those perceptions discourage qualified firms from competing for District contracts? What records demonstrate that the District maintains an open and competitive contracting environment?
Those are questions that should be answered with procurement records, contract evaluations, and documented evidence.
The issue is not whether a law firm or political committee has the right to participate in the political process. The issue is whether the District has established sufficient safeguards to ensure political activity does not compromise, or appear to compromise, independent governance and public contracting.
As BP 2905 advances through shared governance, employees and community members have an opportunity to examine whether the proposed policy provides adequate transparency, independence, and accountability.
The District should be able to explain how its policies protect the institution's interests, particularly when decisions involve firms with financial relationships to Board members' campaigns or to political committees supporting them.
Public trust should not depend solely on assurances. It should be supported by transparent procedures, independently verifiable records, and meaningful oversight.
The College's credibility is an institutional responsibility. Protecting it requires policies that inspire confidence in how public decisions are made.