Our view: Recall should be the last option, not the first

There's no question that leadership at MiraCosta College, at all levels, has been wanting. But voters should think twice before resorting to a recall of two members of the college district's Board of Trustees.

Just when you thought the worst was behind us, parties to the "Palm-gate" scandal at MiraCosta refuse to let go of the acrimony of the past year. As grossly generous as former President Victoria Munoz Richart's severance package was, its only saving grace was that it offered the school an opportunity to make a clean break from the past. But it's no wonder, given the acrimony that has divided the campus, that many want to keep fighting yesterday's battles.

Last month, a group called Restore MiraCosta - comprising about 150 present and former professors, administrators, trustees and community members - launched a recall campaign against board President Charles Adams and Trustee Gregory Post. The registrar of voters has since approved their petitions, which the group has begun circulating.

Whatever you think of the high jinks at MiraCosta, there was plenty of blame to go around . From the very highly paid, unruly professors to an immature, dysfunctional board and a high-handed administrator, the atmosphere at the college was ripe for infighting, with or without the palm investigation.

But recalling a couple of trustee members won't fix the problems of the past. Recalls should be used in very limited instances to remove public officials who have clearly violated the law or who pose some kind of threat to the public interest. Neither of those two standards is met today at MiraCosta.

That's not to suggest that the college doesn't face some big decisions in its future. The board must soon select a president to heal the district's rifts and plan for the future. The board must also deal with the continuing fallout from the palm scandal. Precisely because of these looming challenges, district voters should avoid a recall, which could paralyze the board until next summer.

And then there's the price tag. The registrar says that an election could cost anywhere between $140,000 and $1 million, payable by MiraCosta. That expense, even if it falls on the lower end of the range, undercuts at least one of the arguments recall proponents have used against Adams and Post: namely, that the board spent too much money on its investigation of Palm-gate.

For those who weren't paying attention: The scandal broke last year when charges of an illegal scheme to sell palm trees in the college's horticulture department first surfaced. Over the following year, a professor pleaded guilty to a felony, other college officials were put on leave or forced into early retirement, and the college's president quit with a lucrative and controversial severance package. The investigation into the initial sale cost $1.2 million .

As board president, Adams deserves to shoulder extra responsibility for the district's challenges and chaos, but it's worth noting that no one chose to run against him when he ran for re-election in 2002 or 2006. The same holds true for Post. Whatever they did or didn't do during their previous terms in office, the voters were happy enough with their performances.

Meanwhile, most of the momentum behind the recall effort is coming from MiraCosta faculty and administrators, not the public at large. In part, this recall effort is a case of employees wanting to pick their bosses.

So before you sign that petition, think twice about what you're hoping to accomplish. A recall might bring positive change, but it could also perpetuate the very dynamic that got the district to this point in the first place. It almost certainly would politicize the already polarized campus even more.