Judge Refuses to Block Delay in Election for Auto Club Directors

A Los Angeles judge on Thursday refused to block postponement of a pending Board of Directors election by the Automobile Club of Southern California--a contest that could dramatically reshape the board and agenda of the 100-year-old organization.

After a nearly two-hour hearing, Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe said he would not prevent the 5-million-member Auto Club from delaying its first contested election in 30 years or require it to take a series of other steps sought in a lawsuit by three candidates for its 12-member board.

The delay, the Auto Club has said, is necessary to ensure that an adequate number of ballots are received for the election.

But Yaffe did temporarily order the Auto Club to permit the three challengers, and another who declined to sue, the same access--for distributing campaign literature or soliciting proxy votes--as incumbents at the 70 regional offices.

And Yaffe said the Auto Club was prohibited from implying to members or prospective members that supporting the incumbents is a condition of membership--a practice that attorneys for the organization already said is prohibited.

With another hearing scheduled Feb. 13, the Auto Club’s lawyers praised Yaffe’s ruling. “The judge did the right thing,” attorney Charles Patterson said outside court.

But lawyers for the three plaintiffs also found something to praise in the judge’s ruling. By requiring greater access to Auto Club offices, attorney Thomas K. Bourke said, Yaffe “has leveled the playing field for us somewhat.”

At the heart of the dispute is an effort by the four candidates to steer the organization toward a new agenda that includes cuts in gas and vehicle taxes.

Their politically conservative goals, which closely parallel those of some state Republican leaders, have been sharply criticized by Auto Club officials, who fear that the organization’s history of nonpartisanship is in jeopardy.

“Partisan politics has no place at the Auto Club,” its president and chief executive, Thomas V. McKernan Jr., wrote in a recent letter to members.

“This isn’t about any position that candidates might take,” Auto Club spokeswoman Carol Thorp said during a break in the hearing.

“We are a 100-year-old, nonpartisan organization and we want to stay that way,” she said, noting that Auto Club surveys have for years shown members overwhelmingly join the organization for towing services, help in travel and other benefits. “Legislation is far off their radar,” Thorp said. “It is not why they join us.”

But the challengers’ attorneys maintained Thursday that the organization’s efforts to postpone a March 12 election by nearly a month is not only illegal but motivated solely by efforts to assure a winning vote margin for incumbents.

“What is really going on here, your honor, is that they do not like the way the election is going,” said attorney Scott P. Koepke.

Koepke’s co-counsel Bourke said: “They are mobilizing the resources of the club . . . for a self-perpetuating board.

“We are not attacking on politics,” Bourke said. “We are attacking the policy of the board. We are saying the policies of the board are too hesitant in advancing the interests of motorists.”

But it is precisely that issues-oriented agenda that led attorneys for the Auto Club to urge Yaffe to reject the requested order.

By attempting to preserve the organization’s current nonpartisan approach to issues, attorney John Sobieski told the judge, the Auto Club was exempt from laws governing how organizations, including nonprofits, spend money promoting the elections of officers.

Ultimately, Yaffe agreed that the plaintiffs had not proved the Auto Club was violating its bylaws--or state law--in conducting the approaching election.