Deceptive Advertising? Not Denied By Marymount's President

This post is not an April Fools joke, sadly.

During the City Council's deliberation concerning the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, I had a chance to talk directly with Dr. Michael Brophy, the President of Marymount College about two issues I continue to have with the proposed initiative and the advertising enticing residents to sign petition to qualify the proposed measure for November's ballot.

Here is one example of what I believe is deceptive advertising that was not specifically denied by Dr. Brophy. This comes for the printed question and answer portion of the large brochure mailed to many R.P.V. registered voters.

"How long will the project take?

In total, it will take 36 months. The construction manager is R. Randall Fulton who managed the construction of The Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels. The Marymount Plan has been studied by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for ten years and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified by the Planning Commission."

Now, it is my belief that the above question and anwer attempts to pursuade potential petition signers that the entire construction of all of the Plan will end 36 months after the beginning of construction.

This has never been the case.

According to several sources, the construction will take place for between 28 and 36 months, OVER AN EIGHT YEAR PERIOD.

Everyone who has more that just a small amount of knowledge about the Project or the Plan knows that it is not possible to do all the necessary construction, from start to finish, in a consecutive period of 36 months.

In fact and truth, not only did Dr. Brophy state to Council members that it is untenable to think that construction could be completed in 36 months from the date the first shovel of dirt is turned, Marymount's Attorney, Mr. Davis also stated to the Council that there is no way to guarantee that the processes could be completed even in six years' time.

When I talked to Dr. Brophy, I brought up the point to him that lay-persons, people he is trying to get signatures from on the petition that are informed that "in total, it will take 36 months" most probably are led to believe that once construction begins, 36 months later, it will be completed.

There is nowhere in any advertising, both written or verbalized, where supporters of Marymount's initiative admit that the construction time is 36 months over an eight year period.

This seems clearly deceptive on the part of Dr. Brophy and Marymount supporters and Dr. Brophy did not deny directly to me that is was not deceptive advertising.

Dr. Brophy even stated to me that he understood my contention that I thought it was deceptive advertising yet still, he did not deny that is was not.

Now about tax-payer funding.

In the same brochure and by listening to the voice-over on the television advertisement is basically the following;

"It preserves and modernizes and important Rancho Palos Verdes asset at no taxpayer expense."

As I stated to Dr. Brophy, if the ballot measure qualifies for this November's ballot, the General Fund of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, a tax-payer funded Fund will be assessed an, as yet unknown amount" for the purposes of having the ballot measure on the ballot and being counted and having other administrative costs associated with it.

In essence and in fact, the Marymount Plan, the one that seeks voter approval in and of itself will cost tax-payers residing in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and Dr. Brophy directly acknowledged that fact to me.

What Dr. Brophy and I agree on is that the tax-payer funds requirements are not known at this time, tax-payers fund elections, but we both agree that the portion that may be assigned to The Marymount Plan's portion of the ballot might not be as expensive as considered in other city-wide ballot measures.

I directly asked Dr. Brophy is he would have Marymount pay for any portion of the election related to The Marymount Plan and reimburse the city's General Fund, if the measure qualifies for the ballot and is voted on and he did not state that Marymount would cover the ballot measure's tax-payer funded costs.

Dr. Brophy did state to me that if and when the actual cost of The Marymount Plan's measure is known, he will address the required tax-payer funding of the measure at that time.

Dr. Brophy would not commit to reimbursing the tax-payer funded General Fund for any or all costs associated with The Marymount Plan appearing as a ballot measure in November.

There are more potentially deceptive items in the brochure that I did not discuss with Dr. Brophy.

As the brochure and other media have stated, "More than 2/3rds of Marymount's campus will remain open space" This is a true statement, but also it doesn't go far enough to be fair.

Much of the 24.7 acres comprising the area of Marymount College sits on land not suitable for building anything on. That is a fact stated within the Grading and Geologic portions of the Environmental studies, reports, and findings.

"Marymount will not increase its enrollment cap of 793" While this is currently a true statement, it is also deceptive in that there is not a follow up statement offering that Marymount has the right to go before the City Council and seek and enrollment cap increase any time it chooses and again, Dr. Brophy cannot deny that fact.

In the Brochure is this question and answer:

"Will the number of students enrolled change?

No. Marymount College will remain permitted for up to 793 students a year."

Again, while this is technically a true comment from Marymount, it can be viewed as deceptive.

It is deceptive in my view because it makes it appear that Marymount's administration will never ask for an enrollment cap increase. There is no followup stipulation that Marymount will keep the enrollment capped permanently with no written guarantee that it won't seek an enrollment cap increase as some point in the future.

It is misleading in my view because it seems outrageous to believe that Marymount would make this giant redevelopment Plan, complete it, and not seek higher enrollment to help repay the costs associated with The Plan or seek higher enrollment for a newly upgraded campus so that more students can be offered an education at the redeveloped and expanded campus.

Dr. Brophy is a College Professor. Dr. Susan Soldoff, the maker of the initiative has been a College Professor. They and many others associated with Marymount College are well educated professional.

So that means they all knew what they have included in all written, oral, and visual advertising for The Marymount Plan.

For any one of them to attempt to claim that there is not some deception in advertising seeking to acquire enough signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot is ridiculous on its face.

These folks knew what they were writing and saying when they did it.

I do expect higher standards from a religious institution that I do from a secular institution. Unfortunately, it appears that the standards used by folks associated with this particular institution fall to at least the level of secular institutions, if not lower.

Deliberate and implied deception is foul in all cases and particularly foul when a religious entity is involved. For me it is not about which religion does it, but that a religious organization does it in the first place.

Now here is the basic fundamental reality I feel strongly we all must own up to and accept some responsibility for.

Marymount College's administration and supporters have spent the last ten years seeking the addition of on-campus housing at the site.

I believe that is singularly the most important requirement for the College to remain open. This has been demonstrated time and time again with a multitude of statements even though no one from the College will publicly admit that one simple fact.

I need to "own" the responsibility that as I oppose the construction of on-campus housing at Marymount, I am owning the possibility that Marymount will fail and I may assume some responsibility for its failure.

It is not a happy fact for me, but it is a fact I must live with. Marymount's administration and supporters have made it very clear even without admitting it and they have never denied that the College would probably fail without on-campus housing.

I oppose the construction of on-campus housing because of safety concerns that I do not choose to overlook or overcome.

I believe the loss of another life associated with Marymount College is too tragic of an possible outcome to change my consideration that the failure of Marymount College at its present location would not be a better final outcome.

As for the results voted on by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council on March 31-April 1, I believe that they made the correct decisions.

I am concerned that Marymount officials have adamantly stated that they will not build a soccer field on the east side of the campus, even though the Council denied the College's request for building a new soccer field on the west side of the campus.

Battles will continue to be fought and it appears more likely that the end of the war will see the failure of the College at its present location. Unless Marymount has deep enough pockets to last through the next several years that will probably include a great deal of litigation, I think more of us can see where the future will lead all of us.