Directing Miscommunication

During the City Council's discussion about their enacting a Resolution in opposition to the Marymount ballot initiative, three persons rose to make comments.

I was the first to address the Council and I don't get paid one penny to address our City Council on any matter, at any time, or in any location.

The second person to comment identified herself as the Director of Communications for Marymount College.

The speaker got us and addressed the Council, telling them that The Marymount Plan would provide a brand new library on the campus and other amenities before she talked about dorms.

Councilman Stern asked the Director of Communications several questions including whether what she spoke about with regard to the new Library and amenities other than dorms had already been approved of, by the Council, with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

The woman hesitated a bit before she said "yes" in answering Councilman Stern's question about everything other than dorms she had been talking about had already been approved.

But when she stated that The Marymount Plan would be built at "no expense" to the taxpayers, I couldn't help making a not-so-nice sound because Marymount's Director of Communication made statements that were not factually true, and she knew it.

So, in 'honor' of yet another paid person getting up to offer her opinion about The Marymount Plan and the ballot measure AND the fact that she identified herself as being Marymount's Director of Communications, I now and into the future, dub the individual; Kelly, the Director of Miscommunication. From now on I shall refer to this individual as K.D.M. and I will await a response as to why she or anyone else feels I have misidentified her.

Did I misidentify her because she stated that The Marymount Plan will be built at 'no expense' to taxpayers?

Did I misidentify her because she claimed that Marymount will donate up to $200,000.00 toward a concrete center median on Palos Verdes Drive East?

Did I misidentify her because she claimed that The Marymount Plan would provide a brand new state of the art Library?

Well, no! I didn't misidentify here because she used the same falsehoods and misstatements we have seen and heard so many times and it should be a rather easy consideration to suggest that a Communications Director of a Catholic College would have higher standards to tell the whole truth and not use the same deceptive comments that have been used for so long now.

To refresh Ms. Kelly's thoughts, I suggest I assist her in clarifying what points she attempted to make that fell on ears that didn't believe one word that came from her during her comments.

First, how could someone who rises to the position of being a Director of Communications be willing to state directly to the City Council members that The Marymount ballot measure will provide a new Library when she should have known that the individuals who she was speaking to already approved the exact same brand new Library she supports and they did so months ago?

Second, where on any page of The Marymount Plan or on any of the 51 pages of the initiative does it state that under the guidelines of The Marymount Plan and its initiative that any concrete center median along about 1,000 feet of Palos Verdes Drive East will be built at all?

Hey Kelly, read The Marymount Plan. You know, the one you endorse. Then take a look at the provisions of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project. You know, the one ALREADY APPROVED!

K.D.M., did you find where the concrete center median appears in The Marymount Plan. Oops! I guess it isn't there, is it. That is because it was never considered in The Marymount Plan and was not included in the original wording of The Plan, yet it is part of The Project. You, as the Director of Communication, should know that.

And another thing, when you claim that Marymount will put in up to $200,000.00 towards a barrier that may cost at least $280,000.00, just where do you think the remainder of the funds to construct the thing will come from?

OK folks, all together now. Let's inform Kelly where the remainder of the funds will come from.

Ready! Set! Go! Taxpayers! That's right. So, K.D.M. if you are so very sure that the concrete center median is part of The Marymount Plan, then you also must know, as the Director of Communication, that taxpayer funds, most likely from the General Fund of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, must be used unless grants or other revenue sources comes along.

Now about the rest of the 'no taxpayer expense' part she claimed would be, but certainly should know is not totally truthful. There are other mitigation requirements that Dr. Brophy (That's Kelly's boss) claims his College will pay its "fair share" for will also require taxpayer funds to get incorporated into The Marymount Plan, as it is currently written.

But in consideration of pondering on the past and towards the future and after listening to Marymount's Director of Communication have to state that what she was telling our City Council was redundant on its face and not completely truthful, in part, perhaps the individual speaking before the City Council during the meeting is the person who came up with 'talking points' that are clearly deceptive, outrageous, and can be shown to be not as truthful as they could be.

To a question that seemed to be offered to her about the fact that the only new construction not already approved for construction were the residence halls, the Director of Communication could only truthfully communicate that the answer is 'yes'.

And why aren't residence halls included in the new construction? Well in truth and fact, Marymount's administration pulled those items out of consideration during the meetings by the Planning Commission and there were no real votes taken prior to sending The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project to the City Council where is was eventually just about completely approved, with only several minor variations about a roof height, the placement of the large field, and the addition of that concrete center median barrier.

Then if I remember correctly, K.D.M. talked about how Marymount will provide more parking spaces and that there would be less traffic because of having residence halls on campus.

First, K.D.M. it should be your responsibility to know a great deal about the Environmental Impact Report you are basing you statements on.

Yes, there could be more parking spaces. But you should know that the total amount of parking spaces you support at Marymount is still fewer than are required under existing Rancho Palos Verdes ordinances and The Project has already granted Marymount a variance, that also makes The Marymount Plan redundant.

Now about more or less traffic. The original E.I.R. clearly stated that there would be an additional 1,591 weekday trips with on campus residential student housing included.

Now since K.D.M., and the Director of Communications already knows, students residing in off-campus student housing are more than encouraged to use the College's shuttles that have drivers trained to take passengers along the various curving and hilly roadbeds.

K.D.M. also should know that the addition of upper classpersons to a college that hasn't had them will actually increase the number of vehicle trips due to the fact that, as upper classpersons', those students tend to own more vehicles than Freshmen do.

Now Kelly also knows that up to 125 Juniors and Seniors might avail themselves of on-campus housing should it be approved and that means fewer Freshmen would have chances to live in the dorms, as opposed to not having upper classpersons at Marymount.

So she doesn't seem willing to admit that recent changes in the curriculum of the college could actually add more daily vehicle trips that even Appendix D's suggestion stated.

Originally I was taking some time to consider not being as mean to Ms. Curtis as it appears I have been in this post.

But then I got to pondering that she may be one of the chief instigators in spreading apparent deceptive information, half truths, and probably real falsehoods and she certainly seemed to continue that with her comments in front of the City Council.

To me, I think she may think our Council members are ignorant of the real truths concerning Marymount and she displayed a degree of being disingenuous towards the Council that made me laugh.

I was wondering how those men kept such a straight face when she offered her comments. I would not have been able to look at her and not smiled or smirked during her remarks.

As a Communications Director of an institution that is supposed to promote high standards of truth, morality, honor, intelligence, good regard towards the community and openness, especially when that institution is affiliated with a religious organization, Ms. Curtis did nothing during the meeting to suggest she works for an institution that does not deserve supportive votes by the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.

I call on Ms. Kelly Curtis to become open, honest, forthright, and completely truthful between now and November 2. I think as Marymount's Communications Director, she could provide honest debate and discussion rather than towing the lines that keep getting called out.

I call on the Communications Director to be the leader in attempting to get all other paid representatives of Marymount College to only provide truthful, complete, and honest comments that can't be torn apart as easily as we can do with all the comments that have come from Marymount's representatives over these last many months.

I expect those in positions like Directors to be responsible, reasonable, realistic, and respectful, toward all elements within the community and demonstrate a higher standard to reflect good standards on students who choose to attend Marymount College.

As far as debating the Director of Communications, now that might be far too easy, at this point.

After hearing her lay out old lines that were rebuked within moments by at least one Councilman, I don't believe she has studied the E.I.R. and viewed as many studies, facts, or talked to more folks on all sides of the issue than even I have.

But if her comments and the comments by Dr. Brophy are any indication of the things to come, I don't think she or Dr. Brophy are willing to debate anyone on these matters.

It now appears that too many representatives of Marymount are only willing to state their positions without backing them up with true and complete facts and they don't intend on really debating or discussing matters with those of us opposed to The Marymount Plan and its ballot measure.

After all, it's like Mayor Pro Tem Long commented, if I remember correctly; Every new building construction Marymount Supporters asked the City Council for, they received.

Yes, the field is about 60 feet to the east of where Marymount wanted it. Yes, the overall height of the roof of the athletic building is about 10 feet shorter. But the field is on the side of the campus Marymount demanded it be placed. The athletic building still has the exact same floor area that Marymount wanted.

Marymount received all that it asked the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council for and they were even provided more than they asked for, in the form of potentially improved safety for students and the community.

Vote NO on the initiative. It's not necessary, but it is redundant.