The Daily Breeze Article Concerning Another Lawsuit.

Here is Ms. Melissa Pamer's article about Mr. Jeffrey Lewis' lawsuit. The article appears in The Daily Breeze.

Second lawsuit filed over wording of Marymount College ballot argumentsBy Melissa Pamer Staff Writer
Posted: 08/30/2010 8:37 PM

A second lawsuit was filed Monday challenging ballot arguments filed for an initiative that Marymount College officials hope will allow the Rancho Palos Verdes campus to expand and build dormitories.

Similar to a petition filed last week, the suit seeks to have language stricken or changed in statements made in favor of Measure P, which is set to go before voters Nov. 2.

The new lawsuit was filed by Jeffrey Lewis, a Rancho Palos Verdes planning commissioner and former City Council candidate.

"I thought it was important that all of the ballot arguments correctly state the impact of the initiative," said Lewis, an attorney. "When I first read their rebuttal argument, I thought it was filled with inaccuracies."

The lawsuit comes on the heels of a legal petition filed Aug. 26 by college President Michael Brophy that sought to have language in his opponents' ballot argument changed. That suit called opponents' verbiage "false and misleading."

A Marymount spokeswoman on Monday directed a call for comment to the college's Los Angeles political consultant, saying that Brophy would focus on running the school and would no longer comment on the initiative.

"This lawsuit is obviously a retaliatory act based on fictitious legal theory, and we are confident we will prevail in court," said Ruben Gonzalez, one of Marymount's consultants.

The college is seeking voter approval for a construction program that includes dorms for

250 students, an athletic center, new library and other improvements. With the exception of the dorms, which were withdrawn by college officials, most of that plan was approved by the City Council earlier this year.

Barbara Ferraro, a former Rancho Palos Verdes mayor who is a target of Lewis' suit, expressed dismay at its filing. She said she had not seen the petition yet.

"They just take umbrage to having anyone have a different point of view," Ferraro said, adding that she was critical of her opponents' ballot arguments. "I thought what they did say was misleading. In fact, I think they were deliberately misleading."

At issue in the lawsuits are two sets of statements: arguments for and against the initiative, and rebuttals from each side to those arguments. The statements make conflicting claims about city oversight of the "campus specific plan" that the initiative would create.

Lewis' action is directed at Ferraro and four other rebuttal authors: Don Reeves, the co-editor of the newsletter PVP Watch; De De Hicks, a Rancho Palos Verdes resident; and Marymount trustees John Murnane and Dick Grotz.

Lewis' petition specifically targets one sentence in Measure P proponents' rebuttal that states that the initiative "guarantees that Marymount College meets all city codes and obtains city permits."

Lewis, who signed a rebuttal against the arguments in favor of Measure P, claims that language is contradicted by the initiative itself.

A judge will likely decide this week whether to combine Lewis' suit with Brophy's, Lewis said.

A hearing in Brophy's case is set for Sept. 8 - the last day on which the county clerk may send ballot pamphlets to the printer for distribution to voters.

"We're going to have to ask the court to make sure it is resolved by that time," said Judy Whitehurst, principal deputy county counsel.

California Elections Code, Whitehurst said, allows ballot arguments to be changed by a judge only if the legal action does not threaten the schedule for mailing voter material.

"You're only entitled to relief if it doesn't interfere with the conduct of the election," she said.

melissa.pamer@dailybreeze.com

--------------------------------------------------------------
It would be great to have a judge decide whether the 'Campus Specific Plan' would allow Marymount to have its desires supersede existing municipal code, whether folks are for or against ballot measure P.

Knowing that information, along with the fact that ballot measure also contains language that would add ONLY approval for on-campus student housing, and no other construction due to the fact that ALL other construction based on both The Marymarymount Plan and The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project has already been approved for months, now.

I found the statement that a woman contacted at Marymount referred all inquiries to the College's paid lobbyist is sad in that the woman I am pretty sure Ms. Pamer contacted was the Director of Communications for Marymount College and isn't it one of the tasks of someone charged with providing information to actually provide information?

It seems to me that the administration of Marymount College is either not willing or not able to tackle providing all the information requested from members of the press or others.

I should not think that any question I might wish to pose to any Marymount representative must pass through a paid lobbyist or the College's contracted public relations firm.

So along with 'good neighbor', responsible and respectful communications from Marymount's administration may have gone by the wayside in favor of 'circling the wagons' to keep inquiring minds away.

What might we find out new, tomorrow?