More Misleading Or Deception By Marymount Supporters?

Here are the names and signatures that appear for the Rebuttal of Argument Against Measure P on the November 2 ballot:

Barbara Ferraro, Former Mayor of Rancho Palos Verdes.
De De Hicks, Past President of League of Women Voters
Don Reeves, Co-Editor of PVP Watch
Dick Grotz, 37-Year resident of Rancho Palos Verdes
John Murname, Past President Ridgecrest Homeowners' Association

Now, what is legal and allowable is for others to authorize persons to sign in their place so that names of others will be in place of names of folks who may not wish to be associated with having their own names on a portion of either an argument for or against, or rebuttals to same.

In the case of the Rebuttal of Argument Against Measure P, here are the people who authorizes other to appear on the election material other than themselves.

Barbara Dye authorized Barbara Ferraro to sign.

Dr. Sue Soldoff, the person who sought to begin the Initiative process in the first place had De De Hicks authorized to sign rather than Sue herself signing.

Dr. Michael Brophy, the President of Marymount College authorized Don Reeves to sign in his place.

Dr. James Schmidt was replaced by Dick Grotz.

Marilyn Lyon authorized John Murname to sign in her place.

Now, here are some of the people who serve on the Marymount College Board of Trustees.

Dr. Michael Brophy
Dr. Sue Soldoff
Mr. John Murname
Richard Grotz, B.S.E.E.

Now it seems to me, if we take Dr. Brophy at his word (why anyone would do that is now quite beyond reason by a growing number of residents) because of his quote in Friday's Daily Breeze about his demand for nothing misleading on any ballot material, why would persons request and then authorize others to sign something in place of their own identity and signature on a legal document which is part of Measure P?

I can imagine that replacement of names, legal and authorized could also be a form of something designed to mislead potential voters of Measure P.

Why wouldn't Dr. Brophy, Dr. Soldoff, Barbara Dye, and others not wish to have their names and signatures associated with the Rebuttal of Argument Against Measure P?

Why will Dick Grotz's name appear instead of Dr. James Schmidt's?

Are all of these people hiding something? Isn't this misleading as to who the actual people are who created the Rebuttal of Argument Against Measure P?

In early 1992, then President George H. W. Bush uttered "Read my lips, no new taxes" and then went on to call for new taxes. It was widely thought back then that he was telegraphing that he knew he would not get reelected or that he had to tank his own reelection chances for reasons I won't get into on this blog, right now. (Casper Weinberger?)

I am heading towards an assertion that may find more proof in the future that it is beginning to look like there may be factions within the administration, Board of Trustees, and/or supporters of Marymount College that they MAY be taking steps to almost insure the rejection of Measure P, no matter how hard the opposition also fights against ballot measure P.

It just seems to me that quotes by Marymount's President are in direct conflict with authorized statements concerning Marymount College and aspects of the measure.

It also seems to me that when someone argues and sues the city because of statements they feel are misleading and then seemingly are part of an attempt to mislead voters, something is terribly wrong with that picture.

When the leadership of a company or Board Members of a company find that they cannot survive as they have been doing, for reasons they know, they sometimes 'swallow a poison pill' to make the company look very bad to others.

Is something like that going on at Marymount College?

I can't figure out why Dr. Brophy would stand up at the beginning of August and call for everyone to be nice, calm, and keep away from misleading statements, and not confuse the issues, and keep everything above board when, at the end of August, just about everything he called for at the start of the month, he himself seems to have gone against.

Now another thing. About Dr. Brophy's lawsuit against the County person and our City Clerk.

It seems that our City Attorney should probably not represent the city and the City Clerk because our City Attorney was a party participating in answering questions by the City Council members who eventually voted 5-0 to oppose The Marymount Plan and its Initiative, now known as ballot measure P.

I can certainly imagine that Marymount's lawyers will demand that the city not be allowed to use its City Attorney in matters so the city will need to get outside counsel to represent the city's interests and the defense of the City Clerk and possibly others.

If the city's insurance carrier does not fund outside counsel, then it looks like taxpayer funds will have to be used to pay to defend the city's interest and personnel.

Again, so much for "The Marymount Plan will be constructed at no taxpayer expense". I believe this is now a moot point because of Dr. Brophy's lawsuit seeking changes to a portion of the legal wording in part of the ballot documents related to The Marymount Plan in its Initiative form, measure P.

Dr. Brophy can and probably will contend factually that he did not sign the Rebuttal of Argument Against ballot measure P. But by authorizing someone else to sign in his place seems deceptive in my book and in a whole library of others' books.

Having the originator of the Initiative process omit her name dealing with the Rebuttal of Argument Against P by authorizing another person to 'take her place' on the signature line, also can be found to be misleading and deceptive to some residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.

It's late for me and it looks like it is getting later and later for Marymount's chances to find any real number of potential voters who would not be willing to see what may be going on.

Let's just end all of this on November 2 (Naturally I am quite sure Marymount will sue to get dorms, or sue to try to get dorms approved) and vote solidly against ballot measure P.

It is becoming more apparent to me and at least some others that any and all of our reasons for opposing The Marymount Plan are not needless to offer and repeat because Marymount's own representatives and some of its supporters are doing out jobs for us, and they aren't doing badly at all!

Now a pleading to Marymount's administration: Please don't pass out any of the Kool-aid to your students. After they transfer to others schools we will need them to help America grow and prosper.