Here are some extremely recent Emails I viewed concerning what appears to me to be yet another back room deal between Marymount College and an organization on The Hill.
One thing that may help you understand is the fact that the majority of businesses on The Hill are NOT in Rancho Palos Verdes, where Marymount College's Measure P's passage would have a very detrimental impact on that city's residents while businesses all over other cities on The Hill and elsewhere would reap rewards at the expense of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Ms. Kay Finer is the President/CEO of the Palos Verdes Chamber of Commerce.
Below are some Emails which I have posted the body of. My Email to Ms. Finer is after the other Email bodies:
"I have some disappointing news. The PV Chamber of Commerce previously indicated that it was going to take no position on Measure P. It now is going to take the position that it supports Measure P. The manner in which this decision was reached disappoints me as much as the decision itself. If you feel the same way I do, I would encourage you to voice your opinion to Kay Finer of the PV Chamber of Commerce at kay@palosverdeschamber.com"
-----------------------------------------------------------
I understand that the chamber has decided to endorse a yes vote on Measure P. I am extremely disappointed in the manner in which the chamber handled this matter. While I could accept this outcome had this decision been reached after an open debate with all voices represented, it appears this was handled quietly in a back room with the outcome pre-determined. I would have appreciated the opportunity to weigh in on the issue.
Not the chamber's finest hour in my humble opinion."
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Kay, this is a sad day for the PV Chamber.
Fair minded people wouldn’t mind a decision being made, but to do it in this manner is disappointing. No notice. Apparently only Marymount being represented. Other PV Board Members not notified in advance. Very disappointing.
The apparently pre determined way in which this was handled will be long remembered by residents in RPV, particularly the homeowners that will be most affected and how the PV Chamber sold them out.
This sounds similar to what happened at the CRA (California Republican Assembly) endorsing meeting 10 days ago. Rules were illegitimately changed on the fly to accommodate a Marymount slanted and pre arranged vote of support, and the state Board of the CRA had to intervene the next day to reverse the entire disgraceful process.
I think that even legitimate backers of Yes should be disturbed at what transpired at the PV Chamber last night.
Councilman Misetich covered many of these troubling campaign tactics well on video at: www.saverpv.com
Just my opinion as an individual business member of the Chamber"
------------------------------------------------------------
"Dear Ms. Finer:
I am extremely disappointed that the Chamber of Commerce would favor a Measure that is not only wholly unnecessary (given that Marymount has already received from the City Council nearly everything that it requested from it, having purposely deleted its request for dormitories when it appeared before the Council), but that also threatens the continued viability of our City's zoning, safety and traffic laws by exempting from them any property owner with sufficient funds to place its issue on the ballot.
By placing Measure P on the ballot, Marymount is attempting to take the decision-making process away from those officials who were elected by the City precisely for the purpose of understanding and making such decisions in the best interest of the City, who have significant expertise on the subject and who devoted considerable (and, in this case, inordinate) time on the matter and give it instead to a general public that it hopes to mislead with a ubiquitous campaign that was determined by a Superior Court Judge as misstating the effect of Measure P's passage.
I would have hoped, and I expected, that the Chamber of Commerce to show more wisdom on this matter by recognizing that Measure P is not about whether Marymount should be allowed to modernize its campus (everyone agrees that it should, and the City Council has already authorized it to do so), but whether the City can be manipulated by this kind of tactic. And does anyone really doubt that other large property owners in the City are watching the results of Measure P, and hoping that it sets a precedent that will allow them to seek the same special treatment by this same unjustified approach.
It is not too late for the Chamber to reconsider its position. In the interests of our City, it must."
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Finer,
I am Mark Wells and I first came to my home in what is now Rancho Palos Verdes on May 4, 1955.
If you read any large number of my posts on my www.eastrpv.blogspot.com blog you will probably learn there is probably no bigger supporter of businesses along Western Avenue in R.P.V. than I am.
I am writing to learn the facts about how an endorsement for Measure P, The Marymount Plan came to be after many of us learned your group originally decided not to take a position on the matter.
One way or another I will learn the true facts about how the endorsement came about so I am offering you a chance to explain the Chamber's position before I write too much more than I am writing today, on my blog.
If two members of the Chamber believe a 'back room' deal was reached and one of them happens to be a sitting Rancho Palos Verdes City Councilman, I think your full membership should be allowed the chance to discuss and debate what seems to be another endorsement deal that could eventually cause your group some embarrassment.
Should the entire membership vote to endorse Measure P, The Marymount Plan, then I would honor a full membership's endorsement without negative response.
But when I learn the details and make my opinion and that opinion is that yet another 'back room' deal was reached, I shall write extensively of this and probably mention it during a forthcoming C.C. meeting.
Whether you support Measure P or not, the Chamber's endorsing an organization that has already been found to use deceptive and misleading statements, by a Superior Court Judge, says a volume about what your group and Marymount is attempting to do in Rancho Palos Verdes.
Since R.P.V. is still the only city on The Hill that has dorms at a College Campus, perhaps your membership might wish to suggest one of the other cities on The Hill and/or San Pedro host a College with on-campus housing.
Please rethink any endorsement by the Chamber of Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
Thank you for taking the time to read this long Email.
Mark Wells
aka M Richards
www.eastrpv.blogspot.com
www.pontevista.blogspot.com
___________________________________________
I guess we will just have to see what happens next. We won't need to wait long, though.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Board of Directors Meeting
ReplyDeleteDate(s): 9/28/2010
Time: 4:30 PM - 6:30 PM
Location: TBD
Event Details: A closed meeting of the PVP Chamber's Board of Directors is held on the 4th Tuesday of the month at 4:30pm.
Contact Person: Debby Morgan 310-377-8111 office@palosverdeschamber.com
So, was the endorsement made during a "closed door meeting with only the Directors present?
Were there any non Directors speaking during the meeting who represent Marymount College?
If there were, were any opponents of Measure P invited to speak?
The answers and more will eventually come
out.
Just so you all know, the Executive Committee Meeting open ONLY*** to Executive Committee Members was held on September 23, 2010 and not on its regular second-Monday-of-each-month schedule.
ReplyDeleteI appears without confirmation so far that the endorsement came at either of the two meetings that were closed to those folks who were not specifically invited or who are neither Directors or Executive Committee Members of the Chamber.
Can you hear the back door slamming on the behinds of some Chamber members as they try and run away from the Endorsement?
I too am opposed to Measure P, and very much appreciate the work being done to educate the public about our issues with the contents of this ballot measure. That said, I am growing increasingly concerned over the level of contentiousness on both sides of this issue. I hope you will take what I'm about to say as constructive criticism rather than an attack, because I say it out of love for our community.
ReplyDeleteIf we continue to define the "No on P" position by making personal attacks on our opponents and crying "no fair" when things do not go our way, we will lose. For example, this post seems to be more about surmising what happened last night than about presenting the confirmed facts. Until we know exactly what happened last night, it seems foolish to throw accusations around - particularly when those accusations are aimed at our neighbors and friends.
We are not going to win this ballot measure by lobbing personal attacks at members of Marymount's Board of Trustees or by making loose allegations as to Marymount's motivation for building dormitories. Rather, if we are going to defeat Measure P, we must take the high road and focus on the actual contents of the ballot measure. If our argument is substantive and persuasive, we will win. All this other stuff is a distraction and only serves to throw our focus away from what really matters to the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.