Dear Michael

Dear Michael.

Good evening.

As you know, I am committed to working hard to oppose student housing at about the highest point of the high road of Palos Verdes Drive East, high above the switchbacks, steep canyon walls, and winding curves favored by speeders regularly given citation by Deputy Knox and other great Sheriff's Deputies.

But as far as you taking the high road, why have you not answered so many of my questions directed to you and to you as the President of Marymount College?

I understand that you are a plaintiff in lawsuit but there are still many questions you refuse to answer asked by reporters and others and you refer them to you public relations firm.

Why won't you allow your communications director to communicate to persons other than supporters of Measure P, people you also seem to have no problem talking to.

I hope you keep to the high road and tell all Measure P supporters not to do what you apparently feel might be wrong by their placing No on P signs on public property.

I think you will now understand that the position you seem to have taken concerning No on P signs placed on public property will be strictly enforced with Yes on P signs that should not appear on public property. I am no expert, but my 1st Amendment rights allow me to comment on this, and yours do, too. So why did you comment on something you wrote that you would not comment on?

Would you consider someone like me and my full support of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project to be any type of indication you and/or your supporters could take as an endorsement of The Marymount Plan/Measure P?

When I read the identical letters to the editors of two newspapers written by Marymount Trustee Mr. Richard (Dick) Grotz, it appears to me that his omission of the fact that he is identified on the Internet and with other sources as a member of the Marymount College Board of Trustees, was not taking any type of high road at all.

Why on this planet would any human trust any statement from you that you would not pursue items when you, your representatives, and some supporters have said things then done completely opposite things, right before our eyes?

If your words were to believed and truly followed, Marymount would be a two-year institution not belonging to any athletic conference and completely accepting all elements of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Wording in all advertisements and even in the Arguments in Favor of Meausre P state that every single item within The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project has not been approved because written statements seek voter approval of those items.

I feel all voters have the right to know and you as President, have the obligation to state whether the College you are the current President of would actually find new construction under the current approvals if Measure P fails at the ballot box.

Why are you on one hand, stating that R.P.V. voters should have the right to vote and the intelligence to do so on The Marymount Plan yet not provide those same intelligent persons the information of what has already been approved?

To you, either R.P.V. voters are intelligent enough to make this very important decision or they are not intelligent because you and your 'side' continue to fail to provide the information what has already been approved with 'The Project'.

Again, where is there any 'high road' in this?

Another aspect of taking the 'high road' which you seem to indicate that you wish to do is to debate at least one person who opposes Measure P. How can you contend that you are taking the high road but not answer reporters' questions and be apparently reluctant to debate anyone regarding Measure P?

I feel the high road contains debating someone like Councilman Stern, by you or perhaps the Chairman of the Board of Trustees.

I must also strongly contend that the high road also includes some kind of real debate and discussion about the safety of having up to 250 College students living on about the highest point of Palos Verdes Drive East on a 24/7 basis. Does your high road intersect with even the possibility of a debate?

The high road also never contains threats or even veiled threats. A veiled threat to me is when you object to something and then state in writing that you won't pursue your objection 'at this time.'

All five City Council members have witnesses what happens when someone representing Marymount's interests says something, then adds "at this time" not long before they pursue whatever they objected to.

Perhaps you might not remember your earlier comments that you made to the City Council not long before someone from your legal team wrote a letter to the City Attorney and City Manager.

You stated publicly that you and representatives of Marymount College would basically 'take the high road' and you pledged to work with the Council, if I remember correctly.

Letters from you and others representing Marymount College have recently carried very non-high road veiled threats or even real threats of lawsuits or other legal action.

With your recent lawsuit, your College's suggestion that it is a 'good neighbor' seems to have crashed over the barrier along the high road.

Good neighbors drive off of the high road when they file lawsuits against their neighbors.

Good neighbors also belong on the high road when they debate and truly discuss matters they find differences with.

Good neighbors demonstrate that they remain on the high road by providing honest and true communications with their neighbors. Good neighbors also provide complete information and do not attempt to 'muddy the waters' by providing misinformation and possible deceptive information.

Good neighbors also take the high road when they answer questions and do not shun questions by passing them off to others, not really belonging in the neighborhood.

Good neighbors communicate. They communicate so well that they even allow their Communications Director to communicate with anyone and everyone, not just those who have offered their support.

Good neighbors take the high road when they inform folks of their associations and affiliations within the neighborhood.

I know I have been and continue to be a good neighbor on the high road because of all the personal, social, and business relationships I had or still have with the local neighborhood and neighborhoods all over the place.

Michael, if you need assistance on how to be a good neighbor and stick to the high road, perhaps I could avail myself to offer you some of my time to help you understand better about what is a good neighbor and what is not. I also know all of the routes along the high road and I have been very familiar with the high road for over four decades.

So please Michael, pursue the high road as a good neighbor by allowing me to ask questions and have truthful answers provided by you or another very knowledgeable representatives of Marymount College. Real good neighbors, along the high road, would not fear me or them and could welcome the chance to truthfully be a good neighbor, traveling at safe speeds along the high road.

I'll be waiting at this rest stop.

Regards,

Mark Wells
aka M Richards.