An Email From Councilman Stern

The following is directly from and Email sent out by Rancho Palos Verdes City Councilman Douglas Stern:

Update – Judge Rules Marymount Rebuttal Ballot Argument “False and Misleading”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On September 8, 2010, Judge David Yaffee of Los Angeles County Superior Court, ruled that it had been proven by “Clear and Convincing Evidence” that the rebuttal argument submitted by Marymount Initiative (Measure P) supporters for the Voter’s Pamphlet was false and misleading. He ordered the misleading Marymount Measure P language stricken from the Voter Pamphlet. The argument had been signed by former City Council woman Barbara Ferraro, former city council candidate Don Reeves, and two Marymount Trustees.

Judge Yaffe also granted judgment for Mayor Steve Wolowicz, Councilmen Douglas Stern, Anthony Misteich, Brian Campbell and Mayor pro tem Tom Long and against Marymount President Michael Brophy on the lawsuit Brophy brought against all the City Council members. Brophy had sued the entire City Council alleging that the argument authored by Wolowicz, Mesitich, Stern, Ken Dyda and Jon Cartwright against Measure P was false and misleading. (Brian Campbell and Tom Long were not authors of the argument, but were sued by Brophy.) Judge Yaffe, rejected every argument that Brophy made, finding nothing was false or misleading in the opposition argument. Councilman Douglas Stern represented Wolowicz, Misetich and himself in defending the argument they had jointly authored.

My Thoughts

No doubt, Marymount’s Measure P will be a very hottly debated issue in our community.

There are many troubling aspects to the Marymount Initiative, not the least of which is the manner in which it will reduce the ability of residents in the future to seek to address many problems that arises at Marymount. Under the approvals already granted to Marymount to modernize its entire campus, residents can address their concerns or complaints to the City Council. At little or no cost, resident concerns can be quickly presented to the elected representatives for solution. Residents will always be able to speak to the five council members who can try to find solutoins. It costs residents nothing to try to influence these decisionmakers.
In constrast, our residents’ ability to obtain solutions through their government will effectively disappear with the passage of the Initiative. To achieve any meaningful change, residents will be required to mount a citywide election to make many types of corrections. No longer will residents be able to speak directly to the decisionmakers. Now a costly campaign, with all the inherent expense, must be mounted to influence all voters. A costly campaign will have to be mounted against a well financed Marymount, capable of campaigning with very professional materials, designed to beat back any attempt to solve problems that it does not want to address.

As a result, we residents may have unwittingly, but effectively, voted away our own ability to make appropriate corrections in the future. We may find that we have erected a very high barrier to our future ability to deal with problems. Is this a wise structure for self government in in our city?

In the name of direct democracy, are we being asked to basically vote away, as a practical matter, the ability of ordinary residents to seek solutions through your local city government Residents should think long and hard about whether they are well served by creating very high hurdles that must be overcome with equally high cost. Will this structure make it so expensive and difficult for residents that it will be beyond the reach of the residents to ever really effect necessary change?

Those are my thoughts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks,
Douglas W. Stern

Rancho Palos Verdes City Councilman