Here is an account of an incident that happened at or near the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive East and San Ramon Drive.
On the morning of the first day of classes at Marymount College's newest term, private security guards stood on and near the intersection of San Ramon Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East stopping and questioning drivers who attempted to turn onto San Ramon Drive from Palos Verdes Drive East.
It is strongly believed that the security officers were employed by Marymount College which is located directly southwest of the intersection.
One of the reasons that security guards were probably stopping drivers from entering San Ramon Drive, a publicly funded public roadway, was to attempt to keep students from parking on San Ramon Drive.
While it may have appeared to be a noble attempt, it is illegal for unauthorized security guards or officers from blocking public roadways without the approval from authorities responsible for making decisions on matters of this nature.
A Code Enforcement Officer representing the city of Rancho Palos Verdes saw what has not bee legally opined as an illegal act and stopped to question the private security officers about their stopping of drivers along a public roadway and asking questions or even stopping them in the first place.
A verbal argument ensued between the Code Enforcement Officer and at least one security officer and according to reports, the privately employed security officer did not comply with requests and/or demands from the representative of Rancho Palos Verdes.
It was later determined that the Code Enforcement Officer should have probably back away from the confrontation and called the Sheriff's Department so that duly sworn law enforcement officers could have stepped in and possibly arrested the private security officers for illegally blocking traffic or for other reasons.
I can confirm that no representative of the security company or anyone representing Marymount College sought or was provided prior approval to block public access to a public road or roads.
This incident has absolutely nothing to do with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project which has been approved and may go forward should representatives of Marymount College decide to do so.
But to resources I have, there are opinions of people concerned that should Measure P, The Marymount Plan receive passage by voters on November 2, 2010, the associated Marymount College Campus Specific Plan may contain language that could supersede enforcement of some traffic ordinances on public roads and rights of way in the proximity of Marymount College.
While the incident described to me as one in which it is believed that individuals representing Marymount College interests were usurping the authority of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and possibly the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, it seems to be another demonstration of what some think is an arrogance on the part of some representatives of Marymount College that is continuing and could be growing stronger.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good readers.
ReplyDeleteI wrote an Email to many people who I am acquainted with and who also live in Rancho Palos.
The Email covered what this post covered and then I added some comments that are my opinion.
Here are those added comments:
It is quickly becoming apparent that it may take some action on the part of the Marymount College Board of Trustees to try and end so many difficult incidents and activities being done in association with Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
Board of Trustee members have a great responsibility I feel, to monitor what they are supposedly trustees of. When events and activities get out of hand as some think may have, there must be a responsible entity entrusted with keeping an institution at the highest level of honesty, truthfulness, and providing the best means to remain a good neighbor in the community.
If it takes a change in leadership and/or direction of and by Marymount College's Administration, perhaps it is time for the Trustees to bring back trust in and for Marymount College, I strongly feel.
------------------------------------------
I do not like the idea of seeking someone losing their position in a position they may truly love.
At some point however, it needs to be pointed out that sometimes changes need to be made that provide the overall benefit to the many at sadly, the expense of the one or two.
How many more times must folks opposed to Measure P, The Marymount Plan have to deal with issues, letters to attorneys, veiled or direct threats, lack of open communication by Marymount's President, the relegating of communications to an educational institution purportedly demonstrating 'open and honest' communication practices to a public relations firm, and other things?
If Dr. Brophy, President of Marymount College is unable or unwilling to openly address and attempt to correct what seems to be growing problems that can hurt chances of Measure P getting the votes supporters would like to see, it might be time to make changes at the top of the Administration or on the Board of Trustees as a way of demonstrating a greater resolve to 'take the high road' a 'good neighbor' wishes to remain on.
We will soon be able to witness more continuation of issues that began long ago and seem to keep growing in numbers and frustration by all parties.
Whether thay continuation leasd to easing of tensions or even greater frustration should not be the responsibility of the Board of Trustees of Marymount College who should act in the best interests of Marymount College and its neighbors in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes or this can continue along, get worse and most probably doom the success of Measure P and possibily the failure of Marymount College in the coming months or very few years, it is my opinion.
I sent an Email out to many residents, knowing that at least one is a member of a very tiny organization on The Hill that seems to support Measure P.
ReplyDeleteThe particular individual did reply and I replied to that person. the body of the first Email is on this comment, my reply follows on another comment.
"Mark,
I think what your "reporter" related re San Ramon Dr. has been going on for several years. It is MM's response to neighbors who did not want MM students parking on their street. MM responded by putting security staff tere to warn students to stay out of San Ramon. I witnessed it either last year or the year before and saw no heavy-handedness at all. Residents appeared to have no problem accessing their street.MM was spending their own money to try to be a good neighbor. In other settings and other times I have witnessed Boy Scouts and others directing drivers to parking areas at fund-raising events without the Sheriff's intervention. Get real."
Here is my reply to the above Email information:
ReplyDeleteSo, if getting real means a private uniformed security guard can stop members of the public from accessing a public road without prior approval of authorized representatives, it is okay with you?
I find that sad.
I do understand that it may be a noble gesture for MM to provide assistance for residents and attempting to keep students, who really should have been informed by MM not to park
as simply a matter of courtesy or true respect for being a 'good neighbor', off smaller residential streets.
But when a private entity takes security measures into their own hands without approval on public roads or to possibly restrict access, then it becomes a problem.
The problem this year was created because a Code Enforcement Officer questioned at least one security officer and substantiated reports are that the security officer "argued" with the Code Enforcement Officer who has the responsibility to inspect and decide if codes are being enforced. A Code Enforcement Officer's job is to follow codes, inform others of codes and when codes are found to be broken or even questionable, to write citations or give warnings or in some other fashion, communicate to persons when something appears to be against existing codes.
No one is disputing that the Code Enforcement Officer was trying to do their job when dealing with the incident at San Ramon Drive.
No one is disputing that at least one private security officer "argued" or had some other type of altercation with the Code Enforcement Officer.
The beginning of MM's new semester is unlike any other in its history.
The climate and tenor of dealings between many residents and representatives of Marymount College is also far different than at any other time.
Security guards provided by MM are not "Boy Scouts" like I was. Boy Scouts normally direct traffic for planned special events and you can be sure they are monitored and protected by authorized persons, something that was not present at San Ramon Drive.
When people start accepting that it is alright for private security guards to assume powers or responsibilities on public property, public roads, and having anything to do with any restriction of public access, without the legal authority to do so, I would certainly hope that you and all other citizens would question that and demand an end to such things.
Did the security officer(s) get prior authorized approval? No.
Once informed by the Code Enforcement Officer that they needed to stop what they were doing, was it immediately halted? No.
Should employees of a private security firm follow the law? Yes.
Did they? No.
2010 is not a normal year for Marymont College and for residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Even though it could be considered noble by all for attempting to support a 'good neighbor' attitude, the actions of at least one security officer representing Marymount College, demonstrated an insensitivity towards following existing codes, laws, guidelines, and respect for our laws, I believe.
As simply an example of what some opponents might feel as to what could happen if the Campus Specific Plan actually becomes law, having the security officer block access this year and having folks defending the obstruction of current codes and/or laws, was at least a pretty 'dumb' marketing move and at worst, evidence of something that may be in store should Measure P pass, I believe.
Regards,
Mark Wells"