Mr. Burt Martin Arnold

Mr. Burt M. Arnold is the Chair of the Marymount College Board of Trustees.

Mr. Arnold is the President of Burt M Arnold Securities, Inc. located in Rolling Hills Estates, California.

If you wish to read Mr. Arnold's biography as it is written on a Marymount College site, please feel free and welcome to do so.

Here is information from the National Futures Association related to Burt Martin Arnold Securities, Inc.:

Narrative for 0404300 - BURT MARTIN ARNOLD SECURITIES INC

Notice of Intent to Deny Registration:

http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/CaseDocument.aspx?seqnum=1986

On July 20, 2009, NFA's President issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Registration to Burt Martin Arnold Securities, Inc. The Notice of Intent alleges that BMAS is disqualified from registration under Section 8a(3)(N) of the Commodity Exchange Act. To view the Notice of Intent, go to Case Documents. To obtain a copy, contact NFA's Information Center.

Response to Notice of Intent:

http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/CaseDocument.aspx?seqnum=2047

On August 10, 2009, BMAS filed its Response to the Notice of Intent in which the firm denies that it is disqualified from registration. To view the Response, go to Case Documents. To obtain a copy, contact NFA's Information Center.

Final Order Conditioning Registration:

http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/CaseDocument.aspx?seqnum=2223

On December 21, 2009, a Subcommittee of NFA's Membership Committee issued a Final Order Conditioning Registration to BMAS after a hearing was held. The Final Order becomes effective on January 20, 2010. To view the Final Order, go to Case Documents. To obtain a copy, contact NFA's Information Center.

On June 25, 2010, a lawsuit was filed in West Texas District Court (Federal Court) and Burt Martin Arnold Securities, Inc. was named as one of the Defendants in the case of: Bramante v. McClain

The cause in the court case was listed as: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/5:2010cv00534/434876/

NOTE TO READERS

I originally published this post prior to looking at my incoming mail.

Today I received an unsolicited mailer from Marymount basically coutaining a letter from Burt Arnold, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Marymount College.

I am going to now address some of the points brought up in Mr. Arnold's mailer which seems to appear that we are viewing a copy of a letter to the editor.

I fully expect to see this letter in tomorrow's Palos Verdes Peninsula News and South Bay Daily Breeze. I am quite sure if the letter appears tomorrow, the following Thursday's Palos Verdes Peninsula News will contain letters from opponents of The Marymount Plan.

As I have done in the past, I will use quotes on writing from Mr. Arnold's letter followed by my comments in another font color.

Some of what Mr. Arnold wrote, I do not dispute. But as usual, there are factual errors and statements that can be read as being misleading and I will do my very best to offer the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

"An element of this plan, dormitories, was approved by the City in the late 1970's. In fact, a current opponent of The Marymount Plan (Measure P) was formerly a City Councilmember and Mayor When the city approved the dormitories at that time!"

In fact, Councilmember and then Mayor Dyda had absolutely nothing to do with approving dormitories in the 1970's as it fell on the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission at that time, to approve or oppose dormitories.

In fact, the dormitories approved by the Planning Commission allowed for up to 200 students during a time that the College had far fewer students attending it than it does now.

In fact, it appears as if Mr. Arnold is suggesting that Mayor Ken Dyda was involved in the approval process for dormitories which is a factual error and is possibly an attempt to mislead voters in a deceptive manner.

In fact and as the Chairman of the Marymount College Board of Trustees, it is the responsibility of Mr. Arnold, I strongly believe, to hold to the highest standards of honesty, forthrightness, and truthfulness.

"A key element of this plan-- the dormitories--was voted down by a straw poll vote by the City's Planning Commission following intense pressure by a small group of local activists. What survived of the plan was further dramatically changed by the City Council when the Planning Commission's approval was appealed by a strident opponent."

Mr. Arnold, now really! It should have been your responsibility to inform everyone, as Chairman, that the straw poll was requested by Dr. Michael Brophy, President of Marymount College and if you and your Board are as engaged as you may claim, Dr. Brophy may have requested the vote on a recommendation from you and the other members of the Board.

Also as you should know, dormitories were pulled from consideration at the Planning Commission level voluntarily by Marymount College, something you may have had some responsibility for.

With at least one letter to the members of the Planning Commission, Marymount's Attorney notified the members that dormitories were no longer being considered before the Planning Commission and that Marymount officials took the dormitories away and did not bring them back up before the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council when Marymount HAD EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO!

Your contention that the changes made between what the Planning Commission sent to the City Council and what was eventually approved as The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project was "dramatic" is OUTRAGEOUS!

Sir, how is moving the athletic field 60 feet to the west and lowering the overall height of the gymnasium roof by ten feet, "dramatic"?

Mr. Arnold, you know and you haven't revealed that every single other element of The Marymount Plan that was approved under The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, other than the two items I mentioned and the addition of a center median barrier on Palos Verdes Drive East, are EXACTLY THE SAME!.

Why Mr. Arnold, have you allowed in your capacity as Chairman of the Board of Trustees, to have mention of elements of the already approved Project as part of The Marymount Plan without revealing that they have already been approved?

Many individuals have called upon you to notify potential voters that almost every element of The Marymount Plan can be enacted without approval of Measure P.

"Our Board of Trustees has brought our facilities plan to the voters for approval because of the changes made by the Planning Commission and the City Council and because of the ten years of "process" we have endured."

Mr. Burt M. Arnold, that last statement is misleading and you know it. Your Board is going to voters because Marymount officials voluntarily removed dormitories from consideration by the Planning Commission and there are two elements of The Marymount Plan and Measure P that are different from The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and I will assert to you and everyone else that those two reasons are the only reasons you are spending the money taking The Marymount Plan to voters.

On-campus student housing is the only element listed in advertisements not already approved for construction.

Since this is a documented fact in advertisements paid for by Marymount, and when you claim that the Planning Commission made the changes, you are misrepresenting the true facts.

No matter what you or your attorney claim, dormitories were removed from consideration by representatives of Marymount College and NOT by members of The Planning Commission, prior to more discussions or a vote on that element.

The Campus Specific Plan is the instrument sought to have the dorms constructed and as a judge has recently found, would supersede municipal code.

To more learned opponents of Measure P than I am, the Campus Specific Plan is a land use issue and they argue strongly that should Measure P pass, the representatives of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes, the City Council, would have little if any authority or jurisdiction in land use matters at Marymount and a high density housing project would be built in a low density neighborhood.

It is the Campus Specific Plan, which is never mentioned in any ads by Marymount that is the instrument that could allow private entities building the dormitories at no cost to Marymount, maintain and operate them and also provide income to Marymount College.

In addition, the Campus Specific Plan could allow for that private entity to be responsible for the conduct students and staffing of managers of the dormitories and that could make moot the Marymount Code of Conduct.

Furthermore Mr. Arnold, as you are aware language contained in the Campus Specific Plan may allow Marymount College to rent out or otherwise offer elements of its campus to third party entities which could organize and offer all means of entertainment, sporting activities, residential summer programs, and a wide variety of non-academic events that would also bring added income to Marymount College.

Since the Campus Specific Plan has very specific language mitigating what city authorities could and could not do respective of events and elements on the Marymount campus, what many opponents believe is that Marymount College, is a private business seeks to circumvent established codes and guidelines other businesses are required to follow and all residents must adhere to.

No Mr. Arnold, the real reasons Measure P is on the ballot is because of the Campus Specific Plan and an opportunity to construct dorms, something Marymount voluntarily pulled from consideration even after almost 10 years of trying.

"The City Council reviewed this plan and after 4,000 Rancho Palos Verdes residents brought it to them for a decision: approve this plan or place it on the ballot."

The statement above contains a factual error. The City Council never debated or discussed any on-campus student housing being built at Marymount because Marymount representatives did bring to the City Council any request to have dormitories considered. I was there, you weren't, Mr. Arnold.

The City Council was never asked to review, discuss, or debate The Marymount Plan because they were never presented it. They never voted up or down on the Campus Specific Plan or dormitories, both elements of The Marymount Plan.

When Mr. Arnold stated that "The City Council reviewed this plan..." they did not. What they did was get presented with The Marymount Plan and they were only legally allowed to either accept it as brought to them without further review, or call for a vote of the people.

"The College even volunteered to reimburse the City for the cost of the election and we are now being smeared for this act of generosity with the claim that we are somehow unduly trying to influence the electoral process."

Taxpayer funds are normally used for elections. Almost every ad for The Marymount Plan touts that is would be done "at no taxpayer expense".

Had I not brought that to the attention of Dr. Brophy personally, while he was standing next to Attorney, Mr. Don Davis, I am pretty sure that taxpayers would be footing the entire bill for the election, something The Marymount Plan, by its own election, would cost taxpayers.

But why stop with that fact, Mr Arnold. Are you going to claim that should Meaure P pass and The Marymount Plan begins that Marymount will pay the entire costs of the four traffic mitigation elements? Are you going to state that those mitigation elements would be stricken from The Marymount Plan, once approved?

Dr. Brophy and the Chairman of the Board of Trustees have known that Marymount College will be charged "their fair share" for traffic mitigation in the three initial mitigation elements plus they have volunteered to help pay for a fourth mitigation, the center median barrier.

But even after Marymount's "fair share" or contributions, the remaining costs of the four traffic mitigation elements still require funding.

How else would funding be provided if it didn't come from taxpayer funds? The answer is that taxpayer funds must be used for both The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and The Marymount Plan (Measure P).

How do I know this is true? Not a single representative of Marymount College has informed me that this is not true. I have never how the four elements could be completed without taxpayer funds. Marymount has been silent in this regard and Mr. Arnold as Chairman of the Board of Trustees knows this yet still refuses to address this issue.

Taxpayer funds will more than likely be required with The Marymount Plan as they are required with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

There is little generosity, in my opinion, to being caught with your pants down and finding a way to pull them back up. The generosity is from me in notifying Dr. Brophy and sir, you are welcome.

"The College has not and will not make personal attacks on community members and elected officials and we ask those individuals that are attacking the College and its Christian mission to stop.

"So it seems that our five City Council members and Ms. Morreale and Mr. Logan should not take it personally when they are sued by Dr. Brophy, President of Marymount College.

When misinformation, deceptive writings, false and misleading language is used, how can many not take it personally that it seems they are considered to have less intelligence than those producing the false and misleading misinformation.

The type of ads and the campaigning being done under Mr. Arnold's authority as Chairman of the Board of Trustees is a type that does not want voters to know the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth.

When advertisements state elements needing approval by voters so they can be built when they have already been approved for construction, what does that really say about how Marymount is treating our city's voters?

When an add seems to suggest that Councilman Misetich supports something he clearly does not AND Marymount representatives fail to acknowledge that and correct their deliberate errors, that says quite a bit about an entity Mr. Arnold is deeply involved with, doesn't it?

HOW DARE YOU place into your letter any reference to any religious mission when a judge has called upon Marymount to stop what it has been doing, yet it still continues to do it. There is absolutely nothing religious about placing dorms on campus or having the Campus Specific Plan voted on.

I have no need or wish to attack a religion I am not a member of and there is no defense for using any religion as a means to attract more voters to your cause.

Mr. Arnold, I oppose on-campus student housing because of safety reasons. I have written quite a bit about my issues and I have called on anyone, anywhere, at any time to debate me on the safety issues that I can not find mitigation for.

Had Dr. Brophy held to the 'high road' as he promised the City Council members and the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes he would do, then I am sure I would not be writing as much or with as much information as I am doing now.

As Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Marymount College I call upon you to either remove Dr. Brophy from his position or change the direction of the campaign and offer only the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I also call upon all members of the Board of Trustees to follow a higher path to enlighten voters about the two real reasons Measure P is on the ballot.

Everyone can read my assertions and the facts and comment on them at will.

As for attacking me, please read the post in my blog where I lay out my life and reveal just about everything there is to know about me, good and bad. I have already done all the attacking of me.

Mr. Arnold, I do not personally know you and so personally attacking you is not something I could or would do.

I will continue to comment, inform, and attack if necessary, your position as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Marymount College, because of the entirety of the campaign since mid-2009 and the many problems I see with misinformation, false and misleading statements and deceptive practicies I believe any securities dealer would run away from in a heartbeat.