A Post From A Contributor

From time to time, individuals offer a post for me to use on this blog.

Mr. Jim Gordon has offered a copy of a letter he wrote to Councilman Misetich after the Councilman made remarks regarding Marymount College's practices.

Mr. Gordon is a leader of Concerned Citizens' Coalition/Marymount Expansion (CCC/ME) where he has worked for at least 10 years dealing with all aspects of Marymount's wish to expand.

Mr. Gordon's collection and knowledge of true facts, references with documentation is unparralleled among those of us who oppose passage of Measure P, The Marymount Plan.

I have communicated back and forth with Mr. Gordon on many occasions and he represents a virtual library of information that is objective in fact and documentation, while there is acknowledgement that he and members of his group have been outspoken critics of The Marymount Plan, as it was previously considered The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, now approved by the City Council.

Here is Mr. Gordon's contribution:

"Anthony

Thank you for your outstanding remarks last night concerning misrepresentations by Marymount about your support for Proposition P.

This kind of public misrepresentation is not new to Dr. Brophy. On pages 10 & 12 of the Minutes of the May 26, 2009 Planning Commission Hearing, is just such an example. At some time prior to this meeting, Dr. Brophy had submitted to the City a list of Marymount supporters that included Commissioner Tomblin.

On page 10 of those minutes, "(Planning) Commissioner Tomblin read into the record a written response to a letter sent by CCC/ME requesting that he recuse himself from participating on this hearing item (Marymount Expansion) due to his name appearing, without his knowledge or consent, as a supporter of Marymount College. In the letter he states that he does not feel recusal is necessary, as he does not recall expressing support for the college or its projects in writing or otherwise. As he understands the situation, his name appears on a list of project supporters provided to the City by the College at the March 31, 2009 meeting. He does not recall ever agreeing to having his name included on a list of college supporters. Further, he has requested a copy of any documents the college has that they believed justified the inclusion of his name on their list of supporters, and the college has been unable to provide any records or documents explaining why his name appeared on this list. The only explanation he has received from the college is that they included his name because he was on another list compiled in 2001. The college has not supplied any details of the nature of that list. To the extent that he has indicated any support for Marymount College in 2001, such support would likely have been only general in nature. (etc.)

On page 12 of those Minutes (May 26, 2009 Planning Commission Hearing) "Dr. Michael Brophy (Marymount College) offered his apology to Commissioner Tomblin for mistakenly submitting his name as a supporter of the project."

In last Wednesday's CHOA meeting at which Councilman Stern spoke, along with Ken Dyda, Dr. Brophy was a last-minute and reluctant speaker who offered a short "rebuttal" to Councilman Sterns remarks about Proposition P. He (Brophy) was urged by supporters at that Meeting, to offer a contrary rationale as to why the College felt compelled to introduce Proposition P and why now it was still important for the College.

Sadly, Dr. Brophy's rationale was fatally flawed. First, he contradicted Doug's statement that the College had already achieved ALL of its Project components (submitted to the PC and CC). Dr. Brophy falsely claimed that the functionality of the Athletic Facility was "destroyed" by the PC and CC's approved plans. In that respect he simply repeated his erroneous remarks made May 26, 2009 to the PC (Minutes - page 14) stating that 10' was to be lopped off the building thereby eliminating 2,600 sq. ft. of weight room and other program spaces in the activity room. It was not. Instead, the approved plan calls for retention of the structure as proposed by the college with the ENTIRE footprint shifted 1' back (to the North) off away from the edge of steep topography.

The second and most egregious lie was Dr. Brophy's rationale claiming that the College never got a complete hearing from the PC on ALL of its proposed components, including the Residence Halls. That was the core rationale he claimed was the basis that the College now needed Proposition P. That is COMPLETELY false and disproven by the record of events from April 14, 2009 to May 26, 2009. In fact, it was the College that quietly, out of the public eye, that voluntarily withdrew Residence Halls from consideration BEFORE the PC could make a final review and decision on May 26th.

At the August 14, 2009 PC Hearing, there was a tie vote - 2-2 that meant the Findings to allow a grading permit for the Residence Halls on extreme slopes could not be made. Along with other PC decisions, this result was remanded to Staff to prepare appropriate Resolutions for the May 26, 2009 PC Hearing. (Minutes page 22, 23 & 24)

At that time and as incorporated in the Minutes (page 24) of that hearing, Assistant City Attorney David Snow specifically stated that such Resolutions for May 26, were NOT final decisions of the Planning Commission.

As an interesting note here, the College, in an April 14, 2009 letter to PC Chair Lewis, had specifically asked that the Residence Halls - as proposed by the College - be approved, and so "dorms" were still alive and well at that date, at least from Marymount's side.

Following these decisions, on April 24, 2009, the College's attorney Donald Davis wrote the Planning Staff to withdraw Residence Halls from any further consideration by the PC. This was followed by subsequent new plans and documentation of a redesigned "Revised" Project as well described in the Minutes of the May 26, 2009 PC Hearing - especially on pages 1, 2 & 3 of that Staff Report.

Thus, Dr. Brophy lied to the CHOA membership in attendance last Wednesday evening about ALL the reasons that the College has for Proposition P. I presume he has continued to spew these same falsehoods elsewhere to his supporters since. This is a desperate individual who otherwise has no leg to stand on and the truth of the matter does not support his statements to this community. It is a sad state of affairs when a College President is forced to rely on falsehoods and misrepresentations to make his point. Just as he has falsely accused drafters of the Rebuttal arguments to Proposition P, so has the College (supporters) been adjudicated as promoting false and misleading information in their ballot argument. This is a demonstration of a Pattern and Practice by the College and its supporters. Why?

Thank you for your outstanding presentation of the facts in your case.

Jim Gordon "