Disgusting. Pathetic. Sore Losers From A Supposed Institution of Higher Learning?

Well, I should have expected this, but so soon after the Special Election?

I think if you go back and read my postings over the last 24 hours or so, you should be able to determine that I didn't gloat about the outcome of Marymount's Special Election.

I truly believe I was more moderate in my writings about how our community needs to get back together because there are so many important issues that need our attention, intellect, care and concern, and our opinions going to our governors so that they can make the informed decisisons we elected them to do as they represent all of us.

So it is with much disgust and dismay that I must once again add comments to information provided, using a different color font.

I had hoped I would not feel the need to do this, but thie article below is wo amazing that I simply must not go without commenting on what has been published.

Bitter feelings linger over Measure P defeat in Rancho Palos Verdes
By Melissa Pamer Staff Writer, South Bay Daily Breeze.
Posted: 11/03/2010 07:38:32 PM PDT
Updated: 11/03/2010 07:51:25 PM PDT

In the aftermath of electoral defeat that followed an initiative effort funded by more than $1.3 million, Marymount College representatives attributed their loss to negative campaigning from their opponents.

The small Catholic college's Measure P, an initiative seeking approval of an expansion plan that included dormitories for 250 students, was rejected by 56.1 percent of voters.

Well actually and according to the Registrar Recorder's Web site, 55.09% of the slightly over 51% of registered voters voted "No" on Measure P.

"It is unfortunate for Marymount College and for the community of Rancho Palos Verdes that a campaign to obscure truth and hide the facts was successful," Brophy said.

This is so unbelievable yet so believable coming from Dr. Michael Brophy.


"Myopic" came out of the mouth of my wonderful wife the instant she read the statement.


I am not psychiatrist but I have to wonder about the stability of Dr. Brophy after reading the statement.

I guess asking Dr. Brophy about his promise to have Marymount pay for the Special Election that he made last May will not get a positive response from Marymount's President.

It looks like Dr. Brophy and his group promised to pay for a Special Election they lost by over 10 points.

Please don't bet that this promise will be fulfilled.

"We continue to believe that the Marymount Plan is the right choice for Rancho Palos Verdes. Moving forward, we will do what we do every day, put our best foot forward to serve our students and this community."

I think we now have been provide multiple exposures to what he means by "this community" and that it is all about Marymount's community and not the Rancho Palos Verdes community in general or even particular.

Most of the $50 million project can still go ahead because a similar plan - without dorms - was approved by the City Council earlier this year.

Also, I wouldn't bet on this happening, either. Since Marymount lost the ability to contract with a company to provide on-campus housing and provide revenue to Marymount

The approved buildings include a new library, athletic center, pool and other improvements on the college's 25-acre Palos Verdes Drive East campus, which is surrounded by single-family homes.

But it's not clear what the college's plans are now.

It is growing more clearer what Marymount will probably do in the near future and further out into the future.

First, I think Dr. Brophy will either resign on his own or be asked to resign by the members of the Board of Trustees who would just as soon throw Dr. Brophy under one of the shuttle buses in order to protect their reputations and work to restore some kind of good relationship with the residents of R.P.V.

Marymount can work towards packing the Cit Council with supportive members when in December, 2011, the majority of the members of the Coucil will be newly elected.

Although the clock has started on The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project which I support, I can imagine that Marymount officials would seek to stop the clock in attempts of prolonging the issues until it can find more favorable conditions for building on-campus housing for students.

It doesn't appear from reading this article that Marymount truly seeks to win friends and influence residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Brophy directed calls for comment to Marymount's veteran Los Angeles-based campaign consultant, Harvey Englander.

Marymount should seek at least partial repayment they provided to Englander and Associates for their apparent consideration that R.P.V. voters were just like voters in many other parts of the L.A. Basin....BIG MISTAKE, really huge blunder, in my view.

Englander said the "no" campaign, which he accused of law-breaking and lying, was more "despicable" than any he had seen in 15 years.

I guess he doesn't like looking in mirrors.

"I think that the `no' campaign was willing to stoop to a depth that an organization like Marymount College would never do," Englander said.

Asked if he perhaps misjudged Rancho Palos Verdes voters, Englander responded: "I did misjudge them in their capacity of being sold a bill of goods."

Actually a 1.5 Million Dollar 'bill of goods' is quite a bit larger than $40,000 or maybe Harvey has trouble counting other people's money.

Opponents of Measure P countered that the college's historic spending - which at the most recent reporting in campaign finance records amounted to nearly $46 per registered voter - had led to the initiative's defeat.

"I think the `no' side only told the truth. I personally think what killed them is the spending of so much money," said Lois Karp, head of Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount Expansion, a neighborhood group that has organized to oppose dormitories for more than a decade.

"Once it got over $1 million ... people began to think: Something else is going on here. I honestly think that was their downfall and I thank them for it," Karp said.

Councilman Doug Stern, who co-wrote a ballot argument against Measure P, called the outcome a "train wreck" for Marymount.

He said voters had adhered to the founding goals of a city incorporated in 1973 to limit dense coastal development.

"I'm very, very pleased with the outcome. I think it reaffirms that which the voters did 37 years ago. They want land-use decisions to be made by their elected officials ... who study the issues carefully and ... reflect the values of our community."

The college's initiative came after an arduous planning process that began in 2000 and was stopped repeatedly when Marymount changed its plans and the city responded with requests for more environmental studies.

See Michael, we did tell the truth, didn't we?

In March, just before the City Council was set to vote on the plans, Marymount announced that it wanted voters to weigh the issue.

Council members said the measure was an assault on the city's "self-rule."

Following a divisive race that bombarded the electorate with mailers, advertisements and robocalls, about 51.2 percent of the city's nearly 27,600 registered voters cast ballots on the initiative.

The No on P side spent about $40,000, according to campaign records, a figure that Englander contended was far understated.

Opponents, including a unanimous City Council, cautioned that the election was just one episode in an ongoing Marymount saga.

Stern noted that the college pursued Measure P because it wanted more than what was granted by the council, which never considered dormitories. Student housing had been withdrawn from the college's application last year in the face of opposition on the Planning Commission.

Under city planning code, the college may again apply to construct dormitories.

It's unclear if or when that would happen. While waiting to find out, Mayor Steve Wolowicz and others said that they're hoping that election-induced rifts will soon be healed.

"I'm sorry we had to go through this exercise," Wolowicz said, "but I think the mayor and the council has to focus not on the victory but continued management of pressing issues in front of us ... and to work toward reconciliation, because this did put strain upon us.

"I hope, quite frankly, that there are no more surprises."

melissa.pamer@dailybreeze.com