Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Intimidation By Cheesecake???

It has been brought to my attention that a certain establishment of higher learning has had a lawyer write a letter stating that there may have been a violation of the Brown Act by members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.

The letter, minus the author's signature can be found at the bottom of this post.

While it is true that three members of the City Council attended the a meeting at the same time, in the same place, what is not true is that the three members talked together about any city business.

Only one member of the City Council got up to address the attendees of the meeting.

The Brown Act prohibits more than two members of our City Council from talking about city business or issues when outside a legally held meeting of the City Council.

Two members of our five-member City Council can talk about city issues and participate as members of sub-committees. Three or more members cannot.

As it happened, three members attended a meeting at a very fancy resort overlooking the blue Pacific Ocean.

That resort offers desserts that are, to put is as best as I heard, "to die for".

While one Council member remained inside the meeting, one other member left to look at the dessert table and possibly choose a treat to eat.

The third Council member also left the room at a different time than the member who went for a treat.

The Council member who searched for the dessert chose a piece of cheesecake that he found, at first bite, to be something thoroughly enjoyable.

As the dessert enjoying Council member headed back into the meeting and enjoying his treat he was eating, he passed the other Council member who was going in the opposite direction.

The words exchanged by the two dealt with the quality and enjoyment of the cheesecake now heading towards the digestive tract of the pleased Council member. There was absolutely no city business discussed between the two of them even though it would have been legal for them to do so out of earshot or discussion with the third Council member.

And, since I have never read about or got up to speak to the City Council about matters involving cheesecake, I am fairly certain that cheesecake is not something we have seen on any agenda of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council UNLESS some was dropped off a fork onto a document by reason of slippage.

None of that matters of course because an attorney representing or supporting that certain establishment of higher learning saw the two Council members' encounter and wrote a letter stating that there was an inference that a criminal complaint could be filed with the District Attorney of the County of Los Angeles dealing with charges of violating the Brown Act........all because one Council member stated his adoration of his piece of cheesecake.

It looks to me what we have here is a certain establishment's of higher learning may be attempting to use intimidation against our elected officials.

Now for me, when that establishment tries in my opinion, to intimidate my representatives, I am not pleased and I take that as also an intimidation against the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes who elected the members to represent us.

Since that lawyer and supporters of that establishment of higher learning seek to allow themselves the rights and responsibilities to deal with that establishment at they see fit, in my opinion, I guess all of them can eat all the cheesecake they can get their hands on and talk freely, with their mouths full as they talk about their establishment's plan.

Now, it seems to me that this may be a tempest in a teapot or some crumbs over baked goods, but it may also illustrate something very wrong about the establishment, its agents and supporters, and their tactics attempting to get their way...no matter what.

How should some of us respond?

I think this post allows for humor at this point. It also demonstrates that there is information passed around by more than just those directly involved in incidents and activities.

It means that intimidation of any kind will find the light of day to fight against it. This time humor was attempted. Next time it might not be humorous at all.

It also may be illustrative of that certain establishment's agents in how far they might be willing to go to get what they want.

It is still only June and an election with a ballot measure involving that certain establishment of higher learning, will appear on the ballot. Is it nice and responsible for the agents to already try what some have already called 'intimidation' against opponents of their measure?

As far as I am concerned and using assertions I have already posted, I am feeling more secure that those agents are going about proving my assertions without me having to do much besides reporting their evidence of proof.

Thanks! Some agents are possibly doing work I don't really have to do now.

I guess I can work harder trying to find someone willing to debate me about the safety of having up to 250 students, almost all below the age of 23, living above switchbacks along a two-lane hilly road and having the neighborhood where their housing is being planned being totally unsuitable for high density residences in a low density land use area.

I am not afraid that I do not have the luxury to be able to intimidate anyone at that certain establishment. I am not really willing to try that kind of stuff, anyway. I definitely don't need to because they are basically proving all my points and demonstrating some tactics I rather prefer to not have associated with me.

I do like cheesecake, though. But with my new eating plan, only a tiny sliver of that wonderful dessert can pass between my teeth.

I guess I'll just have to offer the rest of my piece to whichever Council member I pass by, But I will make sure they don't talk to me about city matters.

Only cheesecake.

You can click over the images of the letter to enlarge it. But you probably don't really want to read it, do you?





Monday, June 28, 2010

Bits and Pieces 2

I noticed on the agenda for the Tuesday June 29, 2010 meeting of the City Council, there is no mention of the Council's Resolution opposing The Marymount Plan's Initiative.

I haven't received word back as to whether there is any problem with the Council members working with their sub-committee to draft the Resolution. I guess voting the Resolution up or down may happen at the first meeting in July.
___________________________________________
To be a Charter City or not to be one, is a question set for discussion on June 29, during the City Council meeting.

The agenda carries a link to the Staff Report and exhibits that are published so we can learn what a Charter City is, how it works, and some of the positives and negatives about becoming a Charter City.

According to the Report, a vote by our residents on whether Rancho Palos Verdes becomes a Charter City or not is tentatively scheduled for March 8, 2011 and it would be combined with an election for Community College Trustees.

The cost for having the combined election is estimated to be between $70,000-$90,000. The cost of having a stand-alone election could be between $100,000-$110,000, or perhaps even more.

My first consideration about the potential measure is that the primary funding for all aspects of becoming a Charter City, including the costs of the election, would better serve our residents if supporters of the concept open an account and contributions fund the processes rather than using city funds, if it is legal to do so.

At this point and until I learn much more, I would probably contribute to such a fund because I want Rancho Palos Verdes to become a forward-planning city and one that uses the best means and ideas to serve the most number of residents.

It has also been brought to my attention that becoming a Charter City could also mean that our City Council could vote to keep measures like The Marymount Plan's Initiative off the ballot.

I don't feel anywhere near a majority of voters knows enough objective facts to base a responsible, reasonable, or realistic vote on Marymount's Initiave and that is another reason I feel it must be voted down, in November.

Perhaps a Charter City study group made up of a sub-committee of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, along with business leaders and representatives of all areas of our city should come together and discuss, debate, and hash out wording of a proposed City Charter and ballot measure.

All this and quite a bit of educating the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes must be done prior to about January, 2011 and we hit the half-way mark of 2010 this Thursday.

Would six months be enough time to do all the work necessary to allow an educated electorate decide on whether we become a Charter City? This question is still very puzzling to me.
____________________________________________
I have heard not one peep from anyone representing Marymount College to any of my recent posts. I also have not seen any new information coming out of Marymount College supporting their Initiative.

The election is four month and 5 days away. Perhaps Marymount's marketing team is holding out to blitz all of us closer to the election date.

The city's Web site has The Marymount Plan and its Initiative for you to read.
___________________________________________
Last Wednesday, at 4:55 PM, Terri and I walked into the new Denny's on Western Avenue.

As we were greeted and shown to our booth, I noticed there was only one other couple sitting in the entire seating area of Denny's.

By the time we left, there was a family of four and a third couple sitting down.

That's ten customers at the start of the 5:00 dinner hour.

We walk through the Marie Calender's restaurant parking lot when we go to or come from Denny's. That Wednesday, there were more customers in Marie's than there were inside Denny's at that time.
____________________________________________
The opening of Amalfitano Bakery draw closer and closer. The permanent sign on the Western Plaza tower is up. The lower part of the windows have writing on them.

I haven't read about an opening date yet.
___________________________________________
Tuesday is our last day for twice a week trash pickup. It will be quite a change for the Grahams' and I.

We have always had twice a week pickup since John Shubin and Sons picked up our trash, before Western Waste Management.

Today, the Mira Vista neighborhood received their new trash bins. Most of us on my block opted for the large green waste bin and the medium size gray bin. Only one neighbor got the smallest gray bin, on our block and we seem to be the only ones who got more than one green waste bin. We will use the green waste bins.

Through my growing up, trash was picked up on Mondays and Thursdays, using Shubin's trucks. Our neighborhood had those same days for a spell with Western Waste. Western Waste changed up to Tuesdays and Fridays. So now we will lose Tuesdays but have larger green and blue bins, along with a black one.

The hardest thing will probably be trying to throw away trash cans. That has always been a dilly because trash collectors don't always know when a trash can is for carrying trash or is trash itself.
__________________________________________
The area of the post will be changed once I learn more about Tuesday's City Council Meeting.

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Don't Vote No Just To Harm Marymount

If any of you believe I am out to see the end of Marymount College, you are sorely mistaken and I support The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

I believe Marymount's administration, supporters, current and former students now have the opportunity to begin an expansion project that I feel is needed and has already won approval by the representatives of all of the Rancho Palos Verdes residents.

Should Marymount's team goes forward with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, using the timeline approved by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, I feel a wonderful campus experience, in a location where learning can be accommodated and educational growth can soar, is something that can be completed within the eight year time frame, if only Marymount's team chooses to go forward.

Unfortunately, I am not optimistic that Marymount's team wants to go forward with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project. They have offered an initiative that would forever change the scope and dynamics of land use, oversight, and restrictions of our residents' representatives to seek the best outcomes for our city.

I am certain that the vast majority of voters must cast a "NO" vote when voting on the initiative on November 2, 2010.

What I don't want to find out is that many of them vote "NO" just to punish Marymount and everyone involved with that College because of issues and other matters related to what has happened over the last ten years.

Please vote "NO" because there is already a 'voter approved' Project Marymount can build with.

"Voter approved" in my terms is the fact that Rancho Palos Verdes voters went to the polls during several elections and voted to place the five current City Council member in place to represent them in city matters, including land use and development issues.

The voters approved our City Council members to act in their behalf when they elected or reelected them.

I don't understand when 'some people' do not wish to follow the aspects that 'we the people of Rancho Palos Verdes' elected our representatives to represent us, even in matters objected to by those 'some people'.

I know Marymount's representatives have the right to create a ballot measure, but I do not believe they should be provided with The Marymount Plan which was not approved by our residents' representatives, the ones our residents voted into office in the first place.

I believe if Marymount wishes to come before a different set of City Council members, beginning in December, 2011 and try to have those Council Members approve The Marymount Plan's objectives, then Marymount must be provided that right.

But to circumvent the will of the residents of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes with their election of their representatives is not something I approve of and voters must strongly oppose, in my opinion.

Marymount's team has been given almost complete approval to follow through with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, from what that team initially requested about ten years ago, to what is now found as code, on the books, and available for Marymount's team to begin.

But I am not so sure they ever wanted to have their college's expansion without on-campus student residential and I think we have some evidence that this statement is true.

Has anyone heard Marymount's President, Dr. Michael Brophy make any statements sounding anything like 'Marymount College will go forward with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project if the initiative fails to win approval by voters in November'?

I know I haven't heard him say anything remotely similar to that.

What I have heard Dr. Brophy claim is that voters WILL approve the initiative, almost as a statement of fact. This is a fact that is not true, at this point and really has not a very strong base for it being even a theory, by my thoughts.

Marymount wants a dramatic change in land use in Rancho Palos Verdes and that is probably the strongest topic that founded our city and has guided it thus far and it will be, long into the future.

We must allow our residents their right to elect representatives who are responsible to represent our residents in land use matters that affect the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.

If our residents' rights to be represented by responsible, reasonable, realistic, and respectful City Council members is made moot by a developer's initiative to override the will of the City Council and the residents who elected them to office, where are the reasons remaining to even have a city, as far as land use issues go?

Let's support Marymount's development using the already approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

Those of us who do so are factually stating they do not wish to see Marymount College fail. We also demonstrate our approval of allowing those representatives we elected to represent us, use their best judgement and interests in our residents to decide land use issues and other very important issues.

I also support Marymount's expansion using The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project because it is much safer than many aspects of The Marymount Plan.

Safety of the students, faculty, staff, visitors, local residents, and all of our residents and visitors needs to be paramount with all voters and residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.

I can not support an initiative that places into the municipal code of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes items and guidelines I find to offer less safety to the folks already mentioned, above.

I also think it is unsafe and unwise to expect the majority of registered voters in Rancho Palos Verdes, having enough real knowledge about the issues and the concept that if Marymount can do it, why can't another entity attempt it.

The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project is safer and offers Marymount the chance to begin their expansion much sooner than trying to have an initiative supersede it.

Land use. Safety. An already approved expansion project. The potential for a bell to be rung but never un-rung in our city. These are just four reasons I hope all voters in Rancho Palos Verdes will go to the voting booth on November 2 and vote "No" on The Marymount Plan's initiative measure.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

A Meeting Without ...............Me

I guess it will be a bit of good news for Dr. Michael Brophy, the President of Marymount College when I miss the upcoming Rancho Palos Verdes City Council meeting where I expect the resolution creating the Resolution to oppose the Marymount Plan's initiative will have its wording completed and approved so voters can go to the polls on November 2, 2010 and vote "NO" on the measure in percentages much higher than 51%, I believe.

Terri won tickets to a touring company performance of the Broadway musical, "In the Heights" the 2008 Tony winner for a musical.

We attended a radio segment where four members of the cast performed on KOST between 8:00 and 8:30 AM and my clapping hands should have been heard on the radio.

The full performance will be this coming Tuesday beginning about an hour after the City Council meeting begins.

What I am sure many folks will do is get up and speak on the wording of the Resolution and why voters must turn back Marymount's attempts to gain power and authority over the representatives the voters of Rancho Palos Verdes chose to represent them by being members of the City Council.

Mayor Pro Tem Tom Long believes the issue is about land use and he is correct.

The land use part of The Marymount Plan seeks to set the College apart from the rest of the neighborhood and create a Specific Plan Zone that only Marymount needs to follow, over and above what other land owners in the area are allowed to do and also set Marymount apart from the low density residential properties to become a high density property.

The Marymount Plan, if approved, would also alter the city's General Plan because building residence halls on the Palos Verdes Drive East campus would violate the General Plan in place. That play has worked well for the highest percentage of Rancho Palos Verdes residents and as of today and without a variance from the City Council, all properties must conform to the city's General Plan.

Marymount doesn't want that for anyone other than Marymount.

But I suggest it is much more than just a land use issue.

There are credibility issues Marymount officials have, as yet, not been willing to address.

There are marketing practices Rancho Palos Verdes residents had shoved down their mail slots that have statements I have demonstrated simply are not completely true.

The biggest issue for me in opposing the construction of residence halls on the campus is one of safety.

In one Marymount ad, there was a printed statement about students living in Marymount's off-campus housing needing to drive their vehicles to and from the campus each day and a negative safety mention because of dorm students driving to and from the campus during the semesters recently and in the past.

The actual facts are that there are shuttle buses that have scheduled trips between the off campus housing sites and the campus and Marymount's administration has always discouraged residents of the off campus housing from driving to and from Marymount by using the shuttles, with trained drivers piloting them, in the journeys to and from the campus.

If every one of the approximately 416 students that lived in off-campus housing during the 2009-2010 school year had driven their own cars to and from the campus, the parking lot and all the streets would have been crowded with cars.

As it was and probably will be, there was hardly ever an hour in which classes were being conducted that at least several spaces in the Marymount parking lot were empty.

So, even the Environmental Impact Report paid for by Marymount proved that many, if not most of those living in the two off-campus housing areas Marymount owned, did not bring their vehicles to and from the college.

While I do not share Mr. Jeffrey Lewis' claim that perhaps Ponte Vista developers might want to have an initiative about Ponte Vista on an R.P.V. ballot, I do agree with he and others about the possibility that should the initiative pass, others with other issues they are not happy with our City Council opposing, might float ballot measures to keep those we elected, from using the authority we gave them to represent us.

Money and the possible secrecy by Marymount as to how it would finance its Marymount Plan is also a very important issue to think about.

If Marymount wins in November, we could possibly see a third-party entity pay for and build on-campus housing and the authority Marymount has over actions by students living on campus, would be handed off to another entity that might not follow standard most folks expect from a religion-owned college.

Yes, it is land use. But I think that is just one huge bit of a really humongous puzzle and we won't see daylight until the initiative goes down in a blazing defeat.

I and others also find it smug for Dr. Brophy to get up and speak before the City Council and state, as a matter of fact, that Rancho Palos Verdes will vote to support The Marymount Plan.

I used to hear speeches like that coming from one, Robert. H. Bisno and now, how's that Ponte Vista and bankruptcy thing working for you these days, Bob?

What I would love to ask Dr. Brophy on November 3, 2010 is how is that vote working for you this morning, Dr. Brophy? I would love even more to know that the initiative was turned back by voters of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

I Just Couldn't Help Looking

The main opposition group dealing with Marymount College's expansion issues has documentation stating the 'overall' and 'California' ranking of Marymount College.

I hadn't seen any comparison to other two year colleges, either public or private to compare Marymount to.

That all ended late last night and until just a few minutes ago.

Here is a list of thirteen two-year colleges with nine being public institutions and four being private institutions.

The private colleges were selected because they are in Southern California and the public colleges were selected because of their proximity to the Marymount Campus.

The source for the rankings supplied within this post is www.stateuniversity.com and in my research I found a huge number of colleges and universities listed on the site.

The site also includes demographic, financial aid information, location, and other information.

Here are the ranking I chose to use beginning with the highest rated college 'overall' which means, within the United State.

1. West Coast University. A Private College with only 285 students stated.
It ranks 1,393 overall and 95Th in California.

2. Santa Ana City College. A Public Community College.
It ranks 1,414 overall and 99Th in California.

3. Long Beach City College. A Public Community College.
It ranks 1,516 overall and 106Th in California.

4. El Camino Community College. A Public Community College.
It ranks 1,521 overall and 107Th in California.

5. Mt. San Antonio Community College. A Public Community College.
It ranks 1,623 overall and 123rd in California.

6. Cerritos Communtiy College. A Public Community College.
It ranks 1,637 overall and 126Th in California.

7. Moorpark Community College. A Public Community College.
It ranks 1,720 overall and 135Th in California.

8. Chaffey College. A Public Community College.
It ranks 1,895 overall and 164Th in California.

9. Fremont College. A Private Junior College in Cerritos, California.
It ranks 2,002 overall and 177Th in California.

10. California College, San Diego. A Private Junior College.
It ranks 2,043 overall and 183rd in California.

11. Santa Monica Community College. A Public Community College.
It ranks 2,122 overall and 192 in California.

12. Los Angeles Harbor College. A Public Community College.
It ranks 2,221 overall and 208Th in California

13. Marymount College. A Private Junior College.
It ranks 2,315 overall and 218 in California.

If you don't believe I recorded the rankings correctly, you are welcome to visit the site yourself.

I think this illustrates several things with one of them being the question of how a college so far down the list compared to other private and public colleges, can manage to have supporters donate for an expansion on a campus of a college that ranks far below so many other local schools and ranks lower than even its closest 2-year college neighbor, Los Angeles Harbor College.

I guess we can now all see which schools offer better educations than other schools.

Monday, June 21, 2010

Bits and Pieces 1

Since I have had "Odds and Ends" as a weekly post on my blog for Ponte Vista at San Pedro, I thought I would begin a weekly post to keep up with The Marymount Plan and its Initiative.

So, in an effort to help tear apart all the bits of misinformation, lack of candor, probable evasiveness, deceptive marketing opined by some, that is my reasoning for "Bits".

"Pieces" came to mind when I thought about the similarities and differences between all the pieces of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project that I strongly support and the pieces of The Marymount Plan that differ and I completely oppose.

To some, there are up to 162 different bits and pieces they want Marymount to acknowledge and respond to.

To others, it may simply be solely about on-campus housing at Marymount.

To me, I oppose on-campus housing and I have written about my opposition on many posts and my opposition comes from safety concerns.

I also have taken up my armor and sword to go into battle with the piece of The Marymount Plan that deals with their, dare I write it, demand that a new municipal code be approved by voters to allow them power and authority over our community that just about any other private or public entity has, save for our own city government and city services.
____________________________________________
Over this past weekend I think I have been able to utilize some very knowledgeable sources and resources provided to me by them and others to provide a possible reason why Marymount College's administration, Board of Trustees, and Marymount supporters are so active in seeking voter approval of the ballot measure specifically created for and benefiting only Marymount College.

The posts illustrated a possibility that still hasn't been confirmed or denied by anyone representing Marymount College that they would have the opportunity to enter into agreements with an outside company which would build, maintain, and manage on-campus housing without cost to Marymount and its supporters and still provide a monthly income to Marymount College's administration to use as that group wishes.

I have not been unsuccessful in learning about 'auxiliary services' contracted from outside companies to conduct business and operations on at least several colleges I have found via the Internet.

Whether it is leasing out facilities on a short-term basis or building, operating, and maintaining campus and dormitory food services, there are several companies that have contracts with various institutions of higher learning to provide goods and services without income from the college and with actually incoming flowing into the coffers of the colleges and universities that have contracts that can also include the construction and operation of a book store.
___________________________________________
I believe I have now discovered how representatives of Marymount College may have been planning all along, to find ways to finance The Marymount Plan and now I realize that the methods possibly being currently considered by Dr. Brophy and others are not allowable under the guidelines and plans of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

If a college can enter into long term contracts for on-campus student housing and also different types of contracts for the use of the campus' facilities, and there is a new municipal code that restricts enforcement of laws and regulations that residents and other business have to live under, I now can see why Marymount's President and other representatives are so forward in their marketing attempts yet seemingly unwilling to address many of the issues involved with The Marymount Plan.
_________________________________________

Outsourcing Authority and Responsibility, First Post

Here is an article I found on http://www.forbes.com/. It is almost four years old.

The New Business Of College
Hamburger University
Dave Serchuk 09.14.06, 1:40 PM ET

Ah, college. Parties, pals, studying and grabbing lunch at Burger King.
If that last part surprised you, you aren't in college. Universities, hurting for funds and overwhelmed with waves of new students, face budget crunches all around. In response, they’ve scrambled to afford basic necessities like housing, food and bookstores. And frequently they’ve outsourced these functions to private industry.

Today 91% of schools outsource at least one function, up from 82% in 2000; 13% outsource over five services. The most popular areas for outsourcing are food service (61%), bookstores (52%) and the endowment fund (41%).

Robert Hassmiller, head of the National Association of College Auxiliary Services, estimates total revenues from outsourced collegiate operations at $5 billion annually, with housing growing fastest. “Privatization of housing is where bookstores and food service operations were four years ago,” he said.

It’s easy to see why. Colleges currently house just 28% of all students and face a big boost in demand as 80 million children turn 18 over the next decade, said Michael Zaransky, co-chief of Prime Property Investors, a student housing builder/operator. So schools are partnering with private firms to stem the tide. Norbert Dunkel, vice president of the Association of College and University Housing Officers International, said that a decade ago virtually no universities outsourced housing. Today up to 10% do.

One firm riding this wave is American Campus Communities (nyse: ACC - news - people ), which builds, owns and operates student housing. In 2005 it had profits of $10 million off sales of $88 million. Client schools include the University of Colorado, Texas A&M and the University of Houston.

One ACC signature complex is the Vista del Campos Apartments at the University of California, Irvine. Resembling something out of Falcon Crest--complete with luxuriant swimming pools and high-tech athletic areas--the complex cost ACC $104 million, said Richard Orr, campus asset management director at the school. All UCI provided was the land, netting $700,000 a year in rent. In return, ACC collects student rents ranging from $450 to $1,000 a month, for 3,050 beds. “This was a way to have someone else do the actual construction with their own financing,” said Orr.

Taking a different tack is Educational Housing Services, a nonprofit housing firm in New York. EHS serves schools including Baruch College, New York Law School and Pace University, and houses 2,800 students during the school year. Revenues reached $30 million in 2005, up 25% from 2004. CEO George Scott said that by 2009 EHS plans to open “the largest residence building in the country,” in Queens, housing 1,600 to 1,800 students.

But schools are doing more than just building dorms; they’re also partnering with businesses to make old dorms more efficient. One firm doing this is Sodexho Alliance (nyse: SDX - news - people ), a multinational that helps universities get more favorable natural gas rates, update boilers and build buildings with more durable materials. In one instance, Sodexho helped Scripps and Whittier Colleges, both in California, get favorable rates with utility companies by advising them to turn off their plants in the summer, when energy demand is highest. Albert Allen, president of education facilities management at Sodexho, said the schools each save $400,000 annually as a result.

Sodexho also performs other outsourcing, including catering, housekeeping and building maintenance for schools including the MIT, Arizona State University and Northwestern University. Dr. Ronald Vaughn, president of the University of Tampa, said he has used Sodexho over the past 15 years for catering, building management and construction and estimates initial savings of 20% a year.

Another student services giant is Aramark (nyse: RMK - news - people ), which provides food services for 600 schools in the U.S., including the University of Florida, Boston University and the University of Minnesota. Aramark doesn’t break out figures for its university operations, but its U.S. food related wing netted revenues of $7.1 billion in 2005, up 3.6% over 2004, and profits of $403 million, up 7%.

Hassmiller of the NACAS figures that, since 2000, 20% to 25% of schools have outsourced their food service operations, up from 5%.

National restaurant chains like Domino's Pizza (nyse: DPZ - news - people ), Subway, McDonald's (nyse: MCD - news - people ) and Burger King (nyse: BKC - news - people ) are all a common part of campus life as well. While they're not engaging in outsourcing, they frequently operate on-campus eateries, and they say the college market is an important one.

Domino's in particular has a long history of catering to students. "The roots of Domino's are in college," says spokeswoman Dana Harville. The first Domino's store, created in 1960, delivered pizza to students at Eastern Michigan University, and of the chain's 5,103 stores, 450 cater to students or are located near campuses. Domino's declined to discuss revenue totals for campus stores, but Harville says that while an average Domino's store has revenue of $650,000 a year, the college stores trend higher, in part because these stores stay open later to cater to late-night munchies.

Subway, by contrast, is still relatively new to the college world. Although it has 210 locations at universities in the U.S., they contribute less than 1% of revenues earned by the firm. Even so, the chain is interested in increasing this business and is creating 36 new stores a year in schools, says Elizabeth Rolfe, director of new business development.

Of course, efficient food service means little for schools that have no books. In this area, too, more and more schools outsource. The National Association of College Stores says 34% of campus bookstores currently outsource to private firms; outsourced stores in total have risen 22% since 2001, to 1,570. Here, the biggest names are Follett Higher Education Group and Barnes & Noble College Bookstores. Follett has 729 stores, an increase of 12% since 2001. B&N, a private, separate entity from the national chain, has 550 stores, up 28%. Typically, bookstore contracts involve staff management, store upkeep and book ordering.

Over the past several years, B&N has opened high profile “Collegiate Superstores” for schools including Yale University, the University of Pennsylvania and Ohio State University. The stores resemble typical B&N superstores, complete with Starbucks (nasdaq: SBUX - news - people ), but also stock school merchandise like textbooks and sweatshirts. They typically return a guaranteed annual commission to the school ranging from 6% - 11% of revenues annually, said Max Roberts, president of B&N College Booksellers. The company does not disclose revenues, but Roberts said the firm’s revenue and profit growth is 10% a year.

Follett is a quieter operation, seamlessly blending in with the university bookstore. Often students won’t know they’re there. For 2005, total sales equaled $2.2 billion, up 10% over 2004, although the privately held firm wouldn’t disclose profits. Follett schools include Notre Dame, Stanford University and the University of Florida.

Tom Christopher, president of Follett, said one advantage his firm offers is economies of scale. One example: The company's national used textbook database allows used books to be shipped to local stores, saving students 50% per book. “That’s an advantage we have that an individual standalone institution can’t match,” said Christopher.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I know Marymount must remain a non-profit institution, no matter what. I think, however, there could be a no-profit claim if they lease out on-campus housing and other operations and services and put the income back into funding their expansion.

But what might happen if the expansion project is completely or largely funded by leasing out physical plant items, some operations and some services?

Might Marymount find such success with the income to actually grow its student population to the point it will demand a higher maximum permanent seating count at its campus.

What price might residents have to pay for the success of Marymount College?

What responsibilities and authority might Marymount's administration retain if they lease out facilities and services to companies who might not have the same set of standards or 'student codes' Marymount students continue to have trouble following, at times?

If more than 793 full-time students wish to attend Marymount and they have wealthy parents, what then?

If The Marymount Plan's Initiative is approved and their plan is accomplished, what could stop them from creating another Initiative to seek approval for more students and more on-campus housing?

I haven't pondered what the potential result of the approval of the Initiative might be if Marymount returns to being a successful college by increasing its academic rating of 218th in California and finding more wealthy parents wanting to send their kids to Marymount.

While I support The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, I would like to have our city governors retain the right to vote to allow or deny Marymount any future growth in student populations and possible housing because they must also take into consideration the city's General Plan and the needs and wants of all of the residents, not just folks supporting Marymount College.

There must be a limit set as far as how much is too much at the College's campus on Palos Verdes Drive East. I believe that The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project brings in place a way for Marymount to improve academically and demonstrate whether they could be granted further expansion in student population and/of facilities somewhere down the road. This should only happen, in my opinion, when Marymount demonstrates it is willing to follow the rules approved of thus far and not seek to override the will of the residents who voted in our current City Council to represent them in important matters like matters relating to Marymount College.

Complete Fiction, But Only To A Point, Possibly

Below, please find a purely fictional Central Reservations request for a college that doesn't exist.
But if that college actually existed and, if a certain municipal code was approved by voters in the college's city that would allow the college to lease out facilites, good, and services just like Marymount College just may be able to do should their Initiative pass, perhaps Marymount would begin distributing forms somewhat similar to what is fiction below.
M RICHARDS COLLEGE
OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CENTRAL RESERVATIONS,
Address: Overlooking the Tarapaca Landslide area
Along Palos Verdes Drive East, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275

DATE:

TO:

FROM: CENTRAL RESERVATION,
OFFICE OF VICE PRESIDENT FOR ADMINISTRATIONS

RE: RENTAL QUESTIONAIRE REQUIRED INFORMATION FROM ORGANIZATION’S
REQUESTING THE USE OF HUNTER FACILITIES
_______________________________________________________________________________________

Welcome to M RICHARDS College. We would like to take this opportunity to offer you a tour of your facilities and would be happy to meet with you to plan your upcoming event.

However, before we are able to confirm the availability of the facility you have requested to rent, we require the following information on your organization’s letterhead.

1. The name of your organization.
2. The name of the contact person.
3. The date & time of your proposed meeting/event.
4. The location of your proposed meeting/event.
5. The type of event you are planning with the name of speakers, performers, etc.
6. Is your organization a non-profit organization? Yes/No
7. Title (of the contact person).
8. Address (of the contact person).
9. Email address of the contact person.
10. Phone number (of the contact person/of your organization).
11. Fax number (of the contact person/of your organization).
12. Purpose of the rental/services.
13. The number of spectators
14. If an admission fee is to be charged and, if so, the amount of the fee.
15. The intended purpose of the proceeds.
16. Areas requested – Please check all that apply:
 Main Gymnasium Usage:
 Training Gymnasium _____Weekdays
 Wrestling Combative Room _____ Weekends
 Dance/Fencing Room _____ Evenings
 Auxiliary Rooms
 Conference Room
 Locker Rooms
 Swimming Pool
Tennis Courts
 Swimming Pool-Deck

17. Equipment requested – Please check all that apply:
 Banners Media Services:
 Scoreboards______ _____ TV/Radio Coverage
 Bleachers/Seating _____ _____ Sound System
 Electricity/Power/Amps _____ _____ PA/Announcer
 Tables # _____ _____ Microphone
 Chairs # _____ _____ Wireless Internet
 Ticket Booth (Table)
 Lifeguard/Host
 Cones/Balls, Net #_____

18. References of other Rental Space:
Company Name Address Phone # Contact Person Date of last event
1. ____________________________________________________________________________

2. ____________________________________________________________________________

3. ____________________________________________________________________________

19. The date of the organization’s founding.
20. The name and address of the organization’s principal officers.
21. The schedule of the organization’s regular meetings.
NOTE: All Mechanical/Electrical needs, Public Safety, Housekeeping, Host/Supervision, Technical Fees will be additional charges.

Any additional or set-up requests? ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

This information must be submitted to Central Reservations at least (60) days in advance of the program. As soon as the information is received, your request will be processed promptly. Information may be verified.

Please read the attached Rental Information Packet & if you would like a tour of our facilities or require any additional information, please call The Office of Central Reservations @ 555-853-1212

Please make deposit check out to Marphiles Entertainment, BBW

Thank you.

DATE SENT: ________________
DATE ON FILE: ________________
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is only one of three forms I found being used by a real college somewhere in the U.S.A.
Although that college rents out or leases facilities on its own, that doesn't necessarily mean that a private company couldn't contract with Marymount to provide similar services on Marymount's behalf.

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Forward Selling Or Perhaps Forward Leasing?

Very little has been revealed by Marymount's President Dr. Michael Brophy as to how Marymount might acquire funds to build on-campus housing and provide other income to help finance other pieces of The Marymount Plan.

Since the ballot measure has now been approved for voting on with the November 2, 2010 General Election cycle, I think it is time to consider in greater detail at least one option that the approval of the Initiative would allow Marymount to do.

I do feel all potential voters need the opportunity to learn how Marymount might fund construction of its Marymount Plan, some time before voters are asked to decide on whether to vote Yes or No on the Special Election portion of the General Election ballot.

Now, let's look at a possible scenario where a small college might seek approval to build on-campus housing and how it might find funding and other income to build such housing and possibly gain some other income to finance other projects and operations.

First, let's all go look at the following Web site, O.K.?

http://www.americancampus.com/servuces/financing/ace

Back yet? Fine, let's proceed.

I will use the example set by the University of New Mexico as a case study if you will, on how another, but much smaller college might use similar means to find financing and income from sources other than what that college's administration has not been willing to reveal.

Here is information provided via a May 11, 2010 item in what I believe is the UNM paper or newsletter:

American Campus Communities is one of the nation's largest developers, owners and managers of high-quality student housing communities. We led the industry to a new plateau in 2004 when we became the first publicly traded student housing REIT (NYSE: ACC). Since 1996, we've developed more than $2.3 billion in properties for our own account and our university clients, and we have acquired in excess of $2 billion in student housing assets. Also, we've become a national leader in third-party development and management of on-campus student housing, having been awarded the development of 53 on-campus projects (in addition to our 11 projects developed off campus). Our commitment to our college and university partners is evidenced in our strong ongoing relationships. Almost half of our on-campus developed communities (24 of 53) came from additional projects awarded to us after we had successfully completed a previous community.

A deep-rooted understanding of the industry drives the American Campus team. Seven members of our corporate staff at the level of vice president and above began their careers as resident assistants while attending college. Throughout their collective careers, our senior staff has been involved in the development, acquisition or management of more than 130 student housing properties, consisting of more than 81,000 beds at over 85 colleges and universities. This unparalleled experience guides how we analyze student markets, underwrite acquisitions, design and construct our developments, and how we market, lease and operate our communities.

The University of New Mexico Board of Regents has unanimously approved terms of a ground lease that will allow American Campus Communities (ACC) to begin construction on an 864-bed student housing community west of the Pit. This approval culminates a process that started more than two years ago with a Request for Information advertised to developers, owners and managers of student housing to determine how and where to best add new housing to meet a growing student demand.

Terms of Ground Lease

Regents approved a lease term for ACC of 40 years with three additional options of 10 years each. In the first five years of the agreement, ACC’s rent paid to UNM will grow from $333,643 to $375,518. In subsequent years, the rent will be 5.7% of gross revenues but no less than $350,000.

ACC will develop and construct the estimated $40 million project at its own cost by August 2011. The ground lease may be terminated by UNM if ACC fails to commence construction by August 1, 2010.

UNM is free to provide any residence hall housing (unlimited), or other student housing that is not similar to nor will have an adverse economic impact on ACC’s south campus project. The university may also be able to build a directly competitive project if an independent study shows demand. The university can also renovate or replace existing dorms.

Additionally, should ACC decide to sell the property within the first 10years, UNM will have first right to purchase it. UNM can also exercise its right of purchase at any time after 10 years and upon a contemplated transfer by ACC.

Echoing the comments of several regents that the housing is needed, student regent Cate Wisdom said plans for recreation and study facilities within the ACC project will make for an active living and learning center for upperclassmen who currently seek off-campus apartment or house accommodations. “Students will be able to engage in the community they live in,” said Wisdom.

Need for More Housing

The need, importance and benefits of new housing at UNM have been established for several years. An undergraduate student housing report conducted in 2006 project cost is approximately $40 million and no taxpayer or university money will be used.

"This is the first exciting step in dramatically modernizing the student residential experience at UNM," said Jason Wills, ACC senior vice president. "We are very excited about the opportunity to partner with the University of New Mexico and look forward to supporting the university in achieving its academic and student development objectives."

One of the big issues that the small college I am writing about has to deal with, compared to the University of New Mexico is that upperclassmen, and any on-campus residence hall dweller at the small college won't really have the opportunity to 'engage in the community they live in' close to the dorms because that community is dominated by single-family residential units and that most community engagement must be done using vehicular transportation to and from the residence hall to larger community activities found far lower in elevation that the small college is at.

I do think that if I were the President of the small college in the example in this post, I would be pretty darn stupid not to enter into an agreement possibly similar to the one written about because it looks like I wouldn't have to pay a dime to have the dorms constructed and maintained and a company I entered into the agreement would pay my college a fee every month that I could use on other things like soccer uniforms for my school's team and perhaps bleachers and field lighting for night soccer games.

After all, if voters approve my plan and I get to keep the new municipal code that allows me to do things I would be restricted from doing if I followed the city approved plans, I would have almost unlimited capabilities to build whatever I want, within a 15% additional amount and have all that funded through contracts I make between the dorm-management company and the facilities production company that will manage all non-academic activities and pay me a monthly fee to do so.

How great is that?

I know if I can't have dorms approved, I would have to go to supporters and seek donations and other means to build what I have been promising everyone I would do, for the last ten years. How would it look if voters didn't approve my plan and I was stuck finding funding for a project that does not contain the single most important thing I have always wanted yet could not find approval for.

I already know my school's enrollment has been declining and a good number of folks know I stated back in 2008 that I didn't think my college had enough funds to get my Plan or even the city-approved Project going.

I still need to figure out how to sell my plan to potential voters when I am not willing to offer anyone the whole truth about my plan or whether I would even begin the Project handed to me almost completely encompassing almost everything I asked for in the first place.

If I were to be headed towards being placed in a jar, that jar could only contain pickles, I fear.

With Dr. Brophy's and Dr. Soldoff's Marymount Plan, we know so very little as to how any improvements to the campus would be done if voters vote down the Initiative.

My assertion is that Marymount will not begin any expansion unless it is granted the right to build on-campus housing and if voters vote down the Initiative and short of court action in favor of Marymount's demands, there won't be enough financial support or donations to build The Project and I don't really believe Marymount has ever had that much more intent to simply construct on-campus housing and provide some of the applied for expansion that would garner it more income from non-academic uses.

Admitting My Dirt Before Others Do

Although some have called for the debates, discussions, and comments about The Marymount Plan and its Initiative to remain clean and without mud-slinging and negative personal comments about various individuals and groups, it has been my opinion that neither some representing Marymount and I will be able to remain clear of offering some negative information and opinions about folks we dramatically disagree with.

In the vein of attempting to head off direct or indirect personal criticism or character assassination of me, I will now provide what I consider as all my 'dirty laundry' to disallow others the opportunity to be the first to air any of my 'dirty laundry' in print or in other forms of personal attacks.

I just placed into the comment section of a prior post, a comment from someone who uses "Anonymous" as their name, which is perfectly alright with me, but is likely to bring more negative comments from folks who disagree strongly with myself and that particular 'Anonymous'.

So here, before others try to offend me with personal attacks, is just about all the 'dirty laundry' about myself, my life, and my situations:

I first arrived at the home I currently live within on May 4, 1955. I was carried over the threshold by a parent because, at the age of one-day old, I did not have the physical ability or mental capacity to enter the home by myself.

The house is in the oldest planned tract of housing now within Rancho Palos Verdes.

For almost 54 years, I had been led to believe that the tract of homes I grew up in was the original "Eastview" tract of housing. It was actually named and marketed as "Western View Homes" and it remained the only tract of homes constructed 'west' of Western Avenue for a short number of years before the tract of homes directly 'south' of is was constructed, some in 1955. Mira Costa Terrace, a tract of housing more commonly known as "Upper Caddington" also followed the construction of the first two tracts.

I was born at San Pedro Community Hospital. The hospital, as well as the current hospital on 7Th Street, had and has a mailing address of "San Pedro" yet it sits on land outside of the San Pedro/Los Angeles boundaries in an area formerly referred to as "La Rambla Precinct" and now considered to be in unincorporated Los Angeles County.

Until the tract of homes I grew up is was annexed into the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, that tract, along with other tracts of housing, other types of housing, and businesses along portions of Western Avenue were situated in unincorporated portions of Los Angeles County, but had mailing addresses of "San Pedro, CA".

I attended Crestwood Street School, Dodson Junior High School, and graduated from San Pedro High School as only a Silver Seal bearer, in June, 1973.

My High School Diploma illustrates the 'highest' level of education I have. However, I do possess a certificate of satisfactory completion of the United States Air Force Technical Instructor Course, completion of a number of courses within the various phone company entities I was employed at, a General Radiotelephone Operator's License, a Doctor of Divinity from a probably-less-than-reputable entity, several letters of appreciation, other awards for voluntary service, a Honorable Discharge from the United States Air Force, a few service medals, and some other evidence of participation with various service groups, volunteer organizations, and work groups.

I attended California State University, Long Beach from September, 1974 until June, 1976 but earned no degree.

I served on active duty with the United States Air Force from 4 Oct. 1976 until 4 Oct. 1980 and was selected Squadron or Group Airman of the month, and Airman of the Quarter several times.

While I was primarily based at Norton Air Force Base in San Bernardino, California, I was selected Base Airman of the Year for 1978 and 1979, an achievement apparently not repeated by any other enlisted Air Force member at Norton Air Force Base nor any other U.S. Air Force Base, according to some members formerly with the U.S. military.

I met my first wife in 1975 and I married the former Lori Ann Meyers while on leave from a special scientific study I participated in, just after Air Force Basic Training, on December 23, 1976.

I did not live with Lori prior to our wedding.

I am the father of David William Wells, born on August 23, 1978, 20 months after my wedding to Lori. David is now 31-years old and will move to Australia in October, 2010 to marry and begin his family with Ms. Pamela Platt, an Australian citizen.

I am the father of Daniel Richard Wells, born on September 2, 1979. Daniel is now 30 years old and on August 28, 2010 I will officiate and solemnize his marriage to Ms. Rainbow DeAngelis at the Planes of Fame Museum in Chino, California. I posses a Certificate of Ordination with a well-know, yet more thought of as dubious religious entity.


Lori was granted a divorce from me on October 8, 1991.

I met Ms. Teresa Ann Page on or about January 23, 1992.

I lived with Ms. Page prior to our marriage on July 4, 1992, in her house in Lawndale, California.

Terri and I were married by a Unitarian Universalist minister in our back yard.

There are no words good enough to describe my love for my wife of almost 18 years.

Terri and I moved back to the home I shared with my parents and sister while growing up on July 1, 1998. The house is now in trust and not owned by me. My mother, Ms. Nancy Wells holds ownership of the trust and therefore, the dwelling I reside within.

Since December, 1998, I have paid all the property tax bills for the dwelling and property as well and all of the maintenance, improvements, and other costs associated with living in what is now a 60-year old house and will continue to do so until my sister Ruth and I inherit the house.

At the time of any inheritance from my mother's trust, it is expected that I would not be able to afford to purchase my sister's interest in the house and Terri and I will most likely move to a much less expensive community.

From October 27, 1980 to October 9, 2008 I was employed by what was known in 1980 as Pacific Telephone. By my release from AT&T on October 9, I had worked for the other entities associated first with Pacific Telephone. Those companies were known as Pacific Bell and SBC.

I was released by AT&T because I was no longer able to meet the minimum standards for my particular job title with respect to the requirements of being able to climb wooden poles.

During my tenure with the various companies, I was one of only a small percentage of "Service Technicians" qualified to climb "unstepped poles" and work in and around 'manholes'.

During the early 2000's it was ultimately discovered that I had contracted avascular necrosis, and incurable disease involving blood supply to joints in the body.

The disease severely affected my right hip such that, after a first failed operation to restore my natural hip joint, on April 4, 2008, my right hip joint was replaced with an artificial joint.

According to AT&T regulations, the company determined that I was no longer able to remain with my job title and there was an attempt to find another place within AT&T where I could remain with that entity.

One of the options I was provided was to try to pass certain computer-based tests to become part of the administrative pool within AT&T.

I was able to pass the test involving computer skills quite easily. However, The Microsoft 'WORD' test AT&T used was based on 'Word 1997' and that test was given to me in 2008.

I have knowledge and skills with Word Perfect, Word 2001, 2003, 2007, and Word for Mac 2008, but sadly, I failed the Word 1997 portion of the testing.

Having enough seniority to 'retire', when AT&T released me, I qualified for unemployment benefits and was able to roll over my pension benefits in March, 2009 at what turned out to be a great time to do so, financially speaking.

Being only 53 years old when I was released from AT&T meant that I had to roll over my benefits into a type of structure that allowed for only one option to receive monthly benefits and those benefits must not change until I am 59-1/2 years old.

I decided to receive a very small monthly stipend that won't change for another approximately 4-1/2 years without severe penalties and costs associated with removing more funds prior to the age I can receive more benefits.

Currently, I am employed with the U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce as a Census Enumerator. This is my fourth different assignment during the 2010 U.S. Census program.

I have also received notice of a contingency job offer and continue in the processes of becoming a Transportation Security Officer with the Transportation Security Administration, Department of Homeland Security.

I was selected as a Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Safety Commissioner for a two-year period, but the City Council elected to change the terms of service of Commission members and I was not reselected to remain a Traffic Safety Commissioner when that Commission's membership was cut from seven members to five members.

While in the U.S.A.F. and for a period of about two years after discharge, I volunteered as a Red Cross C.P.R. Instructor teaching over 1,000 students in the practices and processes of C.P.R. with that organization.

For more than one year I have volunteered with The Relevant Stage Theatre Company, in San Pedro.

I am also volunteering with the Little Fish Theatre Company, also in San Pedro.

My I.Q. does not reach the minimum level to be considered a genius.

For more than 30 years I was considered morbidly obese.

In February, 2010 I entered into a program that could still eventually lead to Rue-en-Y gastric bypass surgery.

At one point in my life I stood 5' 7" tall and weighed in excess of 275 pounds.

I use '275 pounds' as my highest weight as I continue to go through a complete menu and life change. This morning I weighed 208.8 pounds.

Some folks have called me a 'secular humanist' for which I don't necessarily disagree with.

With most local, State, National, and International issues, I veer towards the extreme left of the political spectrum.

I have NEVER voted for a Republican candidate in a party-contested election. I have voted for whichever candidate I felt most qualified in uncontested elections, such as our city's Council elections.

I did not vote for either Councilman Campbell or Councilman Misetich in the last election cycle but I am pleased with their service to our community and have no complaints about their service or considerations.

I have been a outspoken critic of what I believe is the over development of the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site and I began the first of my many blogs in September, 2006 fighting against Bob Bisno's attempts to build at least 2,300 condominium units on the 61.53 acre site along Western Avenue.

I have never been arrested or charged with any infractions other than vehicular traffic infractions during the tenure of having my driver's license.

I did, in fact, complete a journey along Palos Verdes Drive East from about Crest Road to Palos Verdes Drive South in a Volkswagen Station Wagon, without placing my foot on the brake pedal.

I did, in fact, speed up and down the switchbacks at various time in my youth, both in a motor vehicle and on a bicycle.

I have hiked, biked, skateboarded, ridden as a passenger, drove as a driver, or navigated by other means, around and along a giant portion of The Hill, during my lifetime.

I oppose the construction of residential halls on the campus of Marymount College because of safety concerns I am not willing to alter and I continue to challenge anyone to debate me about the potential safety risks and possible damages associated with placing college students into a high-density environment in a low-density community that has roadways suited for low-density residential areas.

I also have great opposition to the manner, form, comments, marketing, probable misstatements of facts from representatives of Marymount College including its President, Dr. Michael Brophy.

I also volunteer my services at the Miraleste Intermediate School Library, at the beginning and ending of each school year and in the Library of that school, assisting my wife Terri and her co-worker, Melanie.


During my volunteer work I met Master Sullivan Brophy, the son of Dr. and Ms. Brophy and found 'Sully' to be a wonderful student and a very interesting fellow. Sullivan is now a high school student and I think he is doing well and now enjoying a summer vacation.

I also consider The Marymount Plan to be flawed in fact and features.

I have not heard one word from Dr. Brophy that he and his supporters will go forward with the approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project if the Initiative fails to be approved of, by voters.


It is my assertion that the College's administration and supporters will not proceed under the Project's guidelines and approvals until any an all measures to achieve the right to build on-campus housing have been exhausted.

It is also my assertion that Marymount College will have a decline in enrollment and donations, should on-campus housing not be allowed such that the college will ultimately close down and end physical operation.

I am also beginning to believe that there are certain reasons why I an others can believe that there are what can be considered by some as ulterior motives by Marymount in their quest to have the Initiative approved of by voters and that those motives may be associated with achieving what some may term as a windfall of income should the Initiative's sections about lack of governmental oversight be approved.

It is also my current belief that Dr. Brophy or others will not offer substantial, factual, or believable responses to the differences between what the City Council has approved and what is included in The Marymount Plan's documents and Initiative.


I hold little respect that associates of Marymount are willing to accurately and objectively offer reasonable, realistic, responsible, and respectful responses to the questions asked by Councilman Stern during the last Council meeting where responses to those questions were provided by City Staff or the City Attorney.

I despise hypocrisy and I try my best to never be considered as one who is a hypocrite.

I am left-handed.

I am also a non-insulin dependent Type II diabetic.

I was born with exotropia of the ocular sinister of greater than 55 prism diopters and I had two surgeries on each set of eye muscles of both eyes to visibly correct that situation.

I have no fusion. My blood is Type A Negative

I can easily hide in plain sight and I am a happy person who enjoys being considered as an artisan of clowning.

I have a mild form of Asperger's syndrome that actually benefits me in some ways.

My 'stage name' used in various theatre and video productions is M Richards.

I have never cheated on my wives, nor would I ever.

As part of my divorce settlement, I paid the entire Capital Gains tax on the house Lori and I sold using a payment plan with the I.R.S.

I hold a balance on one Mastercard and my Chevron card. I owe less than $2,300.00 on my Element and I paid off our Saturn early.

I keep secrets and I have a substantial network of very informed associates with the various interests I have who I keep their identity confidential and who are also trustworthy, intelligent, and well-informed.

I prefer assertions over rumors. I detested the marketing of the petition-gathering phase of The Marymount Plan Initiative.

Dr. Michael Brophy has personally claimed to me that he has found no statement purported by me as fact, to be anything less than factual.

I do not nor will not claim objectivity in considerations about Marymount College but I do and will provide factual arguments and claims from all sides of the issues, on this blog.

I welcome all comments, negative or positive and I have always published every comment other than those provided via a written foreign language I do not understand.

I reserve the right and the responsibility to place highly defamatory and outrageous, in my opinion, comments onto another one of my blogs that I try to keep its URL hidden from regular access.

I have been verbally attacked and have had very bad comments written about me on more than one of my blogs and I have a thick skin and I understand that if I am willing to dish it out, I had better be able to take it.

I try my very best to not step over the line as far a libel or slander go and I freely use rights granted in the U.S. Constitution I helped defend as a member of the Air Force and as I continue to do as a good citizen of the United States and the World.

So there you have it. If you can find something else to smear me with, good luck, happy surfing, don't waste your time, I'm not that important, and why bother.

If you need to resort to more character assassination than I have offered, then your arguments supporting whatever you support become moot and hypocritical by stating more negative things about me than I have already done, myself.

I will address the identities and careers of at least some of the members of the Board of Trustees of Marymount College as I find necessary.

I will not attack their character but I reserve the right to question their motives and affiliations with Marymount College.

I am ready, willing, and able to march into battle against The Marymount Plan and I will march honorably in support of The Marymont College Facilities Expansion Project.

Thank you.

Friday, June 18, 2010

Some actual verbage from The Marymount Plan's Initiative Language

Attachment F of The Marymount Plan Initiative contains 171 General Conditions of the Campus Requirements.

Each item states what is to be done during all construction phases and what can be done at the College after the full Marymount Plan is completed.

However, according to the Campus Specific Plan's municipal code being sought for approval along with the rest of the initiative, is this written statement:

17.38.100.040
"Development within the Specific Plan area shall be subject to the Campus Requirements listed in Attachment F, which include provisions relating to restrictions and limitations upon development and operations within the Specific Plan. The Campus Requirements are on file in the office of the director. The city shall have available to it for enforcing the Campus Requirements the same enforcement mechanisms as it would have for conditions of approval of other development projects, except that the city shall not have the power to revoke, repeal, amend or stay the Specific Plan or any of all of its components. The city may also substitute equivalent measures, without the need for a vote of the people, subject to the consent of the Campus owner."

So in essence, no matter what Marymount contends it must do with the General Conditions of the Campus Requirements portion of the Campus Specific Plan Zone, it has the authority to change just about anything it wishes, if I am reading the documents correctly.

With approval of the Initiative by voters also comes the following Technical Amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code

"Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) is hereby amended to create and include Sections 17.96.1202 as follows:

17.96.1202 - Campus Specific Plan
"Campus Specific Plan" means the development standards, regulations, and conditions governing Specific Plan Zone V, which apply to the property described herein, and which plan is more particularly set forth in the Campus Specific Plan adopted by the people of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes at an election called for the purpose of enacting this measure, that is on file in the office of the director.

C. Amendment to Maps
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes Zoning Map and all related zoning maps also are amended to change the zone for the Campus from the current Institutional (I) District to Specific Plan District V and are amended to substitute the diagram in Attachment C for the area of such maps that depicts the Campus, and to included the notation "Specific Plan District V is subject only to provisions of section 17.38.100 of this Code and the Campus Specific Plan."

D. Zoning Code; Conflicts with Specific Plan

Except as may be otherwise expressly set forth in the Specific Plan, the standards and definitions of the Specific Plan shall govern in lieu of any provisions of the City or Ranchos (sp) Palos Verdes Municipal Code and all related zoning regulations and definitions that conflict with any provision of the Specific Plan."

What "D. Zoning Codes; Conflicts with Specific Plan" reads to me is that Marymounts Campus Specific Plan Zone and its Specific Plan District restrict oversight by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and awards almost unlimited abilities to alter plans for the campus, based only on the desires of Marymount administrators, supporters, donors, and any other entity Marymount chooses to represent interests at the campus of Marymount College.

I believe I am correct in my opinion, but I would like a far greater brain to help me confirm that what is written in the measure is what I assert would happen if voters approve the forthcoming ballot measure.

What A Wonderful Sign

Hold on to your car keys, walking shoes, sweet tooth, and aroma senses, Amalfitano Bakery is not open yet.

Terri and I drove past Western Plaza shopping center and gazed upon the brand new sign of the bakery we are waiting the opening of.

Mr. Anthony Amalfitano is the owner of this new bakery which could be considered the 'daughter' of the famous but late San Pedro landmark, Ramona's Bakery.

The new Bakery is located near the corner of Western Avenue and Trudie Drive and when it opens it will certainly contain many of the treats so famous that many of us enjoyed while Ramona's Bakery was open.

I don't know the opening date of the Bakery. The display counters are still covered with plastic and the kitchen area is not quite finished.

The plastic has been removed from the windows and it looks like work is progressing faster than it has been in the previous months.

I haven't decided yet which treat will be the first one I enjoy at Amalfitano Bakers. I think I will leave that decision until I find out if their Chocolate Chip Cookies contain nuts. (REAL CHOCOLATE CHIP COOKIES NEVER CONTAIN NUTS).

Terri and I wish Mr. Anthony Amalfitano, his family, and all the employees of Amalfitano Bakery a wonderful, joyous, and profitable opening and a very long stay at its new location in Rancho Palos Verdes.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Maybe It Is All About Making Money?

I learned a new term today. 'Forward Selling'. As explained to me, it is the process that allows an entity to sell, grant, lease, or convey in some manner, something of value to another entity and the seller, granter, or lease provider makes money quickly and early during a development or expansion project.

I am going to use information from the Web sites; www.useducationguides.com and www.petersons.com/collegeprofiles to offer some demographics concerning the 2009-2010 academic year for Marymount College.

None of the numbers I am using have been disputed by Marymount's President, Dr. Michael Brophy, and he offered his opinion that the numbers I provided to him Tuesday evening, are correct to the best of his knowledge.

For the 2009-2010 academic year for Marymount College, there were:

591 students with 96% of the students (567.36) attending Marymount on a Full Time Basis.

60% of the 591 students (354.6) lived in Marymount-owned and administered off-campus housing. That brought to Marymount a gross income of about $3,763,000.00.

IF the Initiative passes, it is expected that the approximately 116 students and advisers that live a the Pacific Heights off-campus site would move out and Marymount would be able to sell the entire building, something it has been claiming it would, but they have not done so, yet.

(Also, keeping the approximately 300+ beds at the college's Palos Verdes North facility, along with 250 beds on campus, that gross, based on this past year's room rates would garner something like $5,830,000.00 per year and having enough beds to offer up to 69% of its total student body the opportunity to live in campus-owned housing.)

Costs for room at the two off-campus housing sites were about $10,600 per student, with the typical board charge was $3,914.00.

UndergraduateTuition was listed at $24,052.

The combination of tuition, room, board, additional fees and, undergrad books brought the total per student costs to attend Marymount at approximately $40,529.00 for the preceding academic year.

Now let's examine some money or profits IF Marymount's initiative passes.

250 students living on-campus@ $10,600.00 for room equals $2,650,000.00 per year, assuming that the room cost is equivalent to what it was for this immediate past academic year.

IF Marymount's initiative passes, there would be no restriction or local government oversight with such things as renting out the auditorium, large field, tennis courts, swimming pool, dorms during summer, or other rooms and areas at Marymount's Palos Verdes Drive East campus.

Marymount would have the right to lease out or sell rights to an independent promoter or another company to offer concerts, sports activities, summer programs (Band Camp, Cheerleader Camp, or Soccer Camp) with attendees staying in on-campus housing and paying fees for the programs, plus room and board.

There would be no oversight in the placement of outdoor lighting and no government restriction of noise levels of concerts, even outdoor concerts on the campus.

Now please consider this. Marymount would have the right to 'forward sell' the operation and maintenance of its dorms to a entity who would provide all upfront construction costs, plus an undetermined profit to Marymount such that Marymount COULD fund their entire plan after receiving a check made from a contract with the business that would accept the forward sell.

Also, Marymount would have the right to 'forward sell' rights and opportunities to an entertainment type company to administer any to all events and activities that could be of money making types and that Marymount could enter into a contract soon after its Initiative is passed whereby the entity entering into the forward selling with Marymount would probably provide a large check upfront to also increase the coffers of Marymount College.

Some were wondering why and where Marymount gets all the money to do its outrageous, in my opinion, marketing during the petition gathering campaign and what will surely be a huge blast of marketing seeking to provide as little information as possible that would get ill-informed voters to vote "Yes" on the initiative.

I have asserted that Marymount will fail as a college if it cannot secure on-campus housing as a way of attracting more non-local students, especially foreign students which is only had 6% of its total 2009-2010 enrollment.

I think I and others can now assert that Marymount is willing to have its supporters shell out giant sums of money to get approval of its initiative so it has the opportunity to forward sell the operations of the on-campus housing AND entertainment, sports activities, and any other money making venture produced by an independent entity which purchased rights to do so from Marymount, almost immediately after the Initiative would pass.

However, I have continued to state that I feel that The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Plan, now law and able to begin with Marymount, is a very good plan and one that should be followed and supported.

I think now that many folks could realize like I have done today, that one huge reason Marymount seeks dorms and restrictions of oversight is NOT because of needed added enrollment, it is because its entire Marymount Plan could be paid for using forward selling and not using donations and other sources required with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

Either way, I hope you can read and look to learn much more about the potential income Marymount could enjoy while using a lack of government oversight to provide venues to paying customers to use as Marymount and those customers see fit and not what would be in the best interests of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Voting "No" on the initiative means Marymount would have the opportunity to accomplish a reasonable, responsible, realistic, and respectful expansion, with oversight that provides more safety for all and local responsibility with the expansion and operation.

Voting "Yes" means a high-density residential development in a low-density neighborhood, POSSIBLY controlled by a private company not beholden to the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, the local neighbors, or the rest of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.

A "Yes" vote could also mean a private entity paying Marymount a hefty amount up front to offer concerts, sporting events, cultural events, and other activities with a for-profit way, with little to no restrictions with noise, lighting, time of day, type of activities, parking, traffic, or responsible oversight by the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.

A "Yes" vote also demonstrates that profit may be more important to Marymount and its supporters than being a good neighbor and providing the best educational opportunities to the greatest number of residents on The Hill, I believe.

If you wish to forward sell your community to a College that has seen declining enrollment over the past several years, got itself off of the Academic Probation it was placed on, early, thank goodness, and having a President who decried your City Council's ("you tinkered") tinkering of the Project such that it now provides more safety than The Marymount Plan does, then I think you are ill-informed and I hope you would take the time to learn the facts, ALL the facts, and not the deceptive, in my opinion, ads and some statements made by Marymount Supporters and at least one in its administration.

I also challenge Marymount to offer their opinion on each and every one of the approximately 62 differences Marymount wants from what has already been approved of by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council. My challenge involves honesty, openness, and forthrightness from Marymount, without continuing to state that The Marymount Plan would be built "at no taxpayer expense" and in only "36 months" construction time.

Marymount has used its mighty dollars attempting to provide ONLY the most basic information that its marketing folks feel would garner approval of its plans. Marymount has not been willing to reveal that it would only pay its "fair share" of traffic mitigation and that taxes would be used for the remainder of the mitigation and that if Marymount gets its "Yes" on the initiative, it won't matter about the "36 months" because it literally would have the ability to allow permits to run out and then get granted again to make the total construction time for the project being not 36 months, not even 8 years. Marymount would have basically, an unlimited amount of months and years to work on its project.

It also would be a fact that IF the initiative is passed, Marymount would have the right to build its on-campus housing and nothing else. The Marymount Plan could see no new gym, library, swimming pool, better parking, or other neighborhood mitigation measures accomplished because with passage, Marymount could do as little or as much as it wanted OR as little or as much as it could possibly profit from.

The city of Rancho Palos Verdes will provide, on its Web site, a detailed and completely objective list of the similarities and differences between what the City Council approved and what Marymount seeks in its Initiative.

I will certainly provide a link to sites where truthful information, written objectively, can be viewed by any and all.

Please don't be fooled to believe that a great number of Marymount's supporters will read or not object to what is written, even though it is mandated to be objective and truthful.

Dr. Michael "you tinkered" Brophy fired the first salvo when he used those careless words dealing with added safety to Councilman Campbell and I will provide as many salvos and battles as I feel are necessary to defeat the Initiative, using truth, as much objectivity as I can muster, and some hyperbole, not unlike what we have heard or read from Marymount.

Dr. Brophy, my armor is polished. My information and facts you haven't been able to deny or dispute. My challenge to debate concerning safety continues, any time, anywhere. My cause is NOT NIMBY as I live 3 miles from Marymount's entrance.

I am independent of CCC/ME, SOCIII, and every government entity in Rancho Palos Verdes.

I arrived in the house I live currently live in 55 years, one month, and 13 days ago, so I think I have more seniority in this area than more than 95% of the other residents.

I await any and all challenges and as I have already done for many, many months now, I haven't been proven incorrect by anyone associated with Marymount College, including its President.

I support the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and recognize that Marymount probably cannot profit financially with it, but it could provide an excellent education for up to 793 students, if it only chooses to.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Where To Look For The Truth, The Whole Truth

With The Marymount Plan, I intend to keep this blog as truthful as Dr. Brophy, Marymount's President asserted to me it is.

During the coming weeks and months leading to the November 2, 2010 General Election where voters will also find the Special Election for the Initiative offered in support of The Marymount Plan, I will publish all responses by Marymount to the (approximately) 62 differences between what is already approved with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and what is contained in the Specific Plan Zone or The Marymount Plan's Initiative.

I will demonstrate objectively and truthfully that statements made by Dr. Michael Brophy and others representing Marymount College have been, in my opinion, deceptive, misleading, and less that fully truthful.

I will continue to offer to Marymount representatives the opportunity to produce responsible rebuttals to each and every point in the (approximately) 62 differences and provide those rebuttal issues on this blog.

When Dr. Brophy and others representing Marymount claim that The Marymount Plan can be constructed with "no taxpayer expense" that is a misstatement of fact and Dr. Brophy knows that.

He knows that because, in part, he is now offering to have Marymount funds, rather than taxpayer funds, pay the approximately $78,000 of costs for the Special Election on November 2, but he has not yet agreed to pay more than the college's "fair share" for the traffic mitigation stipulated in The Marymount Plan. After Marymount pays its "fair share" Dr. Brophy won't admit publicly that the remainder of the costs must be borne by the General Fund of Rancho Palos Verdes, a taxpayer-based fund.

Dr. Brophy has also not stated that the "36 month" construction timeline The Marymount Plan's advertisements have documented, would not only last 8 years with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, but it could be an indefinite period of years, using wording in The Marymount Plan's 51-page Initiative.

Dr. Brophy and others have the opportunity to have their 'facts' posted on this blog including the fact that Marymount seeks to eliminate the voter-elected representative oversight and review of work being done at the College's Palos Verdes Drive East campus.

I expect to see fancy, colorful, yet not very informative mailers, ads, and commercials supporting a "Yes" vote on the Initiative, without much of the objective wording that illustrate the differences in The Marymount Plan from what has already been approved to build, by the City Council.

I feel our residents deserve more and better from an entity that claims to be part of a religious organization. I think our residents deserve the whole truth from Marymount College.

Unfortunately by looking at the mailers I received during the petition process, I doubt we will find more reasonable explanations from Marymount why it feels it must have ALL that it wants and nothing less than everything.....all without government review or oversight.

The real truth you probably won't ever hear or read from Marymount is that Marymount must have on-campus housing to remain open according to my assertion. Nothing short of that would allow Marymount attracting more wealthy parents of students who would send their kids off to school in a non-local, out of State, or out of Country institution.

Our Representatives Have Spoken

Rancho Palos Verdes residents went to the polls in 2009 and 2007 to elect or reelect the current City Council members who sit to represent them in matters residents used their initiative to cast their votes for the representation they expect and want.

Marymount wants to take that away from the residents, and allow themselves to represent the residents without any responsibility to the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.

The Marymount Plan's Initiative takes the right of the people who tasked their representatives to represent them and gives it to Marymount representatives who were not voted for and are not beholden or responsible to the voters of the city.

By unanimous vote, the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council formerly voted to oppose The Marymount Plan's Initiative and Specific Zone Plan. The members also created the means for drafting a Resolution stating their concerns about The Marymount Plan and why they feel, as a body, the Marymount Plan's issues must be voted down on November 2, 2010.

The two major issues that City Council members voiced their opposition to were the placement of high-density population housing (resident halls) in a low-density neighborhood AND the elimination of oversight and responsible representation by the Council in lieu of almost total control of all aspects of The Marymount Plan being turned over to College representatives.

I think we have seen something of a similarity in recent weeks when a non-government entity attempts to rest control over and issue instead of allowing elected representatives the rights and responsibilities voters challenged those representatives with by their election to office.

It only took days before BP called for government representative intervention into its Ocean Horizon disaster after it ultimately lost control over its own oversight, of its project it sought to stay in control of.

With issues like the failure of Executive Live, many banks and financial institutions, and the near collapse of our economic structure do to private control over representative oversight, I hope we all have learned our lesson that, with The Marymount Plan, we must not allow the fox to guard the hen house as Marymount supporters wish.

When our elected representatives and those they appointed to be on the Planning Commission have offered reasonable, responsible, realistic, and respectful means by which Marymount College could have a successful facilities expansion project, yet Marymount seeks to have its own control and oversight, it demonstrates to all of us what are Marymount's real intentions are and those intentions are to do just as they want, with no one looking over their shoulders or keeping the residents of Rancho Palos Verds from interfering with what Marymount ultimately demands.