"CHICAGO" At Chadwick

"CHICAGO", the hit musical is coming to Chadwick School.

The Conditional Use Permit for the school prohibits advertising theatre productions and other events on the campus, but I can provide folks just about everything they need to know to see TWO fantastic casts create an entertainment event that extends for six performances, beginning this coming WEDNESDAY.

The students at the school were so excited about the prospects of performing the famed musical that a huge number of students in grades 9-12 wanted to audition.

The incredible response necessitated not one, but TWO productions being scheduled, depending on what class students are in.

There is a production with a cast of Freshmen and Sophomores and there is a cast made up of Juniors and Seniors.

Readers may know that my brother-in-law Phil Buono and I have a scenic design and construction interest and that both of us are veterans in the entertainment industry or theater education arena.

We have been proud and honored to be asked to help Mr. Rodney Rincon on more than one production. Rodney runs the technical, staging, and theatre operations at Chadwick and is a motion picture, television, and stage actor, director, and all around great guy.

Here is the schedule for the FREE performances of "CHICAGO" inside the theatre at Chadwick:

Wednesday, March 2 at 7:30 PM, the Junior and Senior cast perform.

Thursday, March 3 at 7:30 PM, the Freshmen and Sophomore cast perform.

Friday, March 4 at 7:30 PM, the Juniors and Seniors return.

Saturday, March 5 has a Matinee beginning at 2:00 PM with the Freshmen and Sophomores performing.

Saturday, March 5, beginning at 8:00 PM, the Juniors and Seniors end their run of the show.

Sunday, March 6 features a 3:00 PM Finale with the Freshmen and Sophomore cast members entertaining the audience.

Yes, it is a free show. There are no tickets. Just make your way to Chadwick School, find a parking space, have a nice stroll down to the theatre, and enjoy a musical featuring an incredible number of extremely talented students.

One More 'Bit' of Bits and Pieces 27

I am still wondering why Jeremiah Dobruck, a journalist with The Palos Verdes Peninsula News, continues to sit on some very important and possibly explosive information.

Bits and Pieces 27

I have some things to write about, but I am also very involved with editing a video for distribution this coming Friday, so I don't have time right now to post much.

Some things I will be dealing with include:

Redondo Beach moves to municipal elections by mail, which will save the city some funds. A charter city can save taxpayer dollars by spending less on vote by mail rather than polling location voting.

A NO vote on Measure C is a support for on-campus housing at Marymount College.

If anyone tells you that Marymount's supporters don't have any 'allowances' or 'angendas' regarding Marymount College and voting down the charter, please do not believe them.

It is rather easy to connect opposition of Measure C to attempts to secure approval for Marymount College building dorms on their Palos Verdes Drive East campus.

Yes, that Palos Verdes Drive East. The one that may need upwards of 21 Million Dollars of repairs to the canyon that sits next to the the drive's switchbacks. And no, Marymount College has not offered a dime to help secure reliable passage over the switchbacks so students and others can get to the campus.

Although I wrote that Janice Hahn in Congress would probably be good for R.P.V. in the quest to secure Federal Dollars for the repair of San Ramon Canyon and the Tarrapaca landslide, I find the candidacy of Debra Bowen wonderful and also and even better, the prospects of having Marcy Winograd run for the 36th.

Why aren't R.P.V. and San Pedro residents not attending "Kiss Me Kate" at the Warner Grand Theatre, in San Pedro?

The 2-1/2 hour show features a cast of 27 very talented and hard working singers and dancers.

Where else could you see a Cole Porter musical in a theatre built in 1931 by the four Warner Brothers, while being entertained for such a low price.

www.therelevantstage.com has tickets available for this weekend's closing performances.

I was very involved with the Relevant Stage Theatre Company for just over two years before moving on to other projects. I taped the show for archival purposes and I feel that the entire Company have really done a great job.

In talking to some folks, we are embarrassed that the San Pedro community and folks living in Eastview and other parts of our city haven't taken up on the gift of the opportunity to see how a good show is put on. This production rivals and betters all other productions that are not on major stages thoughout L.A., New York, and other large cities. It is touring company quality at a very low price.

I am supporting on member of the Republican Party for a seat on our City Council, so far.

I support the candidacy of one Democratic Party member who may announce his candidacy after March 8, again so far.

Even though I am very far to the left involving State, Federal, and World politics, I have found some really good folks that I could support for seats on our Council, no matter what their voter registration is.

My consideration of support deals exclusively with the issues at hand and in the future and the character of the person I choose to support. I didn't vote for Brian and Anthony, but they both know I am watching and helping to guard their backs. They have done very well for us in our city, even with the "R" associated with both of these fine gentlemen.

The current processing of the video is finished for now. It's back to editing for me!

Janice Hahn: Good for R.P.V.?

I know we can't vote for Jane Harmon's replacement in the 36Th C.D.

But as citizens we can support candidates wherever we want. We can also oppose candidates running for offices where we can't vote.

Personally, I am pleased that Debra Bowen has entered the race for the 36th, but my general politics would be more pleased having Marcy Winograd run.

Whether Bowen and Winograd would be better for our city, is something I doubt during any first or second term.

Our Congressman, Dana Rohrabacher has visited the San Ramon Canyon area. His staff has been involved with our city's need to fund and have repairs made as soon as possible.

Our five Council members have the most complete knowledge of the issues of any elected representative.

Janice Hahn would be the 6th most knowledgeable elected official, regarding San Ramon Canyon and the Tarrapaca landslide area.

As L.A.'s 15th District Councilwoman, Janice and her local staff members have been dealing with San Ramon Canyon/Tarrapaca landslide for some years.

We learned recently that it could take somewhere in the neighborhood of 21 Million Dollars to make permanent and complete repairs to the drainage issues and to create a long-lasting fix to any idea that parts of the switchbacks might fall into the canyon.

Much of the area needing work is within our city. But there are also areas needing work within the city of Los Angeles, a small amount of unincorporated L.A. County, and on some private property.

No one governmental agency should shoulder all of the costs, but since so many of us pay Federal taxes, one source that should help with funding is the Federal Government.

Not all of our residents, or even residents of L.A. use Palos Verdes Drive East, 25th Street, and Palos Verdes Drive South. There are thousands of tourists and visitors every year who use these roads for a portion of their local driving.

Several major businesses need full and unfettered access to the greatest number of visitors, to keep their businesses profitable.

I think having Janice Hahn sitting in the House and working closely with our Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, would make it easier to gain Federal Dollars to see San Ramon Canyon and the Tarrapaca lanslide fixed.

These Comments Have Helped Me Enormously!

I so wish that the person who wrote the following would contact me directly.

Please Email me directly at mrichards2@hotmail.com. I won't publish your name or let anyone know who you really are, if you don't want to be identified for any reason.

This post is subsequent to a previous posting of:

http://eastrpv.blogspot.com/2011/02/another-comment-elevated-to-post.html

"Anonymous", your comments provide reasoning I agree with. You have offered both support for and opposition to having R.P.V. becoming a charter city.

The reasons you question adoption of Measure C are better than anything I have written and I also feel they are better stated than many of the reasons provided by the No on C organization.

Your first latest comment begins with the knowledge that the California Supreme still needs to publish its decision regarding the city of Vista's prevailing wage guidelines. The Court has yet to publish whether it finds that a charter city can or cannot constitutionally create partial or full exemptions to prevailing wage guidelines on municipal projects funded using only municipal funding.

I have included your two comments as being connected because your second set of comments fit very well after the first I posted:

"We should have an answer very soon on prevailing wages, so we should not have rushed into this. It would be great to save all that money, but I put the odds of that happening at below 50% and chasing after a highly contingent financial benefit seems a poor reason to adopt a charter.

Also, I completely disagree that we need to pass a charter to protect TOT revenue. It would not be politically viable for the state to raid the treasuries of general law cities and exempt those who are fortuitously organized under charters. That was never going to happen. Indeed, if there were a serious risk of that happening there would be a heck of lot more charter initiatives pending right now.

Nevertheless, even without the purported financial benefits, a charter may be a good way to go. Gaining "home rule" on municipal affairs, in and of itself, should not be very controversial. For the most part, the rules at issue govern how a city goes about forming policies, not what the actual policies will be.

But let’s step back for a second and think about how that home rule would be exercised under the proposed charter.

For more than a hundred years California cities have had two options - (i) to organize their municipal affairs under uniform statutes crafted by the state or (ii) to go it alone and organize them as they see fit. It’s like software. You can buy the off the shelf package offered by the state or develop your own proprietary software line by painstaking line.

If you choose to go it lone, one option is to draft a very detailed charter that, in and of itself, replaces the state's comprehensive set of laws governing the organization of municipalities. However, amending such charters is cumbersome and expensive because any minor change or tweaking has to be voted on the full electorate.

The second approach is a short form charter in which the municipality simply reserves the right to organize its municipal affairs as it sees fit. As I understand it, the existing state laws are then ultimately replaced with comparatively easy-to-pass and easy-to-amend city ordinances. Measure C proposes a type of short form charter.

What I think some people are struggling with (including me) is that, except in a few specific instances spelled out in the charter itself, we have no way of knowing how RPV’s municipal affairs will be organized going forward. And if we don’t like where things end up, the only way to reverse things would be through an expensive and cumbersome initiative process.

So I think the concern is not a charter per se, but the fact that the Council is asking us to approve a short form charter without having either directly engaged an independent committee of residents to study and draft the charter or having worked with residents to develop a comprehensive plan for organizing our municipality going forward. It’s like deleting Microsoft Word from your computer without having programmed your new word processor (or even determined all the features you want your new software to have).

The charter has been described as a constitution. That may be so in some cases, but ours is much more akin to a declaration of independence. The actual constitution, in large part, has yet to be drafted.

I know there are 100+ charter cities in California, but I’d be curious to know how many of those cities have adopted short form charters and what their experiences have been. My impression is that the use of a short form charter is much more of a recent phenomenon that has produced, at best, mixed results. Unfortunately, I haven’t had the time to properly study this aspect of the issue and I’m not sure anyone else has either."

"To explain my position a bit more, in my review of this issue it seems that some other cities have treated the charter issue with a lot more precision and respect. For example, Redding is currently considering changing to a charter city. In Redding’s case, their city council appointed an independent committee of ten diverse members of the community to conduct a comprehensive study of all aspects of a potential charter. Their process is a striking contrast to RPV’s where a short form charter was drafted by a city council member and simply discussed at a few city council meetings.

I think Redding’s city council understands that because the charter impacts the manner in which the city council itself will function going forward it was key to study and develop those procedures independent of the council. In fact, Redding’s Vice Mayor was so concerned about maintaining the “maximum independence” of the charter committee that he vowed to stay away from the charter committee’s meetings and urged the other councilmembers to do the same.

http://m.redding.com/news/2011/feb/01/council-subgroup-to-be-created/

Moreover, instead of a comprehensive and considered analysis by an independent committee, which you would expect to look something like this…

http://friendsofhomerule.org/images/Luzerne%20County%20Proposed%20Home%20Rule%20Charter_081810.pdf

…we’ve got a powerpoint from the City Attorney that looks like this:

http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/cityclerk/City-Attorneys-Community-Leaders-Breakfast-Chartering-Presentation-01-29-2011.pdf

So you can start to see what people mean when they feel this has been rushed. We haven't done our homework yet. I’d feel a lot more comfortable with this if the proposed charter were the result of a studied community-based process like Redding's."

** While I have a differing opinion about protecting the TOT, I certainly will not diagree with the good analysis I believe is important to inform everyone about.

It would not be honest of me to tell anyone that the comments have not created a swaying of my vote for passage of Measure C. These comments do confirm that I can't ask anyone else to vote Yes or No on Measure C.

I am stuck deeper in the mire of 'if not now, when? If I change my vote to No, I have no clue if this Council or any future Council makeup would look towrds Redlands for guidance.

I am still a Yes on C voter, but the totter continues to teeter more. I am troubled because I simply can't be comfortable voting either way, as much as I want to and/or should be.

I agree completely with 'Anonymous' using the word "struggling" as the person and I seemingly remain.

I guess putting my faith in the majority of voters who vote one way or the other is acceptable with me because I have mentioned my trust in the intelligence and the care folks interested enough in this matter, have.

Thank you so much, Anonymous, I would really like to know who you really are.

Astonishing! Unbelievable! Inaccurate!

I was sent a copy of a mailer delivered to many or our residents, yesterday.

First, here is a comment sent via www.ranchopalosverdespatch.com by Ms. Sharon Yarber of the No on C Campaign:

"Mr. Richards,

We have not sent out any mailer. If you are referring to a mailer sent by a union, please be advised that we had no knowledge that a mailer was being sent, had nothing whatsoever to do with its preparation and, indeed, have deliberately refused to accept any donations, whether of money or in-kind contributions, from any unions, as we refuse to be aligned with any special interest groups.

The union's mailer, like so many political pieces (including those sent out by the City in its "informational" materials, recent newletter and by the Yes PAC flier recently mailed) contains both accurate and inaccurate information. The NO campaign does not condone misleading or inaccurate statements and insists on scrupulously honest facts in our materials.

Thank you for your continuing investigation of the merits of Measure C. It is important for all of our residents to become well informed. Involvement in the political process is vital to remaining a free society. Apathy is our society's worst enemy."

I will offer comments about that mailer when I do some review and restore my skull to its former form, after peeling it off the ceiling because it exploded.

If you don't know that for approximately 27 years I was a proud member of the Communications Workers of America, now you do. I also was a 'casual' with the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, IATSE, the union represented on credits for just about every T.V. show and movie you have seen shot in the United States.

To suggest or imply that I don't support unions and greater union membership and collective bargaining rights would be misleading, it would be a lie.

It is more conceivable to me that the opponents of Measure C I am considering in this post, would like nothing better than to use non-union labor for all municipal and business projects within our city, whenever possible.

Strange bedfellows is what we have here.

A Field Representative of the Construction Industry Force Account Council attended the last Charter City Committee meeting and I think I saw the same individual at a City Council meeting.

Folk, I have well established my very positive outlook on the need to have unions representing the workers in our country. I can always check off reasons why union organization built an America during the Industrial Revolution, that allow us to debate Measure C.

I have found the mailer to be far more misleading than anything written in our city's Spring, 2011 newsletter.

This is the United States of America in 2011 and if ANYONE uses fear and scare tactics against our voters they are misrepresenting what it is to be an honest citizen of OUR country.

They are doing the same thing foreign aggressors attempt to use against our Nation. Using fear and scare tactics is a form of domestic terrorism WE MUST NOW ALLOW!

I can make very good arguments to support and oppose Measure C, as you may have read. There is no fear or scare tactics used in my post considering why some might want to vote NO on C. But the No on C organization has demonstrated they would rather use fear as a weapon and scare voters to vote the way they want them to.

It is dishonorable to our city's citizens to have any organization stooping to the lowest levels possible to achieve their agenda of having the charter voted down. It has never been necessary and I have documented that repeatedly.

While I do not like this charter very much, I have offered my reasoning for voting Yes on it and I have done so without trying to scare anyone towards a Yes vote.

Rather than using real and true facts without demonstrating that our electorate is a pretty intelligent group of citizens, they are offering what can only be thought of by me as a 'doomsday' approach in order to get "No" votes from people.

I am not afraid of what might happen whether Measure C passes or not. I am not afraid of what I term 'back room bullies' trying to force our residents into having to live by means other than what might be best for all of our residents.

Again it may be repetitive, this blog carries an open and honest account of my life and if anyone can identify any hidden agenda they think I have, good luck, go ahead and try, and know there is no investigation currently underway by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's office or the Los Angeles County District Attorney.

Somebody somewhere, is communication with the group that paid for the ad. It is also true that somebody somewhere contacted Ms. Pence about the committee meeting. I highly doubt that anyone supportive of Measure C contacted Ms. Pence and the Trades Council.

If Ms. Yarber and the No on C campain thinks about it, they may wish to fund a mailer that offers condemnation of the recent mailer and contains open, honest, and truthful facts that support their group's opinion.

The TOT And Possibilities

"The TOT" is the Transitory Occupancy Tax- TOT revenues collected from two business within Rancho Palos Verdes and the TOT currently being collected from Terranea has been slated to be used for capital improvements.

Let's stop for a few minutes. What is the entity other than Terranea that provided TOT revenues for our city? Good question, easy answer for somebody living on the east side of R.P.V.

It's the Value Inn. Sure at about $45.00 per day, we don't collect much from the Value Inn. It is of course, directly behind one of the priciest stand alone restaurants in our city, Think Prime.

A few months before Terranea was scheduled to open, it's developer working with some of our Council members attempted to create a TOT rebate program where the actual rate of the TOT would be increased slightly and then some of the revenues would be rebated back to Terranea.

At the beginning of the process, the TOT was 10% of the 'rack rate' for a room scheduled for Terranea and in place at the Value Inn.

The idea was to raise the TOT to 12% and then rebate a portion back to Terranea to conceivably assist it with its opening and for a few years until it became a successful operation.

Had lien holders of notes on Terranea not concluded that a TOT rebate was not allowed, our city governors would have provided Terranea with taxpayer funds in the form of a partial rebate of Terranea's TOT.

Since the plan never went though, the established TOT of 10% still exists and those who believe the TOT is 12% are incorrect.

It has been noted that TOT revenues from Terranea were in the neighborhood of 2 Million Dollars for 2010 and are suspected to be in the 3 Million Dollar range for 2011.

*NOTE. For the record, I was one of the loudest and staunchest opponents of providing Terranea any rebate or taxpayer revenues. I may have been the only one in R.P.V. opposed to the rebate.

Now let's move forward to today. OUR representatives in Sacramento have stated outright that they are going after every dollar nailed down or not, from cities.

For 2010 the TOT collected from Terranea represents about 10% of our city's current budget.

I want the TOT to stay in R.P.V. We need the TOT to stay in R.P.V. We must find every conceivable way to keep all revenues currently set for city uses to remain for use in our city. This also includes any utility tax revenues our city collects.

Could becoming a charter city insure that our fund are protected? That is a good question and an important one. Sadly the answer is no. There is no guarantee that some TOT or other revenues can be held for city use, if Sacramento or the Federal Government come raid our accounts.

But and however, becoming a charter city MIGHT HELP attempt to keep monies from flowing out of R.P.V. and into Sacramento.

It is true that our residents are residents of the State of California and there are State requirements that must be met. We are citizens of California and R.P.V. and we voted folks into offices at both levels who are supposed to represent us above others.

The question of protecting city revenues from raids by Sacramento is a genuine question for debate regarding Measure C.

Opponents may tell you that there is no way to protect any funds and it is of no matter whether becoming a charter city does anything towards keeping or losing revenues.

This is one of my biggest points of debate with those opposed to Measure C and I stand firmly on the side of supporting any attempt to legally help to try and keep R.P.V. monies for R.P.V. use. I do feel that R.P.V. becoming a charter city will help assist efforts to stop or hinder any raids on city funds.

We may not be able to protect all the dollars but if becoming a charter city protects a good portion of dollars otherwise seized by Sacramento from us as a general law city, I stand in support of Measure C.

Now here is something that you may not know or want to know.

There is talk among those with more response from authorities than I have that there may be a push beginning after the March election to raise sewer fees and possibly some parcel tax increases via a vote of the people.

I am sure you all already know that Governor Brown want a vote on extending the tax increases levied some years ago via a vote scheduled for this coming June.

It is not unbelievable that the June vote could see a increase of sewer fees vote along with Brown's tax extension. Also there could be a measure regarding an increase in parcel taxes within our city, perhaps as early as June.

Supporters and opponents of Measure C are looking very closely at that measure and may not be focused on what just might happen three months after the March 8 vote.

But I am concerned. It is another reason I feel so strongly about taking proactive steps to gain stronger footing on possibly keeping dollars within our city.

If we can't save TOT and other fees AND voters vote to extend or increases taxes and fees, our city will be in deep trouble not far down the road.

San Ramon Canyon must be fixed. No question. No debate whether it must be fixed or not. Too much time has exhausted more talk and long study of the problem. It must be fixed.

I think we may get a new friend in Washington to help find Federal funding pieces, but I will write about that in the near future.

So, San Ramon Canyon must be fixed and the price tag is currently set around 21 Million Dollars.

How long have our residents talked about a new civic center/City Hall? My son who lives in Australia may have been in elementary school when talks about replacing the structures began.

A new City Hall will take municipal dollars that we do not have right now.

Losing even a portion of our TOT and utility users tax revenues would be very harmful for both San Ramon Canyon and consideration over a new City Hall.

I just mentioned two of the major projects requiring taxpayer dollars we don't have.

We must never lose sight of something that may be minor as far as budgets go, but is something we constantly deal with that no other city has to deal with in the Western Hemisphere. .8 miles of Palos Verdes Drive South.

We have parks needing improvement. we have infrastructure threats that continue to plague a city built on bentonite and not having all that much level land in the first place.

We need to find ways to protect our city revenues. One possibility that I support is having R.P.V. becoming a charter city.

Some Reasons To Oppose Measure C

I will vote Yes on Measure C. I don't like the proposed charter much and I have commented on the reasons I think it should have been written better and with more input from interested community members.

I do not endorse either a Yes vote or a No vote on Measure C. I have some real problems with both groups organized in support or in opposition to the measure.

Here is what I hope folks will find is an open and honest set of comments regarding opposition to R.P.V. becoming a charter city.

Of the 481 incorporated cities in the State of California, only 120 -25% have become charter cities.

No city has gone from being a charter city back to a general law city, but you may want to know why that may be.

First, with our city's election, it is estimated that our city's portion of this March's election is approximately $70,000. Not many cities have those kinds of funds these days to fund such and election to become or be removed from charter city status.

There are no really firm estimates as to the prolonged costs and time requirements associated with moving from a general law city to a charter city and supporters of Measure C have not published a set of costs other cities had when they moved into charter city status.

The City Council of a charter city is provided the right to change municipal initiative and election laws and requirements. It is not inconceivable that a charter city's Council might change initiative requirements to make it almost impossible for residents to create a successful campaign to change a city back to general law status.

Some opponents consider what I also have considered. Once City Councils live within charter city 'constitutions' they want to keep whatever power and advantage they have over State of California matters and become reluctant to give up those powers and advantages.

So basically, moving from general law status and into a charter city status take taxpayers' funds and it would cost more to move back to the old status.

Of the 120 charter cities in California, supporters, opponents, and others interested in Measure C have only looked at about 34-37 established charters. Very few folks in R.P.V. have taken the time and energy to study the majority of charters in the state.

The charter proposed for R.P.V. may have been written by one individual and it was studied by the City Attorney who belongs to a firm that represents other charter cities.

The charter proposed by our City Council is two pages long and many residents within our community feel the length of the charter is too short and others, myself included, feel it does not contain enough language to support the city's General Plan and the ordinances already on the books.

Opponents continue to attempt to use statements suggesting they didn't have enough time to comment or discuss the charter before it was placed onto the March ballot. I happen to totally disagree with this position as I have been talking about having R.P.V. becoming a charter city since April, 2010 or sometime earlier. However, statements about how the charter status was discussed as early as year ago must be mitigated with the fact that real, moving-forward discussion, debate, and contributions didn't get going until late 2009 and into 2010.

The concept that this charter is incomplete does have some merit and some of the makers of the charter will state that is was created to be a broad document, in the first place.

There are a great number of very intelligent and caring people in Rancho Palos Verdes who could have helped create a proposed charter, but were not necessarily contacted for input. Now it was up to those individuals to speak up and speak out from at least the Spring of 2010, yet many remained silent. I consider that not asking these good folks for their thoughts about a charter was not truly in the best interests of all of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.

The charter allows greater OPPORTUNITIES for changes in initiative requirements and POSSIBLY local election laws. This does not mean that any would happen, but all must learn that there are possibilities from being a charter city that are not found with general law cities.

Some of the possibilities MIGHT take some things away from some opponents of the Measure, they might not like to see taken away. If we become a charter city, it COULD BE POSSIBLE that the requirments used to qualify The Marymount Plan for a ballot measure, or for some other entity, might be changed by a change of ordinances governing municipal elections.

Yes, three members of a charter city's Council could enact ordinances and other measures current opponents of Measure C don't like. HOWEVER, this has always been the case, within R.P.V.. When a Council meeting has a qurom of four or five members, it has always taken three votes one way on any vote to pass something. With a four-member qurom, a 2-2 vote would not see something get passed.

Since Councils of charter cities appear to have greater opportunities to enact things Councils of general law cities do not have the opportunity to do, It can seem like three members of a charter city's Council have more power than three members of our current general law Council.

Charter cities can currently enact means to offer partial or full exemption from paying prevailing wages on municipal projects funded using municipa affairs funds. This may or may not become moot because of a lawsuit before the California Supreme Court regarding Vista, California. Since the California Supreme Court has not published a decision on the case, it can correctly be mentioned that should we become a charter city and the Council spend time and money creating a full or partial exemption to prevailing wage guidelines, and then the Court rule against Vista's laws, taxpayers' funds could be spent on something that might be ruled unconstitutional.

Opponents do have genuine concerns as to how much OUR city might find in real savings by becoming a charter city. It is acknowledged on all sides that funds needed to create charter city status and the mechanism involved to change from being a general law city to a charter city cost an as yet unknown amount, no one knows how much it could ultimately cost realizing charter city status and maintaining that status year after year.

Opponents also question the amount of savings that might be found by exemptions to prevailing wage guidelines, Design and Build ordinances, changed bidding processes, abilities to alter some tax resources and whether charter cities can protect municipal affair funds, TOT revenues and utility tax revenues.

Some opponents suggest that R.P.V. could be separated into five districts, having a Council made up of members voted onto seats via a district vote instead of a city-wide election. If you hear this, you are being duped and it is a scare tactic.

While it is true that a charter city has the opportunity to create districts, this would never happen in R.P.V. because of those who currently support AND oppose Measure C.

R.P.V. is ultimately governed using the city's General Plan and ordinances supporting the General Plan. A charter means the methods of dealing with the General Plan changes to some degree or to a large degree. This depends on what opportunities a charter city Council seeks and legislates.

Some opponents seem to not have much trust with some members of the current City Council. I can't write much about that at this time other than to confirm that there is a trust issue between some opponents of Measure C and some members of the Council.

Some organized opponents of Measure C want you to know they feel a vote on the Measure should be held in November. There is a thought that more time spent on getting a better charter or getting this charter 'right' is important to them. You should know this.

You should also know that the committee hand selected to support the Council's efforts supporting passage of Measure C is made up of resident volunteers who are all very supportive of Measure C and it is NOT an objective committee put together to study the measure and respond with a summary or comments about Measure C.

Opponents have a right to know that one issue many supporters have for becoming a charter city is that should Marymount College or any other business entity or any entity not favored by a majority of the members of the Council at that particular time, could see changes in rules that would make it much more troublesome for something like The Marymount Plan going up for a vote of the people in the future (I think by reading between the lines, this is also a reason to support passage of Measure C if you do not want to have on-campus student housing built on the main campus of Marymount Collete.) I need to be honest with everyone.

One reason to consider opposing Measure C is because you may feel the charter as it is written, is too ambiguous and could lead to lawsuits over interpretation.

In some kind of summary, here is a shortening of some major reasons some folks oppose Measure C:

Purported savings may not in fact be realized.

Charter city Councils have more opportunities to make greater changes than general law Councils currently have.

The charter as written is too short, ambiguous, and COULD provide for restrictions to intiative and election laws.

Taxpayer funds have been used and must be used to change from a general law city to a charter city. (One critic of Measure C wrote: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.)

Considerations made by supporters about whether R.P.V. as a charter city can actually protect TOT and utility tax revenues from being taken away by State government, is far from certain and at least very questionable.

Greater public input was not used and may have been thwarted during the preparation time of the charter.

Once R.P.V. becomes a charter city, even though a great number of residents might not approve of something in the future, they are stuck with being governed under charter city status.

I hope I have openly and honestly offered reasonable comments with regards to opposition of Measure C.

I have done my best to remove much of the rhetoric some in the No on C group have been trying to use. If some opponents want to comment on this post to help make it better AND with much of the needless rhetoric removed from the discussion, I would appreciate that very much.

I guess I will now have to create a post with reasons to support Measure C, also removing as much of the foul and displeasing rhetoric and misstatements coming from some supporters of Measure C. That post will have to wait until tomorrow, perhaps.

Another Put Up Or Shut Up Post

First, I am very progressive as far as State, National, and foreign issues go, so it is only honest to inform you of that at the outset.

Ms. Sharon Yarber, Mr. Jim Jones, Mr. Ken DeLong, Mr. Barry Hildebrand, and a host of others opposing Measure C are very intelligent residents of our city and they have demonstrated their care for our city for decades.

These folks are also leaders in the No on C movement.

I am holding my nose and voting Yes on C, but I won't endorse a vote either way.

But I think these highly intelligent, caring, and informed residents need to offer what they believe to all the voters who bother to cast a vote on Measure C.

All of the people I have mentioned have declared in some fashion that they do not necessarily oppose our city becoming a charter city. They all happen to oppose this particular charter up for a vote.

O.K. I can dig that, quite deep. I happen to think somewhat along their lines with respect to the inclusions and exclusions with this charter.

But what I have done in an earlier post is something I haven't seen from these intelligent people.

In an earlier post, I wrote about four specific issues that should have been included in this charter, but were not. I provided my reasoning and still consider the proposed charter to be lacking, but still something I will vote Yes for.

Where is there an example of a charter those supportive of having a charter, just not this one, at?

Why haven't the No on C group gathered their heads together to offer a charter to voters they could get behind, since they have stated they don't oppose us becoming a charter city.

I don't know who wrote the charter up for a vote, but I think most 'in the know' folks have a better than pretty good idea of who wrote the charter.

I am absolutely sure that Ms. Yarber, an attorney, along with the brain trust at No on C, have just as much knowledge as the authors of this charter and they COULD HAVE offered up a charter they could support to use against the charter up for a vote.

Now, here is what the Yes on C folks will instantly reply with: The No on C folks won't offer something like that because they really don't want our Council to be a Council of a charter city, no matter what.

We are asked to vote for or against what many residents, including me, consider a flawed charter. But No on C hasn't offered anything but discussion time as an example of what they would like to see.

So, I think for the sake of our intelligent and caring electorate (those that bother to learn and vote in the first place) the think tank at No on C needs to offer up a counter charter, if they are really to be trusted with their words that they don't necessarily object to R.P.V. becoming a charter city.

I have written about the supporters of the charter in a put up or shut up vein regarding prevailing wage guidelines. Nobody could honestly accuse me of not using my put up or shut up, favoring one side or the other.

So, if THIS charter is bad, give us something to compare it to. That is of course, the No on C folks mean what they say about not objecting to a charter in the first place.

Letters to the Editor

The Palos Verdes Peninsula News is carrying more than a few Letters to the Editor concerning Measure C.

http://www.pvnews.com/articles/2011/02/10/opinion/opinion2.txt should get you there, if you are interested.

Whether a letter is from someone supporting Measure C or opposed to its passage, I have found each letter interesting to me and I want to share my thoughts about portions of letters by both supporters and opponents of Measure C.

Mr. David Emenhiser has the first letter published.

Mr. Emenhiser's letter included the following: "Ultimately, the Measure C issue that will be decided on the question of who the voters of RPV trust with their tax dollars — their locally elected officials or the statewide legislators?"

I do believe that trust is a proper word to use. I think the history of our city has reflected that there have been members of the Council who are trustworthy and when some residents don't feel they trust some on the City Council, our residents have been interested enough to engage Council members and issues they are not happy with.

I trust the current City Council makeup to have the best interests of ALL of the residents of R.P.V. being their moral and ethical compass. I also trust that well informed residents can watch the actions of City Councils in the future and provide decent when necessary but always provide added sets of eyes and ears to keep anyone sitting in a City Council seat respecting the concept that our city must remain 'residents first'.

Ms. Marianne Hunter makes a point I totally believe in: "Of course we want to keep what we have, but do we not have a responsibility to help keep the state running? We are citizens of California as much as of Rancho Palos Verdes.

I think most of what Ms. Hunter wrote is what I feel, but it appears she is less informed about some legal requirements that general law cities and charter cities must adhere to. I fully sympathize with her being "torn about this issue".

Yes, Ms. Hunter, a Council of a charte city has the right and opportunity to make changes concerning municipal initiatives and city election requirements.

Mr. Jim Jones was a mentor to me in how a very good Traffic Safety Committee member does their volunteer job with class, and high intelligence.

He offered the following: 

 "Let’s be clear. Overshadowing the value in any city charter, there is a fatal flaw in this proposed Rancho Palos Verdes city charter: It does not contain checks and balances. The old rule says, “Sooner or later, if they can, they will.”



I agree with that statement for most cities OTHER THAN Rancho Palos Verdes, should our voters approve Measure C.

I know Mr. Jones is informed and has offered some checks and balances, which can be thought of as a responsibility of a well-informed electorate.

Again in Mr. Jones' letter, a question to trust is put forward. I think if you go back and look at our city's history, there have usually been residents providing checks and balances to major issues brought before our City Councils.

We have some current evidence of that regarding the Annenberg Project. I think most folks would agree that if a wealthy benefactor offers a project that might have been approved of by many other City Councils, I have seen residents who oppose the project brought by The Annenberg Foundation to our City, have been carefully listened to our City Council has responded to these checks and balances.

I have confidence in our residents keeping our current and future Councils honest.

(*NOTE- I know the members of PVP Watch don't share my confidence in many of our residents' ability to keeping our City Council honest. However, I think the actions of those residents/members of PVP Watch have demonstrated exactly the opposite of what they are saying. I do believe that PVP Watch is one group that looks into the major issues brought to the City Council and I feel they keep our Council honest.)

Ms. Carol Mueller wrote the following: At the Jan. 18 council meeting I asked Mayor [Tom] Long and Councilmen [Steve] Wolowicz and [Doug] Stern what impediments they had encountered over their many years of service that they would not have encountered had we been a charter city. They all gave lengthy responses, but the only “impediments” they revealed were payment of prevailing wages and not being able to potentially hold onto tax revenues. They did not indicate any problems with any other laws that govern general law cities.

I was in the room when Ms. Mueller spoke and as part of my right to use my 'checks and balances' regarding the City Council, I wrote about the exchange in the blog and that I thought Ms. Mueller has a great question and what we all heard was not only not what she asked, but also included one Council member who was not asked the question.

To be fair at this point, (now) Mayor Pro Tem Anthony Misetich did not answer the questions as he respectfully realized he was not one of the members being asked for answers.

Ms. Mueller's question was clear and quite to the point and it deserved answers that were only on the points she was asking about.

Sadly and madly for me, what we all had to sit through was four members of the City Council going to great lengths to lobby the room and T.V. audience for passage of Measure C, rather than having only the three asked, their thoughts about the very specific question.

After what seemed to be a rally in support for passage, Ms. Mueller and the rest of us came away with the basic remarks which Mr. Mueller included. Those two points were the ability to provide exemptions to prevailing wage guidelines and "not being able to potentially hold onto tax revenues.

**NOTE: Fact check. A charter city CURRENTLY has the opportunity to approve language to partially or fully exempt the city from paying prevailing wages on municipal projects funded by only the city. Also, While there are well-regarded opinions that hold that a charter city MIGHT be able to hold onto some tax revenue, there doesn't seem to be any caseload as to how much money charter cities have 'held' onto rather than having those funds taken away or back by a State, County, or Federal entity. That being written, I support the opportunity to do whatever is possible to try and keep other entities from taking away tax revenues now being used by our city, such as the TOT.

Sadly though, Ms. Mueller is among many who continue to include "Bell" in their opposition of Measure C in our city. Rancho Palos Verdes would not, could not, and never will be Bell and problems anything like what we see with Bell. PVP Watch, myself, and hundreds of other R.P.V. residents who are resolved to remain informed about OUR government would NEVER allow even a remote chance of what happened in Bell to happen in R.P.V. This is the trust issue I write about. I trust our residents more than most opponents of Measure C.

From Mr. Patrick Ryan: "please know that the prevailing wage rate established by the California Department of Industrial Relations provides a “level playing field” among contractors bidding on taxpayer-funded projects. These wages provide a good living to an American worker."

Mr. Ryan, I could not agree more. Recently PVP Watch provided documentation that, with the McCarrell Canyon repairs, prevailing wage guidelines were not used during the time we are still a general law city. That written, readers still might like to be reminded that the California Supreme Court has not yet offered its opinion on an Appeal regarding Vista, California. At this time, nobody can accurately confirm that charter cities will have the right to partially or fully exempt their municipal projects, funded with municipal funds, in the future.

Readers need to also remember that Mr. Cruikshank, the earlier writer Mr. Ryan is using his letter to reply to is not only a member of the Rancho Palos Verdes Charter City Committee, (A committee set up more like and educational and lobbying group made up exclusively of Measure C supporters) he is also an employer of workers who work either for prevailing wages or not being paid should a project not be required to follow prevailing wage guidelines.

Ms. Sharon Yarber is the leader of No on C. I felt it necessary to identifier in such a manner because of her position. I have not noted until this point where each previous writer will vote Yes or No on measure C.

Mr. Yarber wrote: "If the city does not have to competitively bid this opens the door for cronyism. The city’s Finance Advisory Committee guesstimates that maybe $1.3 million to $2.6 million might be saved over the next five years (lots of speculation in everything they say about saving money). The staff has decided to come up with numbers that sound way more appealing by including savings on unfunded projects in its

$8.1 million to $16.2 million number pulled out of thin air."

First, I do not agree that the city does not have to use competitive bidding. I know that if Council members ever considered it within their right no avoid competitive bids, there are enough lawyers living in R.P.V., Ms. Yarber being one of them, who would take the city to court in less than a heartbeat, should Council members try a stunt like that.

What I do share with Ms. Yarber is a certain amount of anxiety about the possible prospect of cronyism. Might that happen our city become a charter city? Perhaps. But look at our city's history and consider that contract bids could have been approved in the past having some cronyism involved and I don't believe it ever happened for a fact. I regard the aspect of cronyism as something that could happen but is something an informed electorate would never allow happening.

Ms. Yarber included: "U.S. Constitution is short and narrow! Only powers that are enumerated therein are granted to the feds. Everything else is retained by the states (which explains why state constitutions, which govern everything else, are necessarily longer).

What an insult to our intelligence."

I guess using 'logic' established by Ms. Yarber, a city charter for R.P.V. might have to be longer and contain more than our State Constitution, because of her statement regarding the U.S. and California's Constitutions.

I find that Ms. Yarber's letter is demeaning to our residents intelligence. Her letter muddies the discussion regarding the truthful vote by the City Council. (Yes, Councilman Wolowicz wanted to have the election in November, but he voted to put the Measure onto the March Ballot, making the 5-0 vote unanimous.)

I do feel That Ms. Yarber, PVP Watch, members of the Board of Trustees of Marymount College who are recognized opponents of Measure C, and others have as one element of a hidden agenda, keeping all opportunities to utilize existing municipal initiative and election laws remaining in support of the goal to have on-campus housing constructed on the campus of Marymount College.

Mr. Paul Tetreault contributed the following: 

“The basic difference between general law and charter cities is found in the degree of control which the state government may exercise over them. Charter cities have more freedom to innovate and to pass ordinances according to local need.”



While Mr. Tetrault's inclusion is almost complete and true, I need to inject more information voters may need to help them decide.

Charter city status allows for greater opportunities to enact legislation more directly impacting municipal affairs, as compared to general law status for cities.

It is the OPPORTUNITY a charter city is awarded by its voters that must remain at the forefront of all of the discussions.

A charter city's Council can do very good things for the people of that city. It can also provide ordinances that place some restrictions on residents than what is currently enjoyed in R.P.V.

Yes, an R.P.V. City Council, having use of a charter, can and MIGHT change the number of signatures required for residents to place a measure on a future ballot.

New ordinances under a charter, IF CREATED, could change other election laws and requirements for candidates.

HOWEVER, any notion or comment from any opponent that R.P.V. would ever be divided up into Districts for the purposes of electing Council members or anything else is PURE NONSENSE!

Anyone telling you that R.P.V. would be divided up that way is laying a very foul smokescreen over the issue and trying to scare voters into voting No on C.

Let's say Measure C is approved on March 8. One of the first ordinances created once the charter is fully recognized and governing our city, was an ordinance that states that for the City Council election following this November's election, Only those residents who lived in a house that is now within R.P.V. who moved into the house prior to 1956 are eligible to run for a Council seat.

Let's see, right now only Mr. and Mrs. Graham and me would be allowed to run from the eastview area. That is not going to happen and it is about as reasonable as the city being broken up into districts.

Mr. Tetreault later wrote: Few of us have much trust in government. But I prefer letting my neighbors decide how RPV should be run than our state Legislature and governor, especially at a time when Sacramento is working to raid cities of their revenue sources.

I completely agree with Mr. Tetreault's statement, even the "few of us trust in government" part.

It is the few who seek election to a City Council seat. It is also the few who look over the shoulders of Council members, working long and hard to keep them honest, when we need to look closely.

It has always been the few who voters feel can represent them and be their watchdogs when things don't seem right.

But here is where Mr. Tetreault and I have differing views. From Mr. Tetreault's letter: "

Here is another way to look at it: If we were already a charter city would you vote to give up local control in favor of Sacramento? I didn’t think so. In fact, in California’s history no charter city has ever reverted back to a general law city."

The above statement is just as disenginous than much of Ms. Yarber's letter.

It is quite true that no charter city in California has returned to being a general law city. But there are several factors Mr. Tetreault's letter provided no education for.

The cost of R.P.V. becoming a charter BEGINS with at least $70,000.00. This is for all the staff time and election costs and other costs related to getting the measure through the ballot processes.

It is still to be firmly determined how much added costs will come should the charter be approved and our city change from a general law city.

So, the economics of returning to a general law city would probably be prohibitive and require another ballot measure for voters.

Secondly, as Ms. Yarber correctly considered, a charter city's Council has the OPPORTUNITY to change requirements, municipally. So, if the majority of a charter city's Council wants the option or returning back to general city status, they MIGHT and/or COULD make it more difficult for residents to float an initiative to have such a measure qualify for voting.

I wish supporters of Measure C would just get away from the point that no charter city has gone back to being a general city. It does a real disservice to open and honest debate on this very important matter.

Both sides still use what I can only consider 'deflecting' or 'scare' statements to sway voters in one direction or the other. It is natural for this to be done, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't educate residents when I can see very clearly through the muck and mire.

I hope more residents feel confident in writing letters to the editor concerning Measure C. I think the leadership on both sides of the measure need to read what our residents think and feel.

I hope I have offered an open and honest reflection on portions of letters written to the PVP News.

I think I can be an objective commentator and hopefully educate folks about the pros AND cons about becoming a charter city.

Voters deserve all information and resources to use their high intelligence to determine how they will vote. We all witnessed dramatically what happens when a special interest group tries to pull the wool over the eyes of our electorate.

I continue to call on all leaders of both sides of the Measure C question to keep in mind the intelligence of our city's interested electorate.

For those who really don't care, there's always Facebook.

The Charter's Challenge

The article below authored by Mr. Bob Packard, is provided by permission from Mr. Packard's editor and can be found along with other articles on the Web site Rancho Palos Verdes Patch, linked on the left side of this blog.

The Charter's Challenge

The March 8 charter vote challenges RPV residents to study, debate and cast a meaningful vote.
By: Bob Packard February 2, 2011

Battle lines are being drawn with the approach of the March 8 vote on Measure C, the initiative to convert Rancho Palos Verdes from a general law city to a charter city. It’s a complex issue with many facets, but with the vote just five weeks off, debate is heating up and pushing a few main issues to the forefront.

Is the initiative an outright “power grab” by council members, as some opponents allege? Or is it a bid to grab power from Sacramento, give it to the city, and better protect RPV’s budget from future raids by a struggling state government?

Is the two-page charter poorly written and too broad, creating the potential for significant Council actions on things like election processes without enough citizen input or say-so?

Or is its brevity a virtue, allowing the city the flexibility to deal with issues as they come up, without tying things up with a detailed document that can only be changed by popular vote?

Is this particular charter being rushed through the political process without enough citizen input? Or is several months’ worth of discussion and review, with each major step covered in council meetings and on the city website, enough notice?

At the core of the charter debate are some deep personal issues and decisions. Do you trust your elected officials? (And by the way, did you vote?) Do you trust them to conduct the political process in a fair and open manner? (And have you ever been to a council meeting or watched one on TV to see them in action?)

In my case, I’m going to trust them until they prove me wrong. And I’m going to watch them closely, because in a participatory government like ours, that’s how the game is played. You carefully suss out candidates, vote accordingly, and watch the winners perform their duties at meetings, in the news, any public venue you can.

The beauty of our system is that you’re offered the chance to participate; but that’s also your weighty responsibility. It’s not always fun, easy or convenient. Check out a council meeting – the system and subject matter often seem unduly complex, with strange jargon and unfamiliar processes. It can be intimidating at first. But persistence pays off; it’s not rocket science, and you can quickly learn enough to appreciate what’s going on and form an opinion.

Another thing is that you’ll probably see a lot of the same people at most meetings – many former city pols or rabid political junkies – and you’ll feel like it’s a fraternity you can’t join. Just do it. I’m sure the council and staff would like to see some new faces in there. In fact I’m sure of it, based on how profusely some council members praise a new speaker for showing up.

In RPV, there really is no excuse for not being informed. You can’t blame anybody else. There are at least two newspapers and a news website (us) that cover each council meeting – plus they’re televised on a city-operated cable channel. There are watchdog websites and blogs that are ready and willing to take on the city – PVP Watch and No on C, for example. (If I missed any, please write and give us a link.)

The RPV city website is a gold mine of information, no matter which side of an issue you’re on. You’ll find meeting agendas; videotaped meetings; breaking news reports; and an avalanche of documents, including reports and FAQs to get you up to speed on issues. You can e-mail the mayor, council members, planning commission, virtually manager or decision-maker. You can even opt in to a service that will push you new information on topics of your choice.

“The amount of information contained on our website and the lengths that we go to advertise upcoming issues go far beyond anything that’s required by law,” said Carolyn Lehr, RPV city manager. “That’s what our city council demands, and we have the kind of educated residents who expect it.”

The outrageous abuses by elected officials in the city of Bell are sometimes cited in the charter debate, because that’s any city’s ultimate nightmare. But those abuses can happen in both general law and charter cities, if we elect the wrong people and we aren’t watching them closely with a fair dose of skepticism.

Residents of this city have a strong track record of turning out for important elections. With five weeks left, there’s still time to attend some debates, learn more about the charter, and cast a meaningful vote. If you don’t, don’t complain.

*** Please visit the Rancho Palos Verdes Patch site at:

http://ranchopalosverdes.patch.com/articles/the-charters-challenge

to view comments submitted related to the article and the issues.