A Contribution of a Post

On occasion, with several of my other blogs, I have welcomed posts contributed to me by others. This post is a contribution from Mr. Jim Gordon.

Mr. Jim Gordon is a member and an information-providing leader of Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount College, (CCC/ME).

Jim can routinely be seen in front of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council providing factual information and cogent opinions regarding The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and The Marymount Plan.

Mr. Gordon has offered this contribution and has provided his permission to edit it, by me. I have only omitted his complementary words at the beginning of his Email/contribution to me, concerning two of three previous posts I wrote on this blog.

Mr. Gordon offered his opinions and some true facts concerning "My Third Vote" post where he takes issue with some of what I wrote.

Here are Jim's words written concerning the post I wrote and the opinions expressed in his contribution are his.

"With respect to the Third, however, I would observe that perhaps Mrs. Karp and her historical role in the Marymount Expansion history is both a bit skewed and inconsistent vis a vis Dr. Brophy's own tarnished history.

The word "opponent" - generally and as used in your blog - comes with negative baggage and a bad connotation - automatically. Persons who are described as an "opponent" already have one or two strikes against them. Conversely, add the word "worthy" in front of "opponent" and you get an entirely different picture and connotation.

Mrs. Karp has earned that title, "Worthy opponent". The history of Marymount's misguided Expansion goes back more than the commonly-referred to ten years when the City of RPV attempted to sneak in Marymounts' plans by way of a "Consent Calendar" Agenda item. An item that otherwise would not require any formal EIR as it was proposed to be under that radar also.

Fortunately for the Community, or unfortunately, if you are so inclined, that sneak attack was brought out into daylight and rejected. A couple years later, in May 2000, Dr. McFadden signed an application for Marymount's Modernization - with a plan that was never revealed to residents for any kind of prior review. Under the neighborhood radar again. Subsequently, in October 2000 (Saturday the 14th) Trustees reluctantly granted a Neighborhood review but with the proviso that no changes would be tolerated. Mrs. Karp, Larry Clark, Tom Redfield and myself were in attendance at that show trial.

This neighborhood group commented against the proposed three dormitories and shared our documented concerns with related campus geological issues. The College was unmoved and proceeded directly - until two and a half years later - when, based on underlying geological problems, were forced to withdraw their plans and re-set. Your favorite Library had been sited at the edge of a geological precipice and had to be moved.

By the time the new plans (and smoke) had cleared, the College had wasted over 5 years before re-commencing in August 2005. After about 6 more months, the College failed to deliver needed CEQA data and wasted an additional 13 months before re-commencing in June of 2007.

Dr. Brophy came on the scene in August 2006 when his first day of school featured a near death accident caused by one of his freshman students colliding - in the opposite lane - with Realtor Janet Levering, nearly killing her. We witnessed the aftermath during which time the now on-scene Dr. Brophy advised the errant student "not to say anything" to the authorities. Nice. The student was eventually dismissed from the College.

In September, one month later, Dr. Brophy visited with Mrs. Karp and myself with Jack in attendance at their home and was cautioned that the College's existing plans for construction over an "18 to 24 month" time period were unworkable as the College and campus would have to be closed for an unsustainable period of time.

This advice was later acknowledged to the City in a letter from Dr. Brophy of October 30, 2006 instituting a new three-Phase Plan with Phase I being 3 months to allow for only a summertime closure and continued operation in the fall, etc.

That plan was not revealed to CCC/ME by the College or City until a Mediterranea meeting on College premises in mid January 2007. Nice communication. It was subsequently determined that Phase I could not be completed in the forecast 3 months by consultation with experts at Terannea (Turner) suggested by Ara. The City and College have subsequently refused to update the Phasing Plan incorporating only the discredited 3 months span.

CCC/ME's "worthy opposition" to some of Marymount's overbearing Expansion Plans has consistently been based on the premise that dorms are inappropriate for this limited site,and that the expansion creates unnecessary and inappropriate parking and traffic levels with increased student enrollment levels and utilization, and that the proposed Athletic Facility as well as dorms belong at the College's site elsewhere.

These valid and worthy concerns have proved prescient, particularly in view of the original uses of this site which were far more limited and far less disruptive. Further, this now-abrasive College has a documented history of non-neighborly and independent actions detrimental to the surrounding community. This historical record - dating back to early 1975 - can be viewed in the Staff Report of April 22, 2008 regarding the FLS program review by the PC.

You may recall that Dr. Brophy was quite confused or intentionally deceptive about the PC not giving the College and their proposed dorms a fair hearing on that issue. In fact, at the CHOA meeting in March of 2010 he (falsely) responded to a question about "why" Measure P stating that it was necessary because the PC had not given the College a fair hearing by citing a straw poll of late 2008 as being the culprit. This was egregiously false because dorms were still alive and on the table at the April 14th 2009 PC Hearing, although at that time were recommended (for later final decision May 26, 2009) to be stricken. Before that could happen, however, Dr. Brophy ordered dorms withdrawn from further PC consideration on April 24, 2009, etc. and at that time stated that he would continue to fight for them. This College is good at withdrawing plans from consideration, dating back to June 2003.

Dr. Brophy's vow for dorms was ultimately proven true with the College's submission of Measure P. CCC/ME opposed those dorms and the ultimate Community vote was to deny that initiative. Dr. Brophy has since further indicated he will return to this dorms issue in an antagonistic letter of May 13, 2011 to Mayor Long with reference to Measure P "We will be back again. inevitably, to make similar requests of RPV." So there still is a need to keep a balance of opinion going forward.

My point here is to simply remind the author that Dr. Brophy and the College has been an "opponent" of the neighborhood, and not a worthy one at that. I have little or no sympathy for the 6th President of Marymount College for being "upset" at the City's designation of Mrs. Karp as an "opponent" in appointing her to the Neighborhood Advisory Committee (Condition #138) as the "at Large" member. I would somewhat agree with you had Dr. Brophy not been on the other side of the table on this with another representative of the College being in place. Nonetheless, Dr. Brophy's petulant and childlike tantrum the evening of September 6, 2011 was not followed up as he had promised to appeal and overturn this decision along with the Condition #138 itself. A most foolhardy and un presidential public position to make.

Not bad for your latest Blogs, however - two out of three" not bad at all."

I do not necessarily agree or disagree with opinions set forth in Jim's contribution but I did acknowledge to him that I have uses and do generalize the words 'opponent' and 'opponents' when considering those neighbors of Marymount College who have declared opposition to some or most of either The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project or The Marymount Plan.

In a forthcoming post, I will provide more independent information that allows us to learn that not all of the membership of CCC/ME or any other group are opposed to some types and issues relating to redevelopment of the Marymount College main campus.

I have struggled to learn what the elements of both The Project and The Plan are that members of CCC/ME and other neighbors wish to see on Marymount's Palos Verdes Drive East campus, but I have more information now that there are some basic elements of The Project/The Plan that curry favor and real support by some I might refer to as 'opponents'.

The bottom line is that there are actually very few members of our community that oppose everything about The Project, but they are really few in number and are not necessarily all that involved in the discussions and debates.

I support The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project as it was adopted and with the current timeline accepted by Marymount's officials, administrators and Trustees. I believe I am with the majority of residents in our city and I am pleased that all five members of our City Council made their final votes on The Project unanymous.

Thank you, Jim Gordon. Your thoughtful and fact-fill contribution illustrates that not all 'opponents' are really completely opposed to some redevelopment of Marymount's main campus and your accurate account of history can educate all of us.