Article Is Misleading

The city of Rancho Palos Verdes Spring 2011 newsletter contains an article titled, "MEASURE C: CHARTER CITY INITIATIVE" that I have found to contain some misleading statements.

I will document some instances within the article that can only be described as misleading in documenting the most truthful and complete facts..

I think the article was written by a supporter of Measure C and is constructed in such a manner as to take some very important points and not reveal a more truthful consideration of those points.

The sections of the article I have found problems with are in the "Following are the advantages commonly attributed to charter cities:" area of the article.

I will copy/paste those portions of the article I find troublesome and then insert wording in different size and or color that better factually represents what the advantages MAY be.

First, becoming a charter city allows for increased LOCAL control over the city’s own municipal affairs, including municipal finances.

Second, charter cities have expansive authority to POSSIBLY enter into design-build contracts. The design- build process allows a city to contract with a single entity that both designs and constructs a public works project, rather than a city separately soliciting proposals from an architect or engineer to design the project and then to solicit bids for a contractor to construct that project. This MIGHT ENABLE faster completion of projects, POSSIBLY ELIMINATING redundancies, POSSIBLY reducing risk, and MAY save costs and taxpayer dollars. Currently, general law cities are restricted to entering into only

design-build contracts for particular projects in excess of $1,000,000. This statutory authorization from the State Legislature will expire in 2016, unless it is renewed or extended by the Legislature. In contrast, charter cities may enter into any design-build contracts, unless restricted by their own charters or ordinances.

Third, although the California Supreme Court currently has a case before it that will determine the future of this advantage, many***NOTE*** FACTUAL CLARIFICATION

NECESSARY! Currently there are 120 charter cities in California. Of those 13 have partial exemptions and 37 have full exemptions. While the article states 'many' factually 58 of the charter cities have no exemptions, 13 only have partial while SEVENTY charter cities have no exemptions. More honestly stated, many more charter cities have either no exemptions or only partial exemptions than there are charter cities having full exemptions.

charter cities have historically exempted themselves from paying prevailing wages, which are required in many public works contracts of general law cities. Prevailing wages are the per diem wages set by the California Department of Industrial Relations. Prevailing wages are significantly higher than industry standard wages. It is commonly estimated that paying prevailing wage adds between 20 and 40 percent to the cost of labor on a public works project.

*NOTE* It is commonly known within the city, by most residents with greater knowledge of what charter cities are allowed to do, that one of the first changes that would be made should our city become a charter city, is that full exemptions would be created.

The cost of labor varies with each individual project, but an average labor component of 40 percent of the total cost of a project would be a reasonable estimate. The City and its residents could see significant future savings on many publicly funded projects that are included in the City’s Five Year Capital Improvement Plan and in the list of the City’s Unfunded (future) Capital Projects. City staff have projected the savings for these two categories of future capital projects to be dbetween $8.1 and $16.2 million.

Fourth, charter cities have greater OPPORTUNITIES TO CONSIDER MORE flexibility when it comes to awarding contracts for public works projects. General law cities must competitively bid any public works project over $5,000. This process can be expensive and can delay projects from moving forward, which also increases costs due to rising costs for materials. Charter cities are not required to adhere to these restrictions. General law cities also are required to select the lowest bidder on such projects, whereas charter cities may opt for a contractor that is more qualified or offers higher-quality construction. In general, charter cities have more OPPORTUNITY FOR GREATER flexibility in the area of public works than general law cities, IF THEY ELECT TO UTILIZE THE OPPORTUNITIES.

The portions of the article that report advantages to becoming a charter city neglected to inform residents and voters of possibilities, probabilities, and opportunities that may or may not happen if Measure C passes. It seems to state as fact, things that are not only not proven and might never happen in R.P.V.

Some opponents of Measure C may rightly claim that the term 'many charter cities have historically exempted themselves from paying prevailing wages..." is more myth than fact.

69.666% of the charter cities in California have either no exemptions or only partial exemptions compared to the 30.333% of California's charter cities who now have full exemptions. When is 37 out of 120 considered, 'many'?

There are reasons to support passage of Measure C and I do support passage. But when a city-sponsored newsletter is distributed to residents of the entire city, whether they support or oppose Measure AND because city expenses were used to create and distribute the article, it is necessary for there to be factual, honest, and truly objective information reported UNLESS an inclusion into the newsletter carries the information in the form of an editorial or opinion.

There are some disadvantages to becoming a charter city that were not articulated effectively enough.

Since some of the major reasons stated for becoming a charter city would most likely be accomplished through ordinance creation and not contained within this charter, any changes to things like Design-Build, prevailing wage guidelines, lowest bid contracts and so forth can be changed by a majority vote (3) of the members of any City Council.

Another disadvantage to R.P.V. becoming a charter city with this particular charter is as follows:

Should Measure C pass and should the City Council create full exemptions to prevailing wage guidelines by expending city funds, staff time, and other costs, then to find that the California Supreme Courts rules against the city of Vista California's lawsuit, charter cities having partial or full exemptions would see those ordinances becoming unconstitutional unless and until a future ruling by the District Court of Appeals or the United States Supreme Court. Not waiting to see what happens to the exemptions currently enacted by 50 of the 120 charter cities, may cost R.P.V. taxpayers funds that waiting would not necessarily cost them.

Because some of the most important reasons for becoming a charter city in the first place have been deliberately left out of the language of the charter, no vote of the electorate is required to change those provisions and ordinances.

The article does not mention on who authored the charter and whose opinions were used in writing the charter, other than the legal opinion by the city attorney.

I think the residents have the right to know and it is the obligation of the authors of the charter up for a vote to have their names listed for all of the residents' information.

I have offered comments and opinions from both sides of the charter city issues that I have found misleading, factually incorrect, incomplete, and problematic for me.

Both sides need to be completely open and honest so that the electorate can be educated by having the facts and well-considered opinions to base how they will mark their ballots by 8:00 PM on March 8, 2011.

I am voting Yes on Measure C. I cannot ask you to do the same. I won't ask you to vote NO either. But I will ask you to learn everything you can from all sides of the measure and use your brain and guts to arrive at a decision you can be comfortable with.

I just wish I was more comfortable with my decision to vote YES. I would not be comfortable voting NO on Measure C.

Some Big Issues Missing?

I still support passage of Measure C and changing our city form a general law city to a charter city.

I do this feeling that I really would have liked to see a vote on the charter containing provisions concerning the three most important reason for becoming a charter city in the first place.

I think everyone acknowledges that the charter being voted on is broad in scope and have very few limitations, compared to the Constitutions of our Stage and our Federal Government.

Supporters want us to approve the charter using reasoning I can break down into five categories. What my continued problem with the charter is that four of the five categories or reasons for us becoming a charter city are not enumerated or clearly enough established for my own personal comfort.

The first of the five categories for becoming a charter city is the recognition, adherence to, and effects of becoming a charter city. I think this category is enumerated by the charter itself.

I do feel that there are four other reasons, categories, or very major issues that should have been included in the charter so that voters would have a more informed opportunity to see some of the major changes as to how we operate as a city. I think enumerating those four elements that are so important, gives our interested and intelligent electorate a chance to decide better whether we should become a charter city or not.

I have ponder over four issues, categories, elements, or whatever one might call them. Other residents may have fewer or a greater number of those types of things, but since the four I am writing about are the reasons I support passage, I am limiting this to just three.

I don't know what to call the elements that I strongly feel should have been included in the charter up for a vote.

I am using "Bill of Authorities" for these. Whether these elements would be considered Amendments, Sections of Articles, or even separate Articles, might not matter.

Here are the four elements that I feel should have been addressed in the charter language:

Design and Build

Prevailing Wage Guidelines

City Funding for Other Entities

Initiatives and Election Processes

Design and Build

Supporters of charter passage use the remodel of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Library as a very good example for what can happen when one firm designs a project and another firm builds the project.

After the dust from construction settled, dust from all the problems because of the design and construction processes blew up into a major dust storm.

Dirt poured over the blame games and the expenses, court costs, and other financial considerations added more woes to a project that wasn't the prettiest to get through.

I would have liked to see language contained within a new charter specifically outlining the way Design and Build would be used in our city.

A potential problem with Design and Build is that three members of any R.P.V. City Council could approve a contract with a Design and Build firm and a future scenario could play out that the firm awarded the contracts may have done some things to receive the contracts that residents didn't know about or could be illegal.

The charter contains language about pay and gifts of city funds, but there isn't any language about elements as to how Design and Build contracts would be free of even the potential of conflict of interest, lobbying, or 'back room deals'. I do think language should have been included in a part of the charter concerning the rights and limitations authorized in our city charter so as to confirm that Design and Build is never unduly influenced.

Prevailing Wage Guidelines

Anyone with slightly more than a marginal knowledge of the charter city measure knows that one of the first things that will be done if a charter is approved is that our current City Council will go forward with full exemptions of prevailing wage guidelines (PWG) for municipally funded municipal projects.

I feel it would have been more honest from supporters, including the five residents that will very probably vote for full exemptions, our City Council members, to have placed the full exemption elements as part of the measure so that could be voted on.

This all may be moot since the California Supreme Court hasn't published any ruling on whether a charter city can be exempted from PWG, but the charter contains language about legal issues between the city and the State.

Also, since the majority of charter cities in our State and also within L.A. County have either no exemptions or only partial exemptions, voters should have been given the opportunity to vote for or against Measure C based partially on what most of us expect to see in the very near future after passage.

Personally, I think having no exemptions from PWG is better for our residents.

City Funding for Other Entities

Charter cities have the opportunity to allow taxpayer dollars, intended for the exclusive use within our city, to be used to assist projects or entities outside general law city status, including School Districts.

I think the charter should have included specific language as to whether our city would use the opportunity and if so, what entity would receive funds, how those funds must be used, and how much of our city's tax dollars would be allowed to be spent on those other entities.

Now mind you, it may never happen. But since a charter allows the possibility that it could happen and our city has provided city funds for non-city entities as long as there is a proven public benefit, the charter could have included language voters could use to help them decide whether to support or oppose our city becoming a charter city.

Personally, I think having the opportunity to help our School District with some funds for schools that are within the city of Rancho Palos Verdes is a good thing. However, others may want to help schools in locations other than our city and there are folks who don't want city tax revenues going to public schools at all.

Specific language about a charter city's opportunity to do something I consider to be a big thing, should have been included.

Initiatives and Election Processes

One of the major reasons for becoming a charter city is that there would exist opportunities for changing laws concerning the initiative processes and city election guidelines.

If you look back about 1-1/2 years ago and are honest with yourself, you will remember the Measure P, The Marymount Plan issues that actually are still under consideration.

Marymount College, a non-denominational private college, wants to have on-campus student housing constructed, along with every other element I supported and the city approved with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

Marymount College and its supporters who want dorms is considered a special interest group in our city. That is a fact.

Special interest groups, whether they be a business-related entity such as Marymount College or resident-related group such as a group wanting dog parks in our city, have the legal right to petition the government for redress or election.

Charter city status allow the opportunity to have a majority of the members of any sitting City Council approve changes to existing elections laws within the city.

City Councils with charter cities also have the authority and opportunity to change how future Council member are elected and terms of service.

Since a city charter is a city's 'Constitution' the charter up for a vote in our city should have contained specific language, based on the intelligence and honesty of the authors of the charter and sitting City Council members, as to changes authorized to the local initiative process and Council membership.

I know for a fact that while Measure P was brewing, there was talk by some that, by becoming a charter city, R.P.V. could see changes in initiative process ordinances or the establishment thereof, so special interest groups would find it harder to have their own agendas presented to residents for a vote.

The supporters of The Marymount Plan still have opportunities to see that plan become law. They would have to place three members on our City Council, at one time, to get The Marymount Plan becoming law.

Personally, I do feel that our residents need better protection from special interest groups trying to use the ballot box to validate their agendas.

The four topics I feel should have been addressed in the charter make up what could be the three most important new rights granted to City Council members. The right or authority to use our tax dollars in ways most cities can't or choose not to do is pretty darn important, I feel.

The four also can be considered to have opportunities for corruption that are not now a factor in our city.

The four might create fundamental changes in how the city operates. I haven't found any other fundamental issue as important to address as these four, but there could be more other residents are considering.

I do side with opponents of Measure C in their statements about the charter not containing enough information or language for voters to use. That is why I am writing this post.

I do consider though that our voters will continue to elect bright, honest, and passionate representatives on our City Council.

But as we saw with Measure P, there are elements within our city that have agendas differing than what the majority of our residents want.

Yes, we have had a pretty good run during the last 38 years. Yes, we do have monies in reserve.

But I feel protecting funds for our city and probably saving taxpayer funds going to a Design and Build opportunity currently outweigh going from a general law city to a charter city.

Thank you.

P.S. Neither the Yes on C or No on C campaigns may use any of this post in their literature, advertising, or public statements as supportive or opposing the vote on March 8, 2011.

Today's Measure C Debate

The Peninsula Seniors sponsored a debate on Measure C, the Rancho Palos Verdes charter city ballot measure.

For the purposes of this particular post, I am going to presume that readers know some information about Measure C and its implications and having an opinion on the matters would help more.

Debating in support of Measure C was Mr. Bill James, a attorney specializing in tax matters. Mr. James currently volunteers with the city as a member of committees and has done so for years.

Debating in opposition of Measure C was Ms. Sharon Yarber, an attorney specializing in real estate matters. Ms. Yarber is the leader of the most organized group opposed to passage of Measure C, "No on C".

Since this is not a newspaper article, I am going to comment on various aspects and points made during the debate on both sides, while using my editorial privileges as author of this blog to make further comment. I shall do this in sections.

My brain versus my heart.

Today's debate did nothing to solve my issues between what my brain thinks and what my heart wants.

My brain continues to have me voting YES on Measure C. My heart on the other hand, is telling me on some important points to vote NO on Measure C. There are some aspects that my head and heart agree on and those points make up the few reasons I can defend for supporting our city becoming a Charter City.

No matter what anyone says or rights, at this moment, there are two main reasons and just a very few minor reasons I am voting YES on Measure C.

I do believe that having the opportunity to use Design and Build elements is a very good reason for us becoming a charter city.

Not only will 'some' money be saved and there is no one anywhere who can give an accurate and believable estimation as to how much money our city could save I feel, but we would be better able to deal with major projects having fewer obstacles, and limitations.

I do feel that the potential of keeping our municipal affairs funds from being taken by other governmental bodies is extremely important.

This would not be much of a matter if we did not have Transportation Occupancy Tax

(TOT) revenues streaming in from the Terranea Resort.

While I opposed having a rebate of portions the TOT being provided back to the resort, I feel it is essential that we find ways to protect those funds and all funds considered municipal affairs funds.

My brain also tell me that even though both sides are not necessarily being totally open and honest, I have some issues with some of the points made by the opposition and some of what I feel are parts of a larger hidden agenda I will comment on further down.

My heart is very troubled with passage of a charter city question at this time.

As stated in a previous post, I did and still hold that it should have been supporters of Measure C who needed to fund the election and provide other funds for some other pieces of the puzzle done by the city.

I do think Ms. Yarber made some valid and noteworthy points about how the charter city issues began and built steam last year.

Ms. Yarber spoke about other issues in the city that were studied on a extended basis, workshops conducted for community members who could assist in the development of plans, and objective investigations by residents about the construction of the proposed charter would have occurred.

When the Council voted to begin active work on creating a charter vote and moving forward with its first purposed charter, I was already quite involved with some city issues and I spoke early about my thoughts concerning the charter and when I felt a vote should be taken.

I think allegations that might suggest that members of the City Council and more outspoken supporters of having us become a charter city, 'steamrolled' through the processes and studies, is valid and has merit.

I never felt that was any open discussion as to whether we should become a charter city after last April and that much of the prior discussions either were done within circles more residents were not a part of or they were done by those with an agenda that would be aided by having us being a charter city.

My heart believes we have enough wonderful residents able to help draft the best charter in the State and that many of those same residents are a pool of potential Council members that would protect and develop our city as a charter city.

This is borne out to some extent by members of NO on C who don't object to becoming a charter city, at some point.

My heart is also more than greatly troubled by what I now feel would be a rush to have our city using full exemption of prevailing wage guidelines (PWG) eliminated as soon as possible after we officially become a charter city. My reasoning for this is mentioned in several prior posts, if you are interested in learning more concerning my thoughts about keeping PWG.

As of this moment, I will hold my nose in the voting booth and vote YES on Measure C.

Marymount

Dr. Michael Brophy will tell you that Marymount College takes no position on Measure C, he is correct, but he is also not telling you things you might want to know.

During today's debate, Ms. Yarber also stated some problems with having a City Council of a charter city using just a simple majority of City Council members, changing requirements for issues like the number of signatures required for an initiative and some other election-related issues.

In the case of Measure P, The Marymount Plan, supporters of that measure were told they needed "10%" of the registered voters of our city placing signatures on petitions to qualify the measure for the ballot. However, a second opinion raised the percentage needed to 15%.

Marymount's supporters gathered more signatures that any requirement required, even when it was put at 15%.

For anyone to deny that many opponents of The Marymount Plan considered that becoming a charter city would allow our Council to change initiative qualification requirements that could make it far less likely that any group would attempt to use a municipal initiative, would not be stating the fact.

One minor reason many of us supported becoming a charter city was that a City Council could adopt ordinances that COULD keep interested parties from trying to place ballot measures up for a vote on their own special interest issues.

It is true that it COULD become harder for a second measure regarding The Marymount Plan enter into the initiative process should we become a charter city AND new conditions are placed that would cause more restrictions on special interest groups having ballot measures before the electorate.

It is also true that many strong supporters of Measure P, The Marymount Plan are now strong opponents of Measure C and for anyone to not acknowledge that is demeaning to our residents, I feel.

I am sure there are still thousands of residents who share Marymount's dream of having on-campus housing built for students and that dream will probably come up in the future.

While I and thousands of others joined everyone on the City Council in support of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, we oppose The Marymount Plan because of its on-campus housing element.

It would be honest of those opposed to Measure C stating how they feel about The Marymount Plan and on-campus student housing because our residents know what the opinions are of those very supportive of Measure C. I don't know if the No on C folks want to divulge that information, but I suspect not since Measure P was voted on by more than 66% of registered voters and it failed to pass by more than 9 points.

It is also true and should be revealed that at least some of the members of the Marymount College Board of Trustees are sponsoring functions and/or donating monies to the No on C campaign. They may claim no affiliation between the measure and Marymount College's interests.

I have been open and honest as to how I stand on both issues and I feel all voters can better decide whether to support or oppose the measure having all sides remaining open and honest.

Statements and Comments That Muddy the debate

Sadly and unfortunately I have heard and read things on both sides of the measure that can be considered less than forthright and attempting to muddy the consideration of the measure.

There is no real good in this because we have an group of registered voters who, if interested, are very well equipped to learn the truth and discount those who continue to muddy the waters of discussion.

Sure, it is done all the time and both sides have reasons to let potential voters know only what they want them to know, that's politics.

I have sitting next to my keyboard the "RPV Alert" which comes from the No on C campaign.

I will address this document before I comment about things the Yes on C want you to know versus what they may not want you to know.

The first bullet point printed on the Alert states under the "Enact all new election laws without voter approval, including..." is:

"A. dividing the city into voting districts,"

I don't know of a weaker excuse to try and fool voters. In the 38 years this city has been a city and with all who served the city whether elected or as volunteers, the idea of dividing RPV into districts is comical at best and very misleading at worst.

Ms. Yarber mentioned Councilman Brian Campbell as the only person she has heard of who has said anything that anyone might remotely consider a comment about dividing the city.

So, the first thing I did when I fired up my 'puter is Email Councilman Campbell with what I heard coming from Ms. Yarber.

Councilman Campbell and I talked directly within a half an hour after I sent the Email to him.

He stated he never spoke to anyone regarding any proposition about dividing the city and he termed Ms. Yarber's statement a "complete fabrication".

In further talking with Councilman Campbell, we both agreed he may have mentioned to someone about how Meause P, The Marymount Plan was dividing the city and I absolutely agree with Councilman Campbell that it did and still divides us.

The "RPV ALERT" stated the following in its opening:

"DID YOU KNOW that the proposed Measure C charter would give power to just three members of the council to:..."

Here is my response to that statement:

DID YOU KNOW that even though a City Council is given the power to do things by the people who elected them to office, it does not mean in any way, that any of the items outlined in the Alert would ever be enacted!

Three members of our City Council already have the right as members of a majority vote on an issue or ordinance to enact laws under our current General Law status.

The City Council of a charter city is granted greater OPPORTUNITIES to make new laws, but that does not mean those opportunities would necessarily be taken.

Historically when looking at those who make up the 'inner' group of member of the No on C campaign, you will find folks who rarely agree with many of the current and former members of our City Council.

Besides NO on C having supporters of The Marymount Plan as strong supporters, most Palos Verdes Peninsula Watch (PVP Watch) members also are strong opponents to passage of Measure P.

This is important to note for all to learn because it was PVP Watch that strongly supported the Freedom of Information Act inquiry concerning Palos Verdes on the Net and issues related to the City Council.

Our city was required to fund a Freedom of Information request seeking thousands and thousands of documents, which cost taxpayer funds and a great deal of staff time and effort, if I am not mistaken.

The outcome of that, something members of PVP Watch supported, was that once the documents were collected and ready to be delivered for possible lawsuit action, nobody ever picked up the vast amounts of documents.

I took away from that episode a consideration that there are some within our city who, when they really don't like someone or something done by our City Council, they have no trouble having city funds and city staff time being expended for what amounts to a witch hunt. This is my opinion on that.

Again, my heart wants to have a better charter constructed, using a wider array of interested residents, being considered better than whether a park should have an off-leash area for dots, and voted on when we know who will be the 'deciders' on our City Council AFTER this November's election.

My brain leads me, though. I trust more in those that serve on our City Council to have our interests best served rather than the potential of any special interest group having their own wants approved.

The Yes on C, having the entire City Council, the Planning Commission, the City Attorney, the Finance Advisory Committee and other current and former committee and commission members 'ganging' up in support of Measure C, seems to allow those who feel there has not been enough consideration or that other considerations might be squashed like a bug is something I feel the No on C folks can easily use.

Since the charter in this election is so broad, supporters not only can't guarantee much, but their speculations may not be all that well thought out.

I am not sure how the vote will turn out, but if you are reading this, thank you so much for being so concerned for everyone in Rancho Palos Verdes.

Another Comment Elevated To A Post

From time to time on my blogs that deal with issues, I take a comment that I find noteworthy and important enough in my thinking, to elevate it to a post status.

Today I received an 'Anonymous' comment from someone who is an opponent of passage of our Measure C, the Charter City creating ballot measure that will be voted on, on or before March 8, depending on whether voters use absentee ballots or walk into polling places.

The comment was regarding my posting on January 13, 2011 titled:

Measure C, Rancho Palos Verdes As A Charter City, My Thoughts, linked here via,

http://eastrpv.blogspot.com/2011/01/measure-c-rancho-palos-verdes-as.html

Here is the comment which I will follow up with my own perspective on the comment.

"To answer your question Jeff, the following are just a couple of the reasons why we should delay:

(1) There is a case currently pending before the California Supreme Court (involving the City of Vernon's (Vista's) charter) that will address whether charter cities can truly exempt themselves from CA's prevailing wage statute. If Vernon (Vista) loses this case then the financial benefit you are touting will evaporate. In such case, the typical costs of administrating, amending, and defending our own unique charter (vs piggy-backing off of the state rules, as most cities do) most surely would become a financial drain on the city. Although Vernon (Vista) received a favorable ruling from the appeals court, it did so only by a split vote. The strongly worded dissent was very compelling (it's worth a read, if you haven't seen it). So I think it is far from certain that the appellate decision will be affirmed and that the claimed financial benefits for a charter form of city government will be realizable.

(2) The fact that the city council and a few citizens have sporadically addressed this issue over the last year is irrelevant. What matters is the effort the city has put into studying this change and informing the electorate about the true impact of this charter. This is perhaps he most important measure in the history of our city. Adopting the charter will have the effect of repealing hundreds of well-developed and time-tested statutory provisions that currently govern us. For the sake of expediency and to reduce costs the city council has drafted a charter that replaces all these laws with a bare bones outline. (This approach is particularly striking when you compare the far more robust charters that have been effectively used by Redondo Beach and Torrance.) With a few very limited exceptions, we have no idea what the city council members(or their potential successors) intend to do to replace all of these existing laws. We are expected to just trust them to do the right thing. But it is difficult to trust them when it was the council itself that drafted this charter instead of a broadbased community panel. Fundamental reform of this magnitude should not be based on the comments of a couple of people at a few meetings. The council should have affirmatively engaged residents to take an active rule in studying whether and to what extent our city government should be reformed.

Having the city council grant themselves carte blanche to proceed as they see fit is a poor process for reforming our city government, and so I agree with Mark that this process was definitely too rushed and should not have been placed on the March ballot."

The writer of the comment was answering a comment made by Mr. Jeffrey Lewis, a supporter of Measure C.

The author of the comment incorrectly identified the city which is the center of a lawsuit still under consideration by the California State Supreme Court regarding prevailing wage guidelines.

Vernon, California is not the city, it is Vista, California. Vernon, California had a residential population of 91 in the 2000 Federal Census and is considered the 'smallest' city, in terms of residents, in Los Angeles County.

Vista, California is a charter city which had a lawsuit placed against it for its exemptions as far as prevailing wage guidelines, go.

In the original trial, Vista was found to have not violated any laws regarding exemptions from prevailing wage guidelines.

The Plaintiff appealed and the appellate court ruled in Vista's favor.

The Plaintiffs then appealed the ruling to the California Supreme Court which has not offered an opinion the case.

Prevailing wage guidelines must be followed for projects that receive State and/or Federal monies. A charter city can have no exemption, partial exemption, or full exemption of having to pay prevailing wages on projects funded for their own municipal projects which do not receive other governmental funds.

Should the Court release an opinion that states all cities, including charter cities must adhere to prevailing wage guidelines for all projects whether funded internally or not, it would make moot all of the current partial or full exemptions some charter cities have on their books and it would not be legal for Rancho Palos Verdes, as a charter city, to have either partial or full exemptions to prevailing wage guidelines.

Exemption from prevailing wage guidelines is a big deal to some of the strongest and most vocal supporters of Measure C.

I have heard that should our city become a charter city, the City Council would get right to work creating a full exemption from prevailing wage guidelines on municipal projects paid for using municipal funds.

I agree with 'Anonymous' and I feel supporters are tauting the ability to be exempt from prevailing wage guidelines, without also openly stating that there is no guarantee R.P.V. as a charter city would be able to have exemptions to the guidelines while the case is still pending.

Supporters will also tell you a few things like:

Labor is the most expensive cost of any project. I don't argue with that, one bit.

The use of prevailing wage guidelines requires an up to 40% increase in the cost of labor. Here again, I don't necessarily dispute that.

Exemption of having to pay prevailing wages will save millions of dollars on major projects listed along with goals in our city. I don't know that for sure and when you see, hear, or read anything close to "40%" and believe that that could be the reduction in total costs for projects with no prevailing wage guidelines, that is simply not true.

What may be true that should the court agree with the city of Vista and R.P.V. uses full exemption of the guidelines on projects funded with municipal funds, the savings could be somewhere in the neighborhood of '8%-16%' (don't quote me on this), according to my ears from what our City Attorney stated Monday evening.

Please don't get me wrong, up to 16% savings is savings and good, but I feel that 'Anonymous' and I need you to know that an up to 40% savings on labor costs is only a portion of the total costs of any project.

*The San Ramon/Terrapaca Landslide repair project will require multiple sources of funding and all supporters and opponents recognize that this project would have to use prevailing wage guidelines because our city cannot pay for the repairs on its own.*

It is my opinion that the largest project that could fall under the exemption would be the building of a new City Hall and offices.

The second part of the comments from 'Anonymous' are somewhat similar to my feelings, but I have a different take since I first heard about the move towards charter city status.

One might imagine that if becoming a charter city was such a good idea, why is it that only 120 our of our State's 481 incorporated cities are charter cities?

I know a little more about 'the rush' to have our city become a charter city than most of our residents know, but since the first Tuesday of last November, some of that 'rush' now seems not so 'rushy'.

I do agree however, that protecting our assets, including the T.O.T. from grabbing hands by the State or Washington is a VERY important issue to me and that is the only reason I now have to consider a sooner rather than later vote on the measure, but having the vote held further down the road than March 8, does have some advantages, I feel.

In early 2010, while speaking about R.P.V. becoming a charter city at a City Council meeting, I opined that I was not pleased that taxpayer funds would be used towards the support of the measure and I think that if supporters were truly wanting R.P.V. becoming a charter city, they should pay for the cost of the election and other costs not related to objective education.

The Council hand picked a committee which I felt and feel is a 'rubber-stamping' means to lobby support for Measure C and do the bidding of the Council. There are no members of the committee that were selected because they didn't already fully support the proposal to have us become a charter city.

Our residents' tax dollars are funding an election of a measure many oppose or have no idea about.

The City Council also are the basic authors of a charter they themselves would govern over, for more than a few months.

I don't doubt the honesty and sincerity of all five members of our Council and I know for a fact they are work very hard for our city and its residents. I trust they have the ability to make good decisions for the bulk of the time.

I do recognize the various form of charters, cities might want to use. I do think that the particular path 'our' charter is traveling along, may not be as good as its authors and supporters could have made it.

Folks, we are not residents of Bell, California. Those hard working, lower-middle class income, residents were not given the education their city's representatives should have given them.

Take a look at the history of who has served our our City Council. Take a look at the credentials of the strong supporters and the outspoken opponents of Measure C and you would be very impressed by their education, background, and interest in our city's matters.

While we are not better than residents of any other city, we do have a vast and vital wealth of residents who can make good judgements and become informed, should they choose to.

Our residents are being asked to (somewhat) blindly go where no other city on The Hill has ventured. We are told by supporters that it is a good thing to become a charter city.

Members of organizations opposed to Measure C ALSO will tell you they don't necessarily object to R.P.V. becoming a charter city. Most believe it could be a good thing, too.

I continue to support passage of Measure C, but it would be dishonest of me to ask you to vote for it, at this point.

My support for Measure C relies heavily on my thoughts about the Design and Build elements a charter city could adopt and my (almost) insistence that municipal affairs funds remain for use in our city and not being taken away by any larger governmental entity.

Argument, Rebuttal, My Comments

Ms. Sharon Yarber wrote what could have been the Argument Against Measure C, the Rancho Palos Verdes Charter City Measure up for a vote by the electorate on March 8, 2011.

For reasons I do not know, that argument against the measure was not published in the official voter election guide and the sample ballot.

Mayor Tom Long placed Ms. Yarber's argument on his site and I talked with him about publishing it on this blog.

I think it is fair to publish what would have been the 'official' argument against Measure C so that folks can learn that opponents of Measure C have opinions that should be read.

After Ms. Yarber's comments, I have posted Tom Long's 'Rebuttal Argument of the Argument Against Measure C' as I feel it should actually be termed.

I have not used Mr. Long's response as coming from an 'official' representative of the Yes on C Campaign and as our city's current Mayor.

I doubt Mr. Long's response would be any different had it been approved by other members of the Yes on C group, but as it is not endorsed by them, I don't think it is fair to consider Mr. Long's response as more than coming from one of the architect's of Measure C and one of the author's of the Charter now under consideration.

ARGUMENT AGAINST RPV MEASURE C

(by Sharon Yarber)

The “Argument FOR” states that voters are being asked to choose to become a charter city. That is misleading and WRONG. Actually, voters are being asked to adopt THE proposed charter, a constitution if you will, put together by City Hall with virtually no resident input. The proposed charter transfers power from RESIDENTS to the COUNCIL and creates tremendous opportunity for abuse.

A city’s constitution should not be on a March ballot with historically low voter turn out. A major change in the way we are governed deserves adequate time for community input and debate.

If passed, just THREE Council members could enact ordinances that:

• abolish citywide elections and create voting districts subject to gerrymandering,
• make it more difficult to vote on initiatives, recalls and referendums,
• effectively control future elections by changing candidate qualifications (e.g.requiring minimum prior service on City Commissions or Committees. Who selects Commissioners and Committee members? The Council), and
• impose a real property transfer tax (subject to voter approval).

The proposed charter could trample on YOUR VOTING RIGHTS! And it would permit adoption of ordinances, including election ordinances, with just one public reading, instead of two, further reducing resident awareness and input.

Charter cities have broader powers over public PARKLAND.

THIS CHARTER IS A TROJAN HORSE. It is NOT about saving money by eliminating prevailing wages. That’s the hook! Measure C is about grabbing control of the City and changing our election laws! Every identified “benefit” and cost savings can be achieved with a GOOD charter.

There are many risks to adopting this bad charter. There is NO risk to voting NO, then working together to create and vote on a good charter!

MARCH 8TH VOTE NO ON MEASURE C

Now, here is Mr. Long's response:

RESPONSE TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE C

by Mayor Tom Long

No RPV councilmembers have ever supported election by districts. Nor would a charter allow the council to make significant changes in the way initiatives are handled. Nor could the city give away city land as falsely implied above. The opposition to Measure C cannot point to a single charter city where the voters have been disenfranchised or the parklands have been given away in the manner described by opponents of Measure C. As a charter city, ordinances would continue to be adopted only after full public hearings with redundant second readings on consent calendars eliminated only if the council chooses to do so.

Any city charter must transfer powers from Sacramento to the city council in order to achieve the purpose of advancing local control. The opposition’s quest for a charter that protects the city from Sacramento but places no trust in the city’s councilmembers is a quest to find a myth.

A Yes vote would:

• Give the city its own constitution that cannot be re-written at the whim of Sacramento legislators

• Save RPV millions of dollars by allowing design-build contracting and allowing the city to set its own wage requirements for public works projects rather than accepting Sacramento’s so-called “prevailing wage” requirements.

• Protect city assets by forbidding gifts of public assets and continuing restrictions that exist now on councilmember salaries.

• Continue protecting city lands because deed restrictions and easements that dictate the use of Lower Point Vicente and other city parklands will be unaffected by a change to a charter city.

• Publish city employee compensation, helping to avoid abuses that have occurred elsewhere in both general law and charter cities.

• Insure that city land use is consistent with the general plan.

• Provide additional protection for local revenues such as the tax on Terranea hotel rooms that is now 10% of the city’s budget. (One state legislator promised us that Sacramento is looking to take from cities “anything that is not nailed down.”)

A No vote would:

• Delay or permanently prevent the adoption of a charter, costing the city millions of dollars by denying it more flexibility in contracting. (The City of Oceanside saved one million dollars in its first three months of being a charter city).

• Encourage special interest groups to demand their own pet provisions in any future charter that may be proposed making the passage of a charter that is in the best interests of the city as a whole difficult or impossible.

• Leave the city exposed to the whims of legislators in Sacramento who do not have the time or inclination to understand local issues.

VOTE YES ON “C” MARCH 8th

Both sides do have points I have found important and worthy of more discussion.

There are some things I really do not like about Measure C, but I did learn that both supporters and most opponents of Measure C feel that Rancho Palos Verdes moving from a General Law city to a charter city is not necessarily a bad idea.

Organized opponents want you to know that there is great opposition to the charter written for this vote with Measure C.

You also need to know that should the voters decide to have our city become a charter city, one of the first things the City Council will probably do with the new authority provided to charter cities is have full exemption of prevailing wage guidelines put into place.

It is a big deal for many supporters, but if you look at the facts and figures, it really is not a big deal to the majority of current charter cities and there is a lawsuit under review with the California State Supreme Court that could moot partial and full exemptions to prevailing wage guidelines.

California has 120 of its 481 incorporated cities being charter cities.

Of those 120 charter cities, 58% of them have no exemption from prevailing wage guidelines/

37 of the charter cities in California, have full exemptions with 13 more having only partial exemptions.

In Los Angeles County, there are 88 incorporated cities.

Of those 88, only 19 are charter cities.

Of the 19 charter cities, one has a partial exemption while just three more have full exemptions.

Supporters seem to still use exemptions to prevailing wage guidelines as a very important way to save money.

They will also tell you that two or our neighbors, Torrance and Redondo Beach are charter cities.

What I feel you need to know is that both of those cities have had their leaders choose to keep prevailing wage guidelines as they were and are.

Since the city of Vista still has a lawsuit regarding its having prevailing wage guidelines exemptions still under consideration, should the State Supreme Court rule against Vista's interests, it appears that all of the cities with partial or full exemptions from prevailing wage guidelines would have to return to having no exemptions from the guidelines.

Since I feel that higher local wages provide opportunities for workers to spend more money locally, I continue to support having prevailing wage guidelines remain in place. It seems the majority of the leaders in charter cities agree with me.

There are at least two areas where I strongly support what a charter city has the opportunity to do that general law cities can't necessarily do.

"Design and build" is a term used when one firm is contracted to both design a project and then follow through with the project's constructions.

There are firms that can do both large parts of a project, yet they may not be allowed to bid and get approval to do both elements of a project.

Supporters believe as I do that should we as a charter city seek bids for projects where bidding firms have both design and build capabilities AND it makes plain and clear proposals that allow money savings because one firm does both pieces, that is a good thing for a city and its taxpayers.

What a charter city is allowed to do is seek bids for projects but NOT NECESSARILY be required to use the lowest bid.

A charter city could find that a more costly firm that provides better quality and service, would be allowed the projects even though that firm's bid is not the lowest.

There COULD be problems with this if transparency is not practiced to the fullest, but with this current City Council makeup, I have no problems in this regard.

The current City Council, along with our city's attorney believe that using monies for municipal affairs protects the money from being taken back from the city, better than what is happening now.

A charter city has the rights and opportunity to move certain monies into accounts for municipal affairs and that standing would provide more leverage if and when the State of Federal Government want to take monies from the city.

The best cases revolve around protecting the Transitory Occupancy Tax (TOT) and Redevelopment Agency funds.

Earlier court decisions have determined that TOT funds can be used in municipal affairs funding.

What is so important about this? We have two businesses in Rancho Palos Verdes that I know of that collect TOT revenue that is provided to our city.

One is the Value Inn along Western Avenue. The TOT is a 10% tax on the price of a room there.

I heard recently that a room rate at the Value Inn has shrunk to $45.00 per night. The TOT for that would be $4.50 that the city would get.

Not much! That is true. But then again, please consider room rates and number of rooms at the other business where TOT applies.

Terranea.

Terranea provides $2 Million Dollars in TOT revenue to our city and protecting that from being taken away from our city is a strong reason for supporting Measure C.

Los Angeles is a charter city. Recently to protect their "CRA"- Community Redevelopment Agency money, they moved the funds to a more protected set of accounts.

In Rancho Palos Verdes we have the "RDA" or Redevelopment Agency which has some similarities to Los Angeles' CRA. Protecting our RDA is also important, I feel.

Now about any association with Marymount College.

Marymount's President, Dr. Michael Brophy wrote an Email to supporters of Measure C, including our city's leaders and staff.

His Email stated that Marymount College does not support or oppose passage of Measure C and the College takes no position on the ballot measure.

Dr. Brophy is being truthful about this point. Marymount College neither endorses or opposes Measure C.

Dr. Brophy is a resident of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes. Dr. Susan Soldoff, another member of the Board of Trustees of Marymount College is also a resident of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Both of them, along with other Marymount Trustees who are and are not residents of Rancho Palos Verdes must have their rights to fund any election they see fit as individual residents of R.P.V., just like the rest of us.

Might there be a hidden agenda for why any number of Marymount Trustees are also opponents of Measure C? I feel there is, but that should not mean they should not be allowed, as residents, contributing to a measure according to their own beliefs.

Some supporters are wondering or have their own answers as to why Marymount Trustees/R.P.V. residents are spending money and opposing Measure C.

I don't have any answer other than my own for this and I am not willing to reveal that right now.

I was very intrigued to hear Mr. Paul Tretault state at tonight's Charter City Committee meeting that the campaign has, so far, been reasonable, proper, and have so few foul issues flying around.

Either Paul is blind and deaf, or he is just playing nice, I feel.

For some supporters and opponents there really some shame that should be applied, I strongly feel. They know who they are and I not going to 'rat' them out right now.

Unfortunately there are parts of this campaign that bring back some really foul memories regarding a ballot measure that was decided last November.

On the surface and to most folks who really wish to learn the truths about Measure C, the vast majority of those 'in the know' have played nice. It is under the surface that, thankfully, few of our residents know about, that some fairly bad things are happening.

I did write a private Email to one supporter and one opponent, both very prominent on their respective sides, to play nice.

Everyone played nice at the meeting on Monday evening and I challenge everyone on all sides to play nice.

Measure C Stuff

This coming Monday there are two events dealing with Measure C.

At 10:30 in the morning a Seniors group will have representatives of both sides of the upcoming vote at Fred Hesse Park.

At 7:00 PM, probably in the same meeting room, the Committee established by the City Council will hold its meeting.

There will also be two events scheduled for the same time on February 9.

If I have my dates correct, the League of Women Voters is sponsoring a debate on the measure and the Rolling Hills Riviera HOA is having representatives speak on both sides of the discussions.

It is beginning to look like some Trustees of Marymount College and other supporters of the failed Measure P are now a group opposed to the passage of Measure C.

It is realistic to believe this might be the case because it looks as if passage of Measure C and the creation of Rancho Palos Verdes as a charter city could find that the way Marymount supporters got their "Marymount Plan" onto the ballot and the subsequent election would probably not be allowed via a new ordinance established under our city being a charter city.

Some opponents probably believe they have a better chance of seeing "The Marymount Plan" approved by keeping Rancho Palos Verdes a General Law city.

*Big hint folks* This is one of the few reasons I support passage of Measure C.

It is time for all the supporters of Measure C, the ballot measure to approve our city becoming a charter city, to either eliminate their current stance regarding prevailing wage guidelines as a major reason for supporting Measure C or, put up or shut up.

I have done a good deal of research on the number of charter cities in the State and also in Los Angeles County.

There are some rude awakening statistics I will probably publish that clearly illustrate that the number of charter cities in the State and even within L.A. county that have no exemptions from established and existing prevailing wage guidelines and laws.

While many may consider partial or full exemptions from prevailing wage guidelines is what our city must have, the majority of charter cities, including Torrance and Redondo Beach have no exemptions from prevailing wage guidelines.

So far, I have found two very, very good reasons to support Measure C and have Rancho Palos Verdes becoming a charter city.

I feel strongly that if we can protect tax revenues coming into our city from being taken back by Sacrament and even the Federal Government, that is something I strongly support.

I don't know if protecting our funds would mean Sacramento and Washington would provide less funds.

The second reason I support Measure C is that none of us in our city should EVER have to to through what we all had to suffer with during the processes and voting concerning Measure P, The Marymount Plan.

I have found and kept confidence with our Planning Commission and our City Council over the past several years. Those bodies did remarkable work with Terranea, Marymount College, and they continue to represent our residents well.

But AND however! While I support Measure C, I cannot endorse its passage by calling on every resident to vote for the measure.

There are still some real questions that have gone unanswered by both supporters and opponents.

I am very cautious as to what the next membership of our City Council might look like.

With all this effort by Marymount supporters to oppose Measure C, I do not want to have to deal with supporters of The Marymount Plan coming onto the City Council and basically rubber-stamping approval of the Plan, as they would be able to do.

I continue to feel there really are some things not being said by supporters of the measure. When just about every talking point is repeated by supporters without more open, honest, and forthright opinions, it makes both sides look bad and right now for me, the supporters are challenging my thinking about the measure.

Measure C and having Rancho Palos Verdes becoming a charter MAY be the best thing, but not enough open and honest discussion has happened yet.

I hope the upcoming meetings will be well attended.

Anyone, and I mean anyone who states that there is not enough information about Measure C 'out there' or for them to consider needs to shut up and learn.

I can find volumes of information about Measure C, charter cities in California, legal and social issues, and just about anything I want dealing with aspects of Rancho Palos Verdes becoming a charter city or remaining a General Law city.

The city's Web site has plenty of information albeit just about everything slanted towards a 'yes' vote on the measure.

One thing I did say early on is that those supportive of Measure C and R.P.V. becoming a charter city, should have paid the costs of the portion of the election, the measure is related to.

There has been taxpayer funds spent supportive of passage of Measure C, with staff time dealing with the measure and I feel that unless equal amounts of taxpayer money going for opposition to the measure, supporters should pay.

I fully understand that the city is legally allowed to do what has been done, it just looks bad for the city (City Council) and city staff, time, and facilities being used by a committee established specifically for the passage of Measure C and R.P.V. becoming a charter city.

I may have a much different set of considerations to ponder over by Monday night.

I see as well as I can the benefits and problems of having R.P.V. becoming a charter city.

Nobody should tell anyone else that having R.P.V. being a charter city is too good to be true.

I think supporters, because they are backed by our city's government and staff have an obligation to FULLY inform voters rather then opponents having to fight such an entrenched machine supporters have created.

This is another reason I support but can not endorse having others voting for Measure C.