HBCSD Corruption

Proof of the Lie:

Hermosa Beach City Council members did not need to sign the Memorandum of Understanding because:

(1)  On January 11, 1977 the Hermosa Beach City Council authorized negotiations for the purchase of Pier Avenue School for less than fair market value.  City Council members are Lance Widman, George Schmeltzer and George Barks and two others. Five months later, the Memorandum of Understanding with the negotiated terms of the sale and purchase is approved by HBCSD and sent to the City. 

(2) A School District and City Land Use Committee is established to hash out the details of an initial agreement between the City and HBCSD. The Land Use Committee is in operation from 1975 to 1977. See: HBCSD Dec. 15, 1975 meeting minutes, page 86., HBCSD June 17, 1977 meeting minutes.

(3) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is the product of the District and City Land Use Committee in June 1977. The MOU details HBCSD’s requirements for the SALE AND PURCHASE of Pier Avenue School (aka the Community Center) to the City of Hermosa Beach at a reduced price. 

(4) The MOU includes four Articles: Article #1) the description of the property; Article #2) the price of the sale; Article #3) the escrow instructions; AND  Article #4) details of the district's lease provision for classrooms, office and storage space when enrollment exceeded 1,266 students. 

(5) According to Exhibit G and the Memorandum of Understanding,  HBCSD offered to sell Pier Avenue School/Community Center for 40% below fair market value to the City of Hermosa Beach in order to retain rights to lease classrooms when district enrollment exceeded 1,266 students.

The Memorandum of Understanding, Article 4, Section 4.02 states:

“The nature of this memorandum of understanding shall be

construed as being analogous to a lease in that a part of the

consideration for the District selling the subject property to the City

for less than fair market value is the District’s right to use the

subject property facilities without cost as more particularly set forth

below; and, conversely, a part of the consideration the City is giving

to the District, is allowing the District use of the facilities at the

subject property as more particularly set forth below.”

(6) HB City Council meeting minutes of June 14, 1977 and June 28, 1977.  The day after receiving The Resolution of Intention to Sell and Prescribing the Terms Thereof, a description of the property to be sold AND the MOU from HBCSD, city council members (Lance Widman, George Schmeltzer and George Barks) vote to accept the MOU and proceed to take out an escrow according to the instructions contained in the MOU, Article 3 – thus automatically executing the entire MOU and accepting all its provisions, including Article 4 - district use of classrooms.

(7) The City of Hermosa Beach cannot, after the fact, pick and choose which of the articles they decide to accept from the MOU and which they decided NOT to accept without the MOU being physically modified, which it was not.  If the City of Hermosa Beach accepted the description of the property in Article 1 of the MOU, the purchase price specified in Article 2, and agreed to follow the escrow instruction outline in Article 3, they then, by default, also accepted the district lease provisions for classrooms, office space and storage space described in Article 4 of the MOU.

NOTE: The Memorandum of Understanding, Article 4, Section 4.10 states:

“Each and all of the terms, conditions and agreements contained

herein shall in every respect be binding upon and shall inure to the

benefit of the respective successors in interest of and assigns of the

District or the City.”

(8) The MOU was approved without modifications and included in the final signed Sale and Purchase Agreement along with all the other final sales terms and exhibits A-K.   There is no evidence that there was any discussion by  city council members as to whether or not to accept the terms outlined in the MOU in the city council minutes.

NOTE: The Memorandum of Understanding, Article 4, Section 4.11 states:

“Each and every provision of law and each and every clause

required by law to be inserted in this Agreement shall be deemed to

be inserted herein and the Agreement shall be read and enforced as

though they were included herein; and if for any reason such

provisions are not inserted, or are not correctly stated, then upon

application of either party this Agreement shall be forthwith be

physically amended to make such insertion or correction.”

(9) The Resolution of Intention to Sell and Prescribing the Terms Thereof is later labeled Exhibit G in the Agreement.   Both the description of the property and the MOU are included with Exhibit ‘G’ in the Agreement as the exact negotiated terms of the Resolution. 

NOTE: The Resolution of Intention to Sell and Prescribing the Terms Thereof, Exhibit ‘G’ was listed on page 2 of the main body of the Agreement in Article 1. Recital of Facts, in section 1.09.   None of the items listed in the Recital of Facts are expounded on in the main Agreement pages 1-11.  Each item in the Recital of Facts includes an exhibit that gives further information as to the details and intent – as in this case the MOU gives further details of HBCSD’s terms of their offer to sell Pier Avenue School to the city.

(10) The Memorandum of Understanding was attached to the Board Resolution, Exhibit ‘G’ in the Agreement.   Article 5 Conditions to Purchase in the main Agreement, item 5.02 states:

“The City’s duty to purchase the Pier Avenue School is conditioned

upon the occurrence of all the following events: The execution by the

parties of all the agreements attached hereto as exhibits.”

(11) The Sale and Purchase Agreement Exhibit J: Letter from J.B. Mirassou HB City Attorney dated January 20, 1978.  HB City Attorney Mirassou confirms and approves the lease agreement for educational purposes contained in the MOU.

(12) Article 5 Conditions Precedent to Purchase, item 5.02, page 6 of The Sale and Purchase Agreement. 

“The execution by the parties to all the agreements attached

hereto as exhibits.” (Including Exhibit G and the attached MOU)

(13) The MOU, along with all the other Exhibits and Agreements contained in the final document were all sent to the LA County Registrar’s Office and stamped with an official document number, making it an official document to the Agreement.

(14) The MOU had all the elements of a valid, lasting contract whether it was signed or not:  (a) the offer terms were clear, (b) the city accepted the MOU in deed by voting on June 14, 1977 to accept the MOU and then proceeding to take out an escrow for Pier Avenue School following the directions contained in Article 3 of the MOU, (c) the city had awareness by having the city attorney attend all meetings and advising the city council members, (d) the consideration by the city was purchasing the Pier Avenue School for 40% below fair market value in exchange for the district use of premises when enrollment exceeded 1,266 students e) and the MOU was a legal offer as evidenced by Exhibit J the letter from HB City attorney J.B. Mirassou confirming the terms and legality of the final agreement.

(15) Papers supporting the claim that certain unsigned MOUs and contracts are indeed enforceable in California. 

(16)  Letter to the Editor from former city council member and signer of the Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Pier Avenue School: The Beach Reporter, We Get Letters: Week of April 5, 2019, Reopening Pier Ave. School, by George Barks. 

“To set the record straight, as a former city council member during

the time of the sale of Pier Avenue School to the City, I can attest

first-hand that when this issue came before the council, we absolutely

guaranteed that the students could return to use the school if needed

in the future.  A simple lease-back option was included within the

contract between the district and the city.”