HBCSD Corruption
Lie #1
The Misinformation:
(1) Michael Jenkins, Hermosa Beach City Attorney: (1995-retired 2022) (TL-2022Nov30 Attorney Jenkins retires)
"I just didn’t want that [a statement made by HB City Councilperson Nanette Barragan (2014-2015) that she thought that the district had retained rights to use classrooms when they sold Pier Avenue School/Community Center below market value to the city of Hermosa Beach] to sit out there, um, without being contradicted, that there’s no such provision. The city entered into a lease agreement with the district as a condition of the sale. And the lease provides that the district may use portions of the facility for certain specified purposes, the locker rooms, the gym, the auditorium, the tennis courts, [Exhibit K] on a limited basis for a limited number of days per year, but not for classrooms purposes and not for general, um, school purposes.” [The MOU attached to Exhibit G] Hermosa Beach Joint City Council and School Board Meeting May 28, 2014, Time Stamp: 00:1:21:34
COMPETING INFORMATION:
Hermosa Beach City attorney Michael Jenkins only identifies the provisions of Exhibit ‘K’ in his statement to Councilperson Nanette Barragan. (TL-1978Feb28 Exhibit K) In this televised public meeting he fails to also mention Article 4 of the Memorandum of Understanding that was included with Exhibit 'G', which specifies HBCSD district use of classrooms, office and storage space at Pier Avenue School (aka the Community Center) when district enrollment surpasses 1,266 students. (TL-1977Jun13 MOU Sec 4.02) The City of Hermosa Beach accepted and executed the MOU, Article 4 at their City Council meetings of June 14 and 28, 1977.
1. As the taxpayer paid city attorney and city manager, it is believed that
both Michael Jenkins and Tom Bakaly had read the entire Agreement
for the Sale and Purchase of Real Property (aka Pier Avenue School)
and all attached exhibits which included the Memorandum of
Understanding. They should have also done their due diligence and
consulted the available City Council minutes at the time the MOU was
presented to the City of Hermosa Beach and leading up to the signing
of the Agreement.
2. It is assumed that HB City Attorney did NOT mention Article 4 of the
MOU because the MOU had not been signed. There is NO mention of
the MOU in Michael Jenkins statements during the publicly viewed joint
City and School District meeting of May 28, 2014. (City and District
joint meeting May 28 2014)
3. There was plenty of evidence that the MOU did NOT need to be signed
because the City Council members accepted the MOU at their City
Council meetings of June 14 and 28, 1977. Please see Lie #2:
Claiming that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is not valid
because it was not signed by the HB City Council members.
4. The lease agreement applies to both educational purposes (the MOU),
AND recreational purposes (Exhibit K). This fact was recognized and
approved by the City's attorney in 1978, J.B. Mirassou in Exhibit J.
Please see Lie #5: Misinforming the public that the Community Center
can only be used for recreational purposes.
5. The fact that the MOU was included in the final Agreement signed by
the City of Hermosa Beach and sent with the entire Agreement to the
County Registrar's office to be recorded also proves that it was
accepted by H.B. City Council members at the time the entire
Agreement was signed.
6. 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.
NOTE: Papers supporting the claim that certain unsigned MOUs and
contracts are indeed enforceable in California. (TL-Unsigned
contracts enforceable in CA)
The fact that the City of Hermosa Beach executed the MOU by
following the escrow instructions specified in the MOU for Pier Avenue
School and then signed the final agreement including all exhibits
(which included the MOU) makes the MOU a final lasting document
whether it was signed or not.
7. It is assumed that HB City Attorney knew all these facts. It was his
job, paid for by Hermosa Beach taxpayers, and supported by city
council members, to know this information. Why then does Michael
Jenkins deny the MOU validity in this meeting?
8. Why didn't the school district's attorney Terry Tao attend this meeting
at which the lease agreement between the district and the city would
be discussed? Why wasn't the HBCSD attorney available to publicly
debate on behalf of the school district the City Attorney during this
meeting?
9. Why didn't Superintendent Pat Escalante or any of the school board
members present at least ask questions or argue the point in the clear
absence of their own attorney?
10. Was the City Attorney's one-sided version of the Agreement and it's
exhibits and the acquiescence of school board members the result of
an unspoken quid pro quo between the City of Hermosa Beach and
HBCSD to keep Hermosa Beach students OUT OF the Community
Center in exchange for a brand-new unneeded campus at North
School and the passage of a $59M bond?
11. By not questioning attorney Michael Jenkins statements it seems that
School Board members and HBCSD Superintendent condoned keeping
HBCSD students and staff in overcrowded conditions and un-
necessarily tricking Hermosa Beach taxpayers into passing a $59M
bond to rebuild North School seven years later.
12. NOTE: Former City Council member George Schmeltzer (1976-1984)
addressed the meeting for three-plus minutes during public comment.
Not once did George Schmeltzer mention district use of classrooms
contained in the MOU that HE and the other city council members
accepted in 1977. Why did he not mention the MOU in his public
comments?
13. NOTE: Former City Council member George Schmeltzer (1976-1984)
does, however, make other provably false statements about the sale
of Pier Avenue School to the city in his comments. Please see:
Lie #6: Misleading the public as to the condition and safety of
the Community Center [or the grandfathered-in North School] for
students; Misinformation item #4; Lie #11: Claiming that the
city purchased the Community Center from the school district
because Proposition 13 had decimated district funding in the
1970s,Misinformation item #1.
14. NOTE: Former City Council member George Schmeltzer (1976-1984) is
photographed attending Michael Jenkin’s retirement good-bye at the
City Council Chambers in 2022. Michael Jenkins was hired as HB
City Attorney by former City Councilman Sam Edgerton in 1995.
How would George Schmeltzer be involved with Michael Jenkins if
George Schmeltzer had not been a City Council member since 1984?
(TL- 2022Sep30 Attorney Jenkins retires)
(2) Michael Jenkins, Hermosa Beach City Attorney: (1995-retired 2022):
“The MOU [Memorandum of Understanding] was something proposed by the board in an early resolution, but never executed by the parties. And it appears that a lease… was ultimately substituted for the MOU,” Jenkins wrote in an email. “In the world of contract law, an unexecuted contract is not a contract at all.” City attorney questions document in Pier Avenue School sale by Alana Garrigues, The Beach Reporter, November 22, 2013.
NOTE: This statement was made only weeks after information was published about a Facility Planning and Advisory Committee (FPAC) member finding the MOU which had been missing information from available copies of the Sale and Purchase Agreement for Pier Avenue School Community Center.
Why had the MOU been removed from available copies of the Agreement? Why did it take a member of the FPAC to find the MOU? Why didn’t either Superintendent Pat Escalante or City Manager Tom Bakaly know about the MOU as they claimed? Please see: November 20, 2013 - Misleading statements contained in article: Document uncovers details about 1978 Pier Avenue School sale. by Alana Garrigues, The Beach Reporter
(TL-2013Nov20 Document uncovers details)
(2) continued:
Michael Jenkins, Hermosa Beach City Attorney: (1995-retired 2022):
“The MOU was something proposed by the board in an early resolution, but never executed by the parties.” City attorney questions document in Pier Avenue School sale by Alana Garrigues, The Beach Reporter, November 22, 2013.
CORRECT INFORMATION:
1. The MOU was indeed accepted and executed by city council members at their meetings on June 14 and 28, 1977. (TL-1977Jun14 CC Meeting Mins), (TL-1977Jun28 CC meeting mins page 8)
“Action: To approve the Memorandum of Understanding subject
to review and approval by the City Attorney [JB Mirassou] (PAS Exhibit
J Mirassou Jan 1978)); and to authorize the staff to open an escrow
with the Hermosa Beach School District for the purchase of Pier Avenue
School, basically incorporating said Memorandum of Understanding
and attached related material with the following contingencies:
Agreed rights of use for both parties* (PAS-Article 9 Future Use of
Property) and reversionary clause**.” (PAS-Article 10 Right of Re-entry)
2. The “review and approval by the City Attorney” was given in Exhibit J of the Agreement. (PAS Exhibit J Mirassou Jan 1978) Exhibit J was a letter by the HB City Attorney in 1977 and 1978 confirming the legality of the lease agreement between the city and the school district.
“In conjunction with the sale the City is entering into a leasing
agreement with the District. In my opinion the City has the power and
the right to enter into that leasing agreement. Upon closing the lease
will be a valid and subsisting document.”
On page 3 of Exhibit ‘J’ it states:
“The parties have entered into agreements limiting the future use
of the property. This use is limited to parks, recreational, open space,
educational, or other community purposes.”
3. The *“Agreed rights of use for both parties” was specified in Article 9 Future Use of Property. (PAS-Article 9 Future Use of Property) Item 9.04 refers to the use of the property for “other purposes” other than parks, recreation, open space, educational or other community purposes as stated in Items 9.01, 9.02 and 9.03. This does not change or cancel out the provisions for district use of classrooms contained in Article 4 of the MOU.
4. The **“reversionary clause” was defined in Article 10 Right of Re-entry. (PAS-Article 10 Right of Re-entry) The reversionary clause specified the district's right to "terminate the City's right and possessory interest" in Pier Avenue School if the City were ever to sell or rezone it the property there.
NOTE: In 1982-1983, former City Council member Lance Widman (City Council member from 1975-1982 and School Board member from 2002-2009) arranged the separating off of Parcel 4 portion of Pier Avenue School from the Sale and Purchase Agreement. (TL-1982Jan12 City Reso for CC parcel 4) The city then proceeded to sell Parcel 4 to the Alano Club (702 11th Street) in 1995 and changed the zoning of Parcel 4 of Pier Avenue School to allow the Alano Club to operate. (TL-1995Feb21 Rezone CC parcel 4)
5. The City of Hermosa Beach accepted/executed/agreed to the entire MOU, whether it was signed or not, when they proceeded to take out an escrow at Bank of America following the instruction contained in Article 3 of the MOU at their meetings of June 14 and 28, 1977.
A. When the City of Hermosa Beach executed the MOU they automatically accepted ALL its other provisions, including Article 4 of the MOU which specified district use of classrooms, office and storage space when enrollment exceeds 1,266 students. The city cannot now, after the fact, pick and choose which provisions of the MOU they had agreed to and which they hadn’t.
B. If the city did not agree to the provisions for district use of classrooms as specified in the MOU, they were instructed to physically change the MOU to reflect the new terms. Neither the City of Hermosa Beach nor the school district made any changes to Article 4 of the MOU, therefore Article 4 stands as is.
The MOU, Section 4.11 [page 8] 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 forthwith be physically amended to
make such insertion or correction.”
6. The Resolution of Intention to Sell… and Prescribing the Terms Thereof and was labeled Exhibit ‘G’ (PAS Exhibit G Reso, Exhibit A, Exhibit B MOU)in the FINAL Agreement.
Exhibit G, page 2, states:
“WHEREAS, it appears it will be in the best interest of the District
that said property be sold for the above stated purpose for less than
fair market value; item 2: That, the terms and conditions of the sale of
the Pier Avenue School by the District to the City are more particularly
set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding marked Exhibit ‘B’ as
amended hereto are approved and…”
7. The MOU, Section 4.02, page 5 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 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 to use of the facilities at the subject property as more
particularly set forth below…” (TL-1977Jun13 MOU Sec 4.02)
8. In addition, the city attorney at the time of the Agreement confirmed the city’s acceptance of the lease agreement contained in the MOU.
A. Letter from J.B. Mirassou, HB City Attorney at the time of the sale, (dated January 20, 1978) Exhibit ‘J’, page 2 states:
“In conjunction with the sale the City is entering into a leasing
agreement with the District. In my opinion the City has the power and
the right to enter into that leasing agreement. Upon closing the lease
will be a valid and subsisting document.”
B. Letter from J.B. Mirassou, HB City Attorney at the time of the sale, (dated January 20, 1978) Exhibit ‘J’, page 3 states:
“The parties have entered into agreements limiting the future use
of the property. This use is limited to parks, recreational, open space,
educational, or other community purposes.”
(2) continued:
Michael Jenkins, Hermosa Beach City Attorney (1995-retired 2022):
“And it appears that a lease… was ultimately substituted for the MOU,” City attorney questions document in Pier Avenue School sale by Alana Garrigues, The Beach Reporter, November 22, 2013.
NOTE: Apparently the “lease” that was supposedly “substituted” for the MOU that City Attorney Michael Jenkins is referring to was Exhibit ‘K’ (aka the Recreation Agreement, aka Lease Agreement for Future Use of Pier Avenue School). (TL-1977Dec14 joint workshop #6), (TL-1978Jan18 joint workshop #8), (TL-1978Feb28 entire PAS Agreement)
CORRECT INFORMATION:
1. There is no evidence that Exhibit ‘K’ REPLACED the provision for district use of classrooms, office and storage space when enrollment exceeded 1,266 students contained in Article 4 of the MOU. Exhibit ‘K’ was the last exhibit to be added to the Agreement. Originally it was referred to as the Recreation Agreement when it was conceived at the sixth of eight city and school district workshops held to hash out the final terms of the entire Agreement. (TL-1977Dec14 joint workshop #6)
NOTE: Exhibit K was an additional lease agreement not a replacement to the leasing provisions contained in the MOU. It made sense that if HBCSD had a lease agreement for use of classrooms, office space and storage defined in the MOU that they also retain some rights to the gymnasium, changing rooms, auditorium, and tennis courts at Pier Avenue School for students.
2. When city council members (George Schmeltzer, Lance Widman and George Barks) signed the Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Pier Avenue School they had before them ALL the exhibits that were included in the final Agreement, including the MOU. None of the city council members rejected the MOU, as is, before signing the entire Agreement. Please see February 28, 1978 - Minutes of the Hermosa Beach City Council meeting. (TL-1978Feb28 CC meeting mins)
3. The HBCSD Board Resolution of Intention to Sell & Prescribing the Terms Thereof, Exhibit ‘G’, was listed on page 2 of the main body of the Agreement in Article 1 Recital of Facts, item 1.09. (PAS Agreement, Article 1, page 2)
NOTE: None of the items listed in the Recital of Facts are expounded on in the main Agreement pages 1-11. (PAS Agreement pgs 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.
4. The MOU along with Exhibit G Resolution of Intention to Sell and Prescribing the terms thereof are included as exhibits in the entire Agreement that was signed by Hermosa Beach City Council members George Schmeltzer, Lance Widman and George Barks, etc. and sent to the Los Angeles County Registrar’s office and stamped with official document number #78-241041.
A. The MOU, Article 4, Section 4.10 states: (PA-MOU Article 4)
“Each and all of the terms, conditions and agreements contained
herein shall in every respect be binding upon and inure to the benefit
of the respective successors in interest of and assigns of the District
or the City.”
B. The MOU, Article 4, Section 4.11 states:
“Each and every provisions 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 forthwith be
physically amended to make such insertion or correction.”
NOTE: No corrections or changes were made to the provisions for district use of classrooms, office and storage space when enrollment surpasses 1,266 students. The MOU stands as is.
5. In Conditions Precedent to Purchase, Article 5, main Agreement, page 6: (PAS Agreement pgs 1-11)
“The City’s duty to purchase the Pier Avenue School is conditioned
upon the occurrence of all the following events:”
Section 5.02:
“The execution by the parties of all agreements attached hereto
as exhibits”…
NOTE: The MOU was included as further explanation to Exhibit G, therefore it too is a binding and sustaining part of the entire Agreement.
NOTE: Why was the MOU missing from available copies of the Agreement prior to September 2013? A Facility Planning Advisory Committee member found the MOU included with the entire copy of the Agreement at the Los Angeles County Registrar’s office in September 2013.
NOTE: Why would Michael Jenkins mislead the Hermosa Beach taxpayers regarding the validity of the MOU? It’s obvious to any lay person who has all the evidence that the City had agreed to all the provisions of the MOU. Why would Michael Jenkins leave the provisions of the MOU out of his statements? Did someone ask Michael Jenkins to lie? Even if someone asked Michael Jenkins to lie - why would he?
NOTE: Former City Council member George Schmeltzer (1976-1984) is photographed attending Michael Jenkin’s retirement good-bye at the City Council Chambers in 2022. Michael Jenkins was hired as HB City Attorney by former city councilman Sam Edgerton in 1995. How would George Schmeltzer be involved with Michael Jenkins if George Schmeltzer had not been a city council member since 1984? (TL-2022Sep30 Attorney Jenkins retires)
(3) George Schmeltzer, former Hermosa Beach City Council member (1976-1984) and signer on the Sale and Purchase Agreement for Pier Avenue School in 1978:
“If there’s anything I can do to acquaint you with what we had in mind back in those days, if it might influence you going forward, I’m available.” Hermosa Beach Joint City Council and School Board Meeting May 28, 2014, Time Stamp: 00:14:36
CORRECT INFORMATION:
1. George Schmeltzer was involved in the city’s purchase of Pier Avenue School Community Center. He and former school board member Lance Widman (city council member from 1975-1982 and school board member from 2002-2009) were both city council members and signers on the Sale and Purchase Agreement (1977-1978). They would have been well aware of the provisions and facts of the Agreement. It seems that neither of them told the truth about the facts surrounding the sale of Pier Avenue School to the City of Hermosa Beach. Why wouldn’t they tell the truth?
NOTE: Since 2002, when HBCSD Measure J bond was passed, both George Schmeltzer and Lance Widman would either outright lie and/or withhold facts about the provisions for district use of the Community Center.
2. After giving a 3+ minute statement during the public comment period at the May 28, 2014 Joint City Council and School Board meeting, former signer on the Agreement, George Schmeltzer fails to disclose the Memorandum of Understanding that he had agreed to on June 14 and 28, 1977. He is then conveniently missing from the meeting later when City Attorney Michael Jenkins makes his untrue statements about the provisions for district use of classrooms, office and storage space at the Community Center.
3. At any time since 2002 (Measure J $13.9M bond) when community members were asking about the district use of the Community Center for students did ANY school board members or city council members ask George Schmeltzer about the lease provisions of the MOU?
4. Why didn't George Schmeltzer ever disclose this information to the public? Only former City Council Member George Barks would disclose the City's intent in a letter to the editor in April 2018 before the district proceeded to spend $29M on a brand-new, now unneeded campus at North School. (TL-2018Apr5 LTTE 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 (the Memorandum of Understanding) between the district
and the city. As I have always said: "Why wouldn't the City Council
allow Hermosa students priority use of Pier Avenue classrooms and
facilities?"”
5. After the May 28, 2014 Joint Meeting at which City Attorney Michael Jenkins makes misleading statements and George Schmeltzer misleads the community about the City's purchase of the Community Center and school board members fail to ask questions about the district's lease provisions and at which HBCSD attorney Terry Tao does NOT attend although the Sale and Purchase Agreement between HBCSD and the City is being discussed, Mayor Michael DiVirgilio seems to disclose the truth about the district and the city's decision to mislead the community about the use of classrooms, office space and storage space to immediately relieve overcrowding at district schools and save taxpayers millions in unnecessary taxes:
Email to community member Miyo Prassas from Hermosa Beach Mayor Michael DiVirgilio dated July 9, 2014: (TL-2014July9 email from DiVirgilio)
"The City is not aware of any prohibition that would prevent us
from entertaining requests about the Community Center from the
District or from any entity for that matter. However as you saw
during our recent joint meeting neither the City nor the District
are interested in considering the Community Center. Consequently,
absent a directive from the City Council, the City Attorney will
not be studying this issue further."
6. George Schmeltzer made several untrue statements during his 3-minute (plus) address to the joint city and school board meeting during the public comment period. Please also see: Lie #6: Misleading the public as to the condition and safety of the Community Center [or the grandfathered-in North School] for students; Lie #11: Claiming that the city purchased the Community Center from the school district because the school district needed money since Proposition 13 had decimated district funding in the 1970s.
7. NOTE: Former City Council member George Schmeltzer was also a signer on both HBCSD Facility bond arguments: HBCSD's $54M Measure Q and $59M Measure S to completely tear down and rebuild North School. Were those expensive facility bonds and George Schmeltzer’s support for them part of a quid pro quo for HBCSD to disavow their leasing rights at the Community Center?
(4) Lance Widman, former Hermosa Beach City Council member (1975-1982) and signer on the Sale and Purchase Agreement for Pier Avenue School and HBCSD School Board member(2002-2009):
“The School District can make only very limited claim to the use of he auditorium, gymnasium and tennis courts per the Lease Agreement.” No “Middle” ground by Lance Widman, Letters to the Editor, 03/30/06, The Easy Reader News (TL-2006Mar30 LTTE L Widman)
CORRECT INFORMATION: Lance Widman was a signer on the Sale and Purchase Agreement for Pier Avenue School and should well know what the city had agreed to. However, he does not disclose the provisions of Article 4 of the Memorandum of Understanding (PA-MOU) for district use of classrooms, office and storage space that he had accepted at the City Council meetings of June 14 and June 28, 1977.
NOTE: From 2002 to September 2013 the MOU was missing from available copies of the Sale and Purchase Agreement for Pier Avenue School. The MOU was discovered in September 2013 by an Facilities Planning and Advisory Committee member who on her own obtained a complete copy of the Agreement at the Los Angeles County Registrar's office in Norwalk, CA.
(5) Greg Breen, former HBCSD School Board member (2002-2009):
“I do not know the source of this oft repeated yet entirely and absolutely untrue legend about the city simply giving the Community Center back to the School District. It is disappointing and somewhat surprising that people actually spout this folklore, and I hope folks will take a few minutes to read the documents before swallowing the pabulum.” Can’t get the Community Center back by Greg Breen, Letters to the Editor, 04/20/2006, The Beach Reporter (TL-2006Apr20 LTTE G Breen)
MISLEADING INFORMATION:
1. The issue wasn't about the City "simply giving the Community Center back to the School District" as Greg Breen states in his public letter. The issue was about the school district using the gymnasium and changing rooms at the Community Center (as defined in Exhibit K of the Sale and Purchase Agreement) instead of taxpayers spending $11M to build a brand-new, low priority gymnasium at Valley School. School board members ultimately did NOT supply the classrooms for future growth recommended by the 2002 Facility Master Plan and listed on the face of the Measure J bond for future growth.
2. From 2005 to current day, former School Board member Greg Breen in multiple public letters to the Editor has inaccurately blamed neighbors adjacent to Valley School for the reason he and other school board members did not supply additional classrooms as promised in the 2002 Measure J bond. Please see Lie #41: Claiming that the lawsuit brought against the HBCSD in April 2005 was the cause for the district's decision NOT to accept constructions bids and was the cause of the delay, cost increases and the elimination of two classrooms in February 2006.
NOTE: Why would school board member Greg Breen feel the need to be so rude to community members regarding district use of the Community Center? Was this his way of trying to shut down conversation regarding use of the Community Center? Why would he be trying to shut down conversation instead of patiently responding to members of the community as his position would require? Why didn’t Greg Breen do any further investigating of the Agreement to check his comments before responding to the community? Why did it fall on an un-elected community member to research and disclose this information in August 2013? (TL-2013Nov20 Document uncovers details)
(6) Greg Breen, former HBCSD School Board member (2002-2009):
“Contrary to persistent local myth, the school district does not have the right to continued use of the facility, having reserved only the right to use the tennis courts and gym for two hours per day and the auditorium for 10 days a year, with even that limited use subject to a series of renewable three-year leases that expired 30 years ago.” Letters to the Editor 07/30/15, Easy Reader News. Please also see: Misinformation and Misleading Statements contained in Letters to the Editor #2.
MISLEADING INFORMATION:
1. Greg Breen is only referring to Exhibit ‘K’ provisions for district use of the gymnasium, changing rooms, tennis courts and auditorium at the Community Center. He misinforms in his letter about the true details of the district's lease agreement with the City for the use of recreation facilities at the Community Center. He does not disclose the leasing provisions contained in Article 4 of the MOU for district use of classrooms, office and storage space when enrollment exceeds 1,266 students.
2. The provisions for district use of the gymnasium, changing rooms, etc. did NOT expire 30 years ago. In the lease agreement described in Exhibit K, Lease Agreement for Future Use of Pier Avenue School, they were automatically renewed by the school district and the city for 50-years (until 2028) with the possibility to renew in three-year increments. Please see Exhibit K, Article 3, Option to Renew, item (e). (TL-1978Feb28 Exhibit K)
NOTE: Superintendent Pat Escalante renewed the district's lease in Exhibit K on April 30, 2014 in a letter to HB City Manager Tom Bakaly.
(TL-2014Apr30 PE letter to renew Exhibit K)
NOTE: Instead of supplying 13 additional classrooms as was promised in the description of the Measure J bond in 2002 and as recommend by the 2002 Facilities Master Plan, or considering the use of the existing gymnasium at the Community Center for students during school hours and ten additional times throughout the year, Greg Breen, Lance Widman and Cathy McCurdy vote to ultimately spend $11M on a gymnasium at Valley School.
NOTE: Less than two years after finishing the new construction at Valley School in 2008, enrollment had surpassed the 1,266 enrollment threshold triggering district use of the Community Center classrooms, storage and office space according the MOU lease agreement. Neither Greg Breen, Lance Widman nor Cathy McCurdy investigate or offer this option to relieve overcrowding at Valley and View schools. School board members continue to allow HBCSD campuses to be severely overcrowded until enrollment drops back down below 1,200 students in 2020.
3. Greg Breen fails to disclose the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding that was accepted by former City Councilmembers Lance Widman (a current school board member), George Schmeltzer and George Barks at the City Council meetings of June 14, 1977 and June 28, 1977. Why didn’t either fellow school board member Lance Widman or former city council member George Schmeltzer tell Greg Breen about the MOU? Why didn’t Greg Breen do any further investigating of the Agreement to check his statements before giving incorrect information to the community? Why did it fall on an un-elected community member to research and disclose this information in September 2013? (TL-2013Nov20 Document uncovers details)
4. The district provisions for classroom usage when enrollment exceeds 1,266 students has no expiration date. It is dependent solely on district enrollment exceeding 1,266 students.
(6) continued:
Greg Breen also incorrectly states that according to the Agreement:
“the district only reserved the right to use the tennis courts and gym for two hours per day”.
CORRECT INFORMATION:
1. According to Exhibit K, Article 5 Use of the Gymnasium, Showers, Lockers and Tennis Courts, Section 5.02: (PAS Exhibit K)
“In addition to the use set forth immediately above, the
District shall have the right to use the facilities, set forth in
this paragraph, ten additional days per year at times other than
school days and hours.”
2. HBCSD had contractual rights to use the gymnasium at the Community Center two hours a day, plus 10 extra days throughout the year for free. How often is the district’s $11 million dollar gymnasium at Valley School used for students now? Is it used more than two hours a day by students? If so, could the city and the school district have negotiated longer hours for the school district’s use? The gymnasium at the Community Center could have been used by HBCSD middle school basketball and volleyball practice and tournaments after school for FREE.
3. Exhibit K, Article 6 Arbitration, item (a) states:
"The City's refusal to grant usage set forth herein shall
not be arbitrary or capricious."
4. In addition to the provisions of Exhibit K, HBCSD and the City of Hermosa Beach had a Joint Use Agreement for district and city facilities dating back to October 2008. (TL-2008Oct City and District Joint Use Agreement) Why wouldn’t school board members Greg Breen and Lance Widman try to negotiate better terms for district use of the gymnasium at the Community Center rather than spend $11M to build a brand new gymnasium at Valley School instead of suppling 14 additional classrooms as recommended by the 2002 Facility Master Plan?
5. The City of Hermosa Beach and HBCSD could have also created a compromise agreement between the taxpayers and pro-gymnasium advocates. HBCSD could have built a significantly less expensive low-profile large exercise room for indoor activities instead of a high school-sized gymnasium for middle school students. (TL-Low Profile Bldg Plan) It is believed that a low-profile building would have been cheaper since it would not necessitate long, expensive steel tresses to span the gymnasium. The district could have also used the gymnasium at the Community Center when a large gymnasium was necessary for the students.
6. Gymnasiums are not required by the California Department of Education. Hermosa Beach has almost perfect year-round weather. (JM-9a Title 5 STANDARDS wide discretion)
7. From 2002-2019 it is believed that school board members had a predetermined plan that was NOT based on facts or district needs. It was seemingly based on an incorrect narrative of the district’s options supplied by the cabal. School board members never allowed a truly open discussion of district options to consider all the options and create a plan based on the facts.
8. Superintendent Pat Escalante sent a letter renewing the leasing agreement specified in Exhibit K to the City of Hermosa Beach in 2014. (TL-2014Apr30 PE letter to renew Exhibit K)
(7) Terry Tao, HBCSD Attorney (2002 -):
“The resolution of intention to sell was on June 13, 1977, the City had expressed interest and there were some terms in the MOU, ah, in an MOU, that happens to be unsigned.” (See also: Lie #2: Claiming that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is not valid because it was not signed by the HB City Council members.)
“The reason I bring up the terms of a resolution is that’s not what it is that the City and the School District had agreed to. That’s actually what it is that the City and the School District may have talked about and what the School District at the time may have been thinking about, hoping for, fantasizing about maybe… So, check out the date, June 13, 1977, there is a cross reference to this M.O.U. and the cross reference to the M.O.U., um, which is an unsigned M.O.U, and it doesn’t reflect all of the final sales terms. However, just because it’s in writing, and that’s what the District was hoping for, doesn’t mean that that’s what the City had agreed to.” May 31, 2016 presentation to the Joint meeting of the HB City Council members and HBCSD School Board members. Time Stamp: 02:08:47
CORRECT INFORMATION: See explanation for Item #2 above: Michael Jenkins, Hermosa Beach City Attorney (1995-retired 2022) City attorney questions document...
1. The May 31, 2016 presentation at the HBCSD and City of Hermosa Beach Joint meeting was made ONE WEEK before the June 2016 $59M bond vote and was uploaded to the school district website under Measure S information. Terry Tao’s curated misinformation in this presentation cost taxpayers $11k. (TT-2016May31 AALRR invoice)
2. Taxpayer paid Superintendent Pat Escalante colluded with taxpayer paid HBCSD attorney Terry Tao and school board members over six hours to give an approximately one-hour presentation filled with false and misleading information one week before the June 7, 2016 bond vote in order to win a $59M facilities bond. (TL-2016May31 AALRR invoice collusion)
3. The misleading and provably incorrect information in Terry Tao's presentation one week before the district's $59M bond vote was reported to the Los Angeles County District Attorney for Public Integrity in spring 2017 and to the Fair Political Practice Commission in May 2020.
The alleged violation was that of using more than $10,000 of taxpayer funds to hire an attorney for the sole purpose of misinforming voters in order to pass the district’s $59M bond Measure S and not reporting the campaign expenditure and contribution to the Yes on S campaign in violation of FPPC rules. Violation Section 18420: Failure to report nonmonetary campaign expenditures by local government agency (Hermosa Beach City School District) of more than $8,000 for the benefit of the Committee to Improve Hermosa Schools – Yes on S, I.D.#1383261. (TL-2002May18 FPPC May 31, 2016 meeting)
4. Correct information was given to Easy Reader reporter Ryan McDonald three months after this meeting (after community members fact checked Terry Tao’s statements). Reporter Ryan McDonald and the Easy Reader Newspaper did nothing to investigate the allegations of misinformation and collusion by Terry Tao and Pat Escalante. This information was withheld from the public.
5. Correct information was also given to city council members in the winter of 2016. Apparently, none of the city council members investigated this information on their own. None of the city council members (Justin Massey, Jeff Duclos, Hany Fangary, Carolyn Petty or Stacey Armato) made this information public. Justin Massey stated in a private meeting that he did not believe the community members fact checking.
Justin Massey's advice to community members was to sue the school district.
(8) Terry Tao, HBCSD Attorney (2002-):
“That, the M.O.U. is, the M.O.U. has never been signed and from what I can tell, it’s Exhibit “B” to the resolution of June 13th 1977, ah so it was an M.O.U. that eventually gets reduced into the Sales Agreement and the Sales Agreement is the final document with regard to the sale. So, whatever didn’t get incorporated from the M.O.U. essentially disappears.” May 31, 2016 presentation to the Joint meeting of the HB City Council members and HBCSD School Board members. Time stamp: 02:50:54.
CORRECT INFORMATION: See explanation for Item #2 above: Michael Jenkins, Hermosa Beach City Attorney (1995-retired 2022) City attorney questions document...
1. The HBCSD Board Resolution of Intention to Sell & Prescribing the Terms Thereof, Exhibit ‘G’, is listed on page 2 of the main body of the Agreement in Article 1 Recital of Facts, item 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 and is listed under Exhibit G.
2. HBCSD attorney Terry Tao outright lied and misrepresented nearly all the information he presented at his approximately one-hour May 31, 2016 presentation. Why? Please see Terry Tao’s entire presentation with fact checking for the full impact of his misinformation and misleading statements. Terry Tao was not under oath to tell the truth. It is not illegal to lie.
3. Taxpayer paid Superintendent Pat Escalante colluded with taxpayer paid HBCSD attorney Terry Tao and school board members over six hours to give an approximately one-hour presentation filled with false and misleading information one week before the June 7, 2016 bond vote in order to win a $59M facilities bond. (TL-2016May31 AALRR invoice collusion)
4. The May 31, 2016 presentation at the HBCSD and City of Hermosa Beach Joint meeting was made ONE WEEK before the June 2016 $59M bond vote and was uploaded to the school district website under Measure S information. Terry Tao’s curated misinformation in this presentation cost taxpayers $11k. (TT-2016May31 AALRR invoice)
5. This violation was reported to the Los Angeles County District Attorney for Public Integrity in spring 2017 and to the Fair Political Practice Commission in May 2020.
The alleged violation sent to the FPPC was that of using more than $10,000 of taxpayer funds to hire an attorney for the sole purpose of misinforming voters in order to pass the district’s $59M bond Measure S and not reporting the campaign expenditure and contribution to the Yes on S campaign in violation of FPPC rules. Violation Section 18420: Failure to report nonmonetary campaign expenditures by local government agency (Hermosa Beach City School District) of more than $8,000 for the benefit of the Committee to Improve Hermosa Schools – Yes on S, I.D. #1383261. (TL-2002May18 FPPC May 31, 2016 meeting)
6. Correct information was given to Easy Reader reporter Ryan McDonald three months after this meeting (after community members fact checked Terry Tao’s statements). Ryan McDonald did nothing to investigate the allegations of misinformation and collusion by Terry Tao and Pat Escalante. This information was withheld from the public.
7. Correct information was also given to city council members in the winter of 2016. Apparently, none of the city council members investigated this information on their own. None of the city council members (Justin Massey, Jeff Duclos, Hany Fangary, Carolyn Petty or Stacey Armato) made this information public. Justin Massey stated in a private meeting that he did not believe the community members fact checking. Justin Massey's advice to community members who fact checked this information was to sue the school district.
(9) HBCSD website under “What is Measure S?”:
“What properties were explored by the FPAC (Facilities Planning and Advisory Committee) as possible alternatives to North School?”
“On March 20, 2013, the FPAC discussed the Community Center option. City Planning Director Pam Townsend was present at the meeting and later provided documents and a statement that there is no provisions for the school district to reoccupy the site for a school so that option is not viable as discussed." (Lease Agreement located under Measure S – History) by Pat Escalante, HBCSD Superintendent, “Lease Agreement located under Measure S – History”, posted on the HBCSD.org website. See also Pat Escalante Complete Discussion and Facts.
“City Planning Director Pam Townsend was present at the meeting and later provided documents and a statement that there is no provisions for the school district to reoccupy the site for a school so that option is not viable as discussed.”
COMPETING INFORMATION:
1. The Memorandum of Understanding was found by a FPAC member in September 2013, six months after Pam Townsend made her remarks. Therefore, Pam Townsend did not have all the information regarding district provisions for use of classrooms, office and storage space at the Community Center that the school district quotes in this "information” on their website. Please see: November 20, 2013 - Misleading statements contained in article: Document uncovers details about 1978 Pier Avenue School sale by Alana Garrigues, The Beach Reporter. (TL-2013Nov20 Document uncovers details)
2. According to Monique Ehsan, the FPAC committee chair, in an email sent to school board member Patti Ackerman and Superintendent Pat Escalante on October 2014, the FPAC members DID NOT have a FPAC discussion about the district's use of the Community Center to house students. (TL-2014Oct19 email M Ehsan)
“I am writing just to clarify a matter with regard to the FPAC so
that we don’t fan the flames of the opposition. Your letter to the Editor
last week indicated that the FPAC considered Prospect Heights, South
School, the Time Warner building and the Community Center. The
FPAC never discussed Prospect Heights or South School because we
didn’t understand the history of the School District with regard to
the sale of these properties and any leaseback options nor did we
have a mandate to do historical research. Katrina Bacallao, on
her own time and with her own funds, exhaustively researched the
history of the District but her findings were presented to Pat, not
to the FPAC. At a couple of meetings Pat* [Escalante] brought up
the Community Center and the fact that we don’t own it but we never
had an FPAC discussion about the States rep’s tour of the facility,
the Title V inadequacies, the MOA [MOU], etc.”
*NOTE: Superintendent Escalante did not bring up the subject of the Community Center in FPAC meetings, members of the public brought up the Community Center during FPAC discussions. There was no substantial discussion of the Community Center in the FPAC meetings.
NOTE: In her email to School Board member Patti Ackerman and Superintendent Pat Escalante, FPAC Chair Monique Ehsan does not mention City Planning Director Pam Townsend's statements on the Community Center as being relevant information during FPAC meetings.
3. In the article Document uncovers details about 1978 Pier Avenue School sale by Alana Garrigues, The Beach Reporter. (TL-2013Nov20 Document uncovers details) Pat Escalante claims not to have known anything about the MOU prior to it being discovered by Katrina Bacallao months after the FPAC meetings at which Pam Townsend made her comments.
4. Why would school board members and Superintendent Pat Escalante add information about City Planning Director Pam Townsend's comments on their website prior to the district's $59M bond vote if it wasn’t correct? Were Superintendent Pat Escalante and school board members hoping to mislead the people of Hermosa Beach to pass an expensive $59M facilities bond by putting this misleading “information” on their website under Measure S Information? Did the district collude with the City of Hermosa Beach in having City Planning Director Pam Townsend attend one FPAC meeting and then quoting her incomplete and misleading statements on the HBCSD website?
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS:
1. Why did it take a non-elected member of the community to find the MOU? Why didn’t anyone from the school district or the city know about the MOU as they claim? Or did they know, and they just told the community that they didn’t know about the MOU because they were trying to keep this information from Hermosa Beach taxpayers?
2. Why was the Memorandum of Understanding missing from the available copies of the Sale and Purchase Agreement? Why would the MOU be the only pages that were missing from copies of the Agreement? The MOU was stamped with an official document number, just like all the other pages of the entire Agreement and Exhibits A-K that were sent to the LA County Recorder’s office in 1978. Did someone remove the MOU to cover up the district’s leasing agreement for classrooms, office and storage space at the Community Center? Why didn’t school board members or Superintendent Pat Escalante find the MOU in district copies of the Agreement?
3. Why wouldn’t school board members allow the Facilities Planning and Advisory Committee (2013) to investigate district use of the Community Center to relieve overcrowding?
4. Why didn’t either Lance Widman, George Schmeltzer or George Barks (all signers on the Agreement from 1977-1978) alert the public as to its existence during years of district/community need? Why did Lance Widman and George Schmeltzer continually deny the provisions for district use of classrooms in letters and meetings?
5. Why didn’t ANY of the elected school board members (Lance Widman, Greg Breen, Cathy McCurdy (longest serving school board member) Linda Beck, Barbara Zondoris, Lisa Claypoole, Patti Ackerman, Jack Burns, Carleen Beste, Mary Campbell, Maggie Bove-LaMonica, Monique Ehsan) or HBCSD superintendents (Dr. Sharon McClain, Dr. Bruce Newlin, Pat Escalante) from 2000 to 2016 look into this information for taxpayers? Wasn’t it their job to find out the facts for residents?
Were all the school board members and superintendents part of an unofficial agreement to deceive residents in order to keep the district out of the Community Center and instead pass a $59 million dollar facilities bond in order to build a brand new, and now unneeded, 510 student campus at North School?
Was the reason why most of the school board members and superintendents apparently did NOT know about the district's lease agreement for Pier Avenue School Community Center because many school board members just believe whatever they hear or are told and do NOT check the facts before making public statements or expensive consequential decisions?
6. Why didn’t ANY of the elected city council members from 2002-2017 or City Manager Tom Bakaly look into this information for taxpayers? Wasn’t it their job to find out the facts for residents?
7. It seems that the only elected city council member who did somewhat investigate the information and asked questions was Nanette Barragan. The only city employee who took it upon himself to disclose some correct information to the public was former City Manager Steve Burrell.
Please also see: Lie #2: Claiming that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is not valid because it was not signed by the HB Ctiy Council members.; Lie #3: Claiming that the Community Center needs to be purchased by HBCSD in order for it to be used by the district.; Lie #4: Claiming that the Community Center does not meet CDE Title 5 Regulations.; Lie #5: Misinforming the public that the Community Center can only be used for recreational purposes.; Lie #6: Misleading the public
as to the condition and safety of the Community Center (or the grandfathered in North School) for students.; Lie #7: Claiming that the Community Center and North School are not ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) accessible.; Lie #8: Claiming that renovating historical schools such as Pier Avenue School or North School are very expensive and cost prohibitive.