HBCSD Corruption
Lie #1
The Misinformation:
(1) Michael Jenkins, Hermosa Beach City Attorney: (1995-retired 2022)
"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:
1. Hermosa Beach City attorney Michael Jenkins only identifies the provisions of Exhibit ‘K’ in his statement above. In this televised public meeting he fails to also mention Article 4 of the Memorandum of Understanding that the City of Hermosa Beach agreed to at their meetings of June 14, 1977 and June 28, 1977.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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?
6. 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?
7. 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?
8. 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.
9. Former City Council member George Schmeltzer (1976-1984) and signer on the Agreement for the Sale of Pier Avenue School in 1978 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.
10. Former City Council member George Schmeltzer (1976-1984) and signer on the Agreement for the Sale of Pier Avenue School in 1978 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.
11. 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?
(2) 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, 1977 and June 28, 1977.
“Action: To approve the Memorandum of Understanding subject
to review and approval by the City Attorney [JB Mirassou]; 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* and reversionary clause**.”
2. The “review and approval by the City Attorney” was given in Exhibit J of the Agreement. Exhibit J were letters by the HB City Attorney in January 1978 and February 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. 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. 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.
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.
6. 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.
7. 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.”
8. The Resolution of Intention to Sell… and Prescribing the Terms Thereof and was labeled Exhibit ‘G’ 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…”
(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).
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.
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 former 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.
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.
NOTE: 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.
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.
The MOU, 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 inure to the benefit
of the respective successors in interest of and assigns of the District
or the City.”
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.:
“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: 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.
(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.
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. Since 2002 no one else from the City of Hermosa Beach or the School District came forward with correct information about the Sale and Purchase Agreement provisions for district use of classrooms, office and storage space at the Community Center.
Why did it fall on an un-elected community member to research and disclose this information to the public in September 2013?
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? Did ANY school board member or city council member investigate the Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Pier Avenue School on their own to be sure that the information that they were giving to the public was correct?
4. Only former City Council Member George Barks who was also a signer on the Sale and Purchase Agreement for Pier Avenue School would disclose the City's intent AFTER the district's $59M Measure S bond passed in 2016. 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.
“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. 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.
6. 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. He may have also been a signer on the District's $13.9M Measure J bond in 2002 that was used to build a low priority gymnasium at Valley School instead of the 13 promised classrooms. 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 in exchange for a brand-new, now unneeded campus at North School (renamed Vista School in 2020)?
(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.
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 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
MISLEADING INFORMATION:
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.
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?
(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.
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 also 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).
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.
3. Greg Breen fails to disclose the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding that was accepted by former City Councilmembers Lance Widman (also a School Board member from 2002 to 2009), 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?
(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”. Pier into the Past by Greg Breen, Letters to the Editor 07/30/15, Easy Reader News.
CORRECT INFORMATION:
1. According to Exhibit K, Article 5 Use of the Gymnasium, Showers, Lockers and Tennis Courts, Section 5.02:
“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. 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 13 additional classrooms as recommended by the 2002 Facility Master Plan?
5. Superintendent Pat Escalante sent a letter renewing the leasing agreement specified in Exhibit K to the City of Hermosa Beach in 2014.
(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.
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. Please see AALRR Invoice of May 31, 2016.
(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 in Pier Avenue School sale by Alana Garrigues, The Beach Reporter, November 22, 2013.
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.
(9) HBCSD website under “What is Measure S?”: by Superintendent Pat Escalante.
“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."
“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.
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 discussion about the district's use of the Community Center to house students.
“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, 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?
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.