HBCSD Corruption
Misinformation and Misleading Information prior to HBCSD Measure S $59M Facilities Bond: July 2015 to June 2016
July 30, 2015 - Pier into the Past, by Greg Breen former HBCSD School Board member, Letters to the Editor, Easy Reader News:
Please see: Misinformation and misleading information contained in Greg Breen’s Letter to the Editor of July 30, 2015.
“Architects have advised the board that it’d be cheaper to bulldoze the Community Center than to rehabilitate it. None of this is new information. The district has had this information for anyone to review since I was on the board a decade ago.” – Greg Breen, July 30, 2015
NOTE: Email between Miyo Prassas and Superintendent Pat Escalante requesting information former school board member Greg Breen referred to in his letter to the Editor of July 30, 2015.
“… the district is unable to provide the information that you are requesting. Mr. Breen need[s] to provide that reference to you. The content of a letter written to the opinion section of a local newspaper by a resident, is in the view of the district, an opinion.”
October 14, 2015 – HBCSD Board meeting minutes, school board members hire Placeworks to “Conduct Environmental Due Diligence for the “Proposed” North School Reconstruction Project. AKA an Environmental Impact Report.
“Proposal for Environmental Planning and Site Assessment: Initial Traffic Impact Assessment and Historical Resource Technical Assessment for Future Facilities Planning at North School” B-23-15/16
Environmental/CEQA Consulting Services
“PlaceWorks [aka Terry Tao the school district’s attorney] will review the Traffic Impact Assessment and Historical Resource Technical Assessment to ensure they are defensible and can be used for later CEQA documentation. PlaceWorks will also provide environmental/CEQA consulting services to the District on an as-needed basis.”
“The main contract an project manager for the District will be Barbara Wu Heyman, Associate Principal. She will be supported by an in-house team of land use/CEQA attorneys, school facility planners, environmental planners, scientists, licensed engineers, registered environmental assessors, registered geologists, biologists, designers, and air quality/GHG and noise modeling experts.”
Deliverables:
· Review Traffic Impact Assessment (4 hours)
· Review Historical Resource Technical Assessment (2 hours)
· Environmental/CEQA Consulting (4 hours)
Cost Estimate
“The cost to complete the above tasks is $23,475.00…”
NOTE: HBCSD school board members start the Environmental Impact Report process eight months before the district's next facilities bond (and after the failed 2013 Measure Q, $54M facilities bond is defeated) is voted on and passed. Yet HBCSD school board members later blame the North School Environmental Impact Report on why it took them so long to finish the new North School campus.
Please see:
Lie #45: Claiming that the North School Environmental Impact Report “delayed” the rebuilding of North School.
January 28, 2016 – City Council members:
1. Carolyn Petty - Mayor
2. Hany S Fangary
3. Jeff Duclos
4. Justin Massey
5. Tom Bakaly – City Manager
February 25, 2016 – A series of emails showing taxpayer paid school district employee Pat Escalante working on behalf of the YES on S campaign while being paid by taxpayers during working school hours.
Superintendent Escalante colluded during district work hours and on the taxpayer dime on Yes on S bond strategy with Mike Collins, Chairman of the Yes on S campaign and Larry Fox, hired political consultant for the Yes on S campaign and Jon Isom, of Isom Advisors. Emails are addressed to Superintendent Escalante, Mike Collins, Larry Fox and Jon Isom.
NOTE: According to California Department of Education code 7050-7058 regarding political activities by school district staff, it is illegal for Pat Escalante, to be planning bond strategy during school hours while she is being paid by taxpayers. She can help the YES on S campaign all she wants on her own time and at her own expense. In addition, no other district staff or equipment is allowed to be used to pass a bond. Michael Collins (husband of school board president Mary Campbell) as chairman for the YES on S committee with the help of political consultant Larry Fox can and should be the ones who organize signatures and write the argument in favor of the bond, not HBCSD Superintendent Pat Escalante with the help of taxpayer paid Isom Advisors.
CDE Code 7054(a) states: “No school district or community college district funds, services, supplies or equipment shall be used for the purpose of urging the support or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate…”
CDE Code 7054(2) states: “The information provided constitutes a fair and impartial presentation of relevant facts to aid the electorate in reaching an informed judgement regarding the bond issue or ballot measure.”
NOTE: It is an unfair advantage to taxpayers and NO on S campaign members to be competing against a school district that has a dedicated employee or employees working for their bond campaign. School Board members (Michael Collin, Chairman of the YES on S campaign, wife was school board president at the time) and Superintendent Pat Escalante have knowledge of district strategy and plans that gave an unfair advantage to the YES on S campaign. The Yes on S campaign manager, Michael Collins, had an unfair advantage in having Superintendent Pat Escalante, while being paid by taxpayers, doing most of his work for him and giving him information that was not also made available to the NO on S campaign. How many other emails and meetings were sent or held by Superintendent Escalante to assist the YES on S campaign that were not provided to taxpayers by using the Freedom of Information Act?
Please also see:
Lie #16: Rampant misinformation and misleading information told by HBCSD attorney Terry Tao in a videotaped and televised presentation one week before the district’s $59M bond vote. HBCSD attorney Terry Tao colluded over six hours with Superintendent Pat Escalante and school board members to provide misinformation to taxpayers less than ONE WEEK before the $59M Measure S bond vote.
Lie #17: Misinforming the public regarding HBCSD use of North School AS IS.
Lie #18: Misinformation as to the historical facts and value of the circa 1934 North School in Pam Daly’s Historic Resource Assessment of North School.
NOTE: Taxpayers working against a bond are disadvantage in that the community generally automatically believes and trusts school district and city information. A school district also has parent’s email addresses and can send information and communicate directly with them.
NOTE: See also social media guru, Jonathan Zaleski of TPRC Communications below and his email to Pat Escalante after HBCSD lost the November 2014 Measure Q bond vote. HBCSD school board members then hired Jonathan Zaleski as the district social media guru (using taxpayer funds) for the duration of the Yes on S bond campaign. To our knowledge no other social media guru was interviewed for the position. TPRC contract.
NOTE: It is also nearly financially impossible for regular taxpayers to afford to hire paid professionals such as Jon Isom and Lawrence Fox to strategize on the NO stance on a bond. School districts have almost unlimited taxpayer funds that give them an unfair advantage in passing a bond. Community members work on their own time and at their own expense to do the paperwork to register their bond campaign, investigate rules and write the argument and rebuttal against the bond, get a post office box, set up a separate bank account, write and distribute bond campaign literature, etc. HBCSD had an unfair advantage over the broader community by being able to use almost unlimited taxpayer funds to hire consultants who will help them pass their bond.
NOTE: School board members and Superintendent Pat Escalante failed to post the NO on S argument on their HBCSD.org website. HBCSD ONLY posted the YES on S argument. They did not give the community a “fair and impartial presentation of relevant facts”. They also posted links to the misinformation provided during meetings and in their reports on the HBCSD.org website. The HBCSD.org website is paid for by taxpayers.
April 13, 2016 – Consultant Agreement for Public Relations Services B-51-15/16, Agreement for Educational Consultant Services
“RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Education ratify the consultant agreement with TPRC Communications to provide public relations services.”
“BACKGROUND: At the March 9, 2016 School Board Meeting, the Board received information on proposal for a District Communications Plan to maximize the effective distribution of information to the community in a compelling, efficient and accessible way. The Board approved a budget of $25,000 to be used toward a Communication Plan with contracts to be presented at the April 13, 2016 School Board Meeting.”
NOTE: Please also see: November 25, 2014 – Email from Jonathan Zaleski President of TPRC Communications (social media consultant) to Superintendent Pat Escalante (by way of executive assistant Michelle Meraz):
“Thanks for taking the time to chat on Friday. As discussed, had I been involved as a consultant to pilot the district’s social media efforts, Measure Q would have easily passed on Election Day.”
1. The statement by HBCSD that "the Board received information on proposal for a District communications plan..." doesn't quite tell the whole story. Someone from HBCSD had actively requested a proposal for a District Communications Plan from Jonathan Zaleski based on his email to Pat Escalante after HBCSD lost the 2014 Measure Q bond.
2. HBCSD hired Jonathan Zaleski, based on his email promising to win the district's next bond election. The hiring of TPRC Communications was NOT a normal course of business. It was intended as a way for the district to WIN the district's upcoming $59M Measure S bond vote.
3. The term of Jonathan Zaleski’s contract tracks exactly with the Measure S campaign. (March 1, 2016 to June 30, 2016) Taxpayer funds were used to hire a social media guru to help pass the district’s $59M facilities bond, Measure S in order to get more money from taxpayers.
NOTE: If the social media consultant position was just a regular course of business for the district, in other words not an illegal election related expenditure using taxpayer money, what other Communication consultants were interviewed for the job before the district hired TPRC Communications?
4. Jonathan Zaleski’s contract is entitled “Agreement for Educational Consultant Services”. Mr. Zaleski is NOT an Educational Consultant.
5. The hiring of Mr. Zaleski by HBCSD at exactly the same time as the Yes on Measure S campaign started and for the term of the campaign (March – June 2016), without interviewing any other media consultants and after a letter was received promising to win the next bond measure, was reported to the Fair Political Practice Commission in May 2020. The alleged violation was that of using taxpayer funds to hire a professional communications media service for the purpose of passing bond Measure S. 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.
The response from HBCSD Attorney Terry Tao (who also gave a one-hour presentation one week before the $59M bond vote that was full of misinformation and misleading information and was paid $11,000 by HBCSD.
See also:
Lie #16: Rampant misinformation and misleading information told by HBCSD attorney Terry Tao with collusion by Superintendent Pat Escalante and School Board members in a videotaped and televised presentation one week before the district’s $59M bond vote.
April 2016 – Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed North Elementary School by Richard Garland and Associates., 16787 Beach Boulevard, Suite 234, Huntington Beach, CA 92647.
Summary of suspect issues and findings 2016 to 2018:
1. Richard Garland’s address is a post office box in a strip mall in Huntington Beach. Apparently, Richard Garland does not have a brick-and-mortar office.
2. In 2015-2016, when this traffic study was done, Richard Garland was also a full-time employee for the City of Carson.
3. There is no evidence that Richard Garland had a company and employees. It seems that Richard Garland worked alone to count traffic in all the streets around North School on particular days – an unbelievable feat.
4. 50% of the Stop Control Analysis pages in the appendix of the traffic study had the date 12/13/2015 entered into the Date Performed field. The date of 12/13/15 was a Sunday date in the middle of winter and is NOT a day when HBCSD schools were in session.
5. The volume figures indicated in traffic counts were multiples of five. Normally actual traffic counts should show more of an array of digits in their actual presentations than what is reported on the traffic count tally sheets by Garland and Associates. Did Richard Garland simply make up his traffic counts for this Traffic Impact Analysis Report?
6. This report by Richard Garland was used in the important Environmental Impact Report given to the Coastal Commission.
7. Cost to taxpayers $77,420.19? Placeworks warrants #22572797, #22664076, #22801732, #22841946, #22921285, #23126374, for $23,185.99 and AALR&R warrant #24787512 for $54,234.20.
8. NOTE: HBCSD Attorney Terry Tao who had given a one-hour curated presentation of misinformation at the May 31, 2016 Joint City and School District meeting one week before the district’s bond vote, also “reviewed and evaluated” Richard Garland’s traffic study on May 2, 2016. Why did Terry Tao feel the need to “review and evaluate” Richard Garland’s misinformation prior to the Traffic Impact Analysis being released to the public? See also Pam Daly’s Historic Assessment of North School – May 16, 2016.
May 11, 2016 – Traffic Impact Analysis – North School (Garland Associates) Executive Summary slide presentation.
2016 - Get Schooled, letter to the Editor by Maggie Bove-La Monica, 2016, Easy Reader.
“Reopening [i.e. REBUILDING] the North School site is the right thing to do for the Hermosa School District to solve overcrowding. We are presently over capacity by 500 students.”
CORRECT INFORMATION: HBCSD has never been over capacity by 500 students.
District Capacity including portable classrooms:
1. The 2014 Facility Master Plan, page 37, states that the student capacity at Valley School, including portable classrooms, is 1,050 students. In June 2014 actual Valley School enrollment was 948 students.
2. The 2014 Facility Master Plan, page 47, states that the student capacity at View School, including portable classrooms, is 504 students, with actual View School enrollment 481 students.
3. NOTE: At View School the perfectly fine, six semi-permanent classrooms used for kindergarten and 1st grades students are considered to be portables.
4. According to the 2014 Facility Master Plan, total Valley School and View School capacity was 1,554 students.
5. In Spring 2014, the district high enrollment, total HBCSD enrollment reached 1,429 students. Therefore, at the May 28, 2014, HBCSD had extra capacity for 125 more students. (DI-5 HBCSD Enrollment Rpts 2008-2022)
6. In September 2013 total district enrollment was 1,426 students.
7. In September 2014 total district enrollment was 1,472 students.
8. In September 2015 total district enrollment was 1,431 students.
District Capacity without portable classrooms:
1. The 2014 Facility Master Plan, page 37, states that the permanent student capacity at Valley School (without counting portable classrooms) is 930 students.
2. The 2014 Facility Master Plan, page 47, states that the permanent student capacity at View School (without counting six semi-permanent portables and 4 regular portable classrooms is 216 students.
3. According to the 2014 Facility Master Plan, district permanent classrooms (no portables) capacity is 1,146 students.
4. In Spring 2014, the district high enrollment, total HBCSD enrollment was 1,429 students. Therefore, at the May 28, 2014 Joint meeting, HBCSD was over capacity by 283 students, not 500 students as claimed by Superintendent Escalante at this televised meeting.
NOTE: At the April 10, 2013 School Board meeting, Facility Planning and Advisory Committee (FPAC) chairperson, Monique Eshan, stated that the district was over capacity by 270 students.
NOTE: The claim that HBCSD is over capacity by 500 students is believed to have been first stated by Superintendent Pat Escalante at the Joint City and School District meeting on May 28, 2014. (See time stamp 00:38:00) http://hermosabeach.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=4169
The misinformation was then picked up and repeated by School Board member Lisa Claypoole at the joint meeting.
Please see:
Lie #14: Misinformation and misleading information in the Recommendations for the May 2014 Joint Meeting of the Governing Board of HBCSD and the HB City Council.
NOTE: Since North School has been rebuilt into a 510 student campus in April 2021 and View School has been renovated and new classroom buildings added in September 2022, district capacity is now approximately 1,902 to 1,968 students. (Valley School classroom capacity = 930 to 990 students, View School classroom capacity = 504 to 528 students, North School (aka Vista School) classroom capacity is 408 to 510 students.) In 2022, HBCSD enrollment of Hermosa students was 1,200. Therefore in 2022, HBCSD now has UNUSED CAPACITY for an additional 768 students! 768 classrooms seats, or approximately 20 to 25 classrooms, are underused or empty.
NOTE: Updated district capacity information and yearly and monthly enrollment changes are no longer mentioned by school board members or Superintendent Jason Johnson in public meetings, newspaper articles or in Letters to the Editor.
NOTE: Since 2017 when Children’s Journey was evicted from North School HBCSD has lost approximately $230,000/year from leasing the campus. From 2017 to 2022, HBCSD has lost more than $1 million dollars in rental income.
May 4, 2016 – Hermosa Beach City Council meeting.
During this meeting of the HB City Council, and HB City Manager Tom Bakaly discuss the results of the John A. Martin ASCE 31-30 Phase 1 Structural Seismic Evaluation Report and the City Wide Building & Facilities Condition Assessment CIP 13-665 for the Pier Avenue School Community Center.
At the 01:49:10 mark HB City Manager Tom Bakaly states:
“The Clark Building and Community Center, um, are war era buildings that were built essentially to withstand nuclear bomb blasts and so they can withstand earthquakes.” … “those buildings are seismically sound.”
NOTE: During HBCSD Attorney Terry Tao’s one hour curated presentation of misinformation, Terry Tao questions the earthquake safety of Pier Avenue School Community Center. None of the City Council members present in this May 4, 2016 meeting, nor City Manager Tom Bakaly, speak up during the May 31, 2016 joint meeting to dispute Terry Tao’s insinuations that the Community Center is not safe for the public.
Please see:
Lie #16: Rampant misinformation and misleading information told by HBCSD attorney Terry Tao with collusion by Superintendent Pat Escalante and School Board members in a videotaped and televised presentation one week before the district’s $59M bond vote.
May 10, 2016 - Historic Resource Assessment Report of The North School Campus Hermosa Beach City School District, by Pamela Daly, M.S.H.P., Daly & Associates slide presentation, presented by Superintendent Pat Escalante at the May 25, 2016 Measure S Informational Presentation.
NOTE: This presentation and the misinformation contained in it was downloaded to the HBCSD website prior to the $59 Measure S bond vote.
See also:
Lie #18: Misinforming the public as to the historical facts and value of the circa 1934 North School in Pam Daly’s Historic Resource Assessment of North School.
May 16, 2016 – Pam Daly Historical Assessment of North School.
Please see:
Lie #18: Misinforming the public as to the historical facts and value of the circa 1934 North School in Pam Daly’s Historic Resource Assessment of North School.
See also:
Final Historic Resource Assessment Report of The North School Campus (July 2017) Hermosa Beach City School District, by Pamela Daly, M.S.H.P., Daly & Associates, 4486 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501, dated July 2017.
The 2017 Final Historic Resource Assessment was created AFTER multiple examples of misinformation provided by Pam Daly was identified by community members and with poof of the misinformation, sent to HBCSD. Instead of firing Pam Daly given evidence of egregious misinformation contained in her May 2016 Historical Assessment, HBCSD school board members doubled down and used her July 2017 Final Report as an exhibit for the 2019 Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Despite misinformation provided by Pam Daly again in the July 2017 final report, school board members accepted the February 2019 Environmental Impact Report for North School and sent the final report to the Coastal Commission.
Summary of Misinformation and Fabrications 2016 to 2018:
1. The Daly & Associates Historic Resource Assessment Report dated May 11, 2016, was used during the June 2016 Measure S bond campaign by HBCSD to justify the passing a $59M bond to destroy and rebuild a 350 - student campus into a 510-student campus at North School.
2. Incorrect information provided by Pam Daly was relayed to voters at the May 25, 2016 Measure S Information Meeting and reinforced by HBCSD attorney Terry Tao at the May 31, 2016 Joint City of Hermosa Beach and HBCSD meeting to “correct” misinformation about Pier Avenue School. Both meetings were recorded and embedded in the HBCSD Measure S webpage at www.HBCSD.org.
3. Daly & Associates misinformation on North School was also disseminated on HB Facebook page by HBCSD supporters.
4. HBCSD attorney, Mr. Terry Tao spent 3.75 hrs from June 29, 2016 to July 7, 2016 to deny North School historic designation and registration. See AALRR invoice #501334 and #503178.
5. Cost to taxpayers approximately $24,172.24: PlaceWorks warrants #22572797, #22664076, #22801732, #22841946, #22921285, #23001190, #23126374 for $23,185.99 and AALR&R warrant for $986.25.
6. Proof of misinformation and fabrications was sent to PlaceWorks and made available to School Board members prior to and for the Environmental Impact Report Notice of Preparation in March 2017. Misinformation and fabrications were ignored by HBCSD School Board members and employees. Instead of replacing Pam Daly, she was retained to produce the FINAL Historical Resource Assessment Report dated July 2017.
7. Additional egregious fabrications were found in the Final Historical Resource Assessment Report of July 2017 and brought to PlaceWorks and HBCSD School Board members’ attention on January 2, 2018. No effort was made to correct the fabrications in the Environmental Impact Report before its acceptance by HBCSD on January 9, 2019. School board members either did not read comments made of the misinformation contained in the Historical Resource Assessment of North School or did read it and simply ignored it in order to pass their $59M facilities bond to demolish and rebuild North School.
8. At the May 31, 2016 joint city and school district meeting featuring HBCSD attorney Terry Tao’s one-hour presentation of misinformation and misleading information one week before the bond vote, Senior Architectural Historian/Historic Preservation Specialist Debi Howell-Ardila disputed Pam Daly’s historical assessment of North School. Please see the email sent by Debi Howell-Ardila prior to the joint meeting regarding the historical significance of North School.
9. The opponents of the District's $59M plan to destroy the circa 1934 North School tried to commission another historical assessment of the campus but was unable to do so because of the $23,000 price tag for an independent study. HBCSD has nearly unlimited taxpayer funds to purchase any slanted report and service in order to pass their bonds.
10. NOTE: HBCSD Attorney Terry Tao who had given a one-hour curated presentation of misinformation at the May 31, 2016 Joint City and School District meeting one week before the district’s bond vote, also spent 3.75 hours between June 29, 2016 and July 7, 2016 responding to North School historic designation “issues”.
See also
April 2016 – Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed North Elementary School by Richard Garland and Associates.
May 19, 2016 – Reports tackle worries surrounding Hermosa Beach’s North School by Ryan McDonald, Easy Reader News.
“The Hermosa Beach City School district released a pair of independent reports last week addressing the impacts of proposed school construction under a pending bond measure. While the reports – a traffic impact analysis for the area around North School, and a historical resource assessment of the 25th street campus – indicated that the rebuilding would have minimal impact on congestion or cultural heritage, opponents of the bond measure remain unconvinced, contending that the reports demonstrate bias in favor of district positions.”
“According to the traffic study, prepared by Garland and Associates, total traffic in the area would decrease by 170 vehicle trips per day if the HBCSD population were to replace the existing preschools. This estimate came despite “conservatively high assumptions” about traffic intensity and future growth, the report states….”
“The historical resource assessment, prepared by architectural historian Pamela Daly, was requested by the district after opponents of the bond measure raised questions about the historical significance of the North School site.”
May 25, 2016 – Measure S Informational Meeting, by Superintendent Pat Escalante with school board members Mary Campbell, Patti Ackerman, Maggie Bove LaMonica and Monica Eshan.
NOTE: Taxpayer paid Superintendent Pat Escalante gave an approximately one-hour presentation containing false and misleading information about North School as school board members looked on and school board president Mary Campbell confirmed only two weeks before the June 7, 2016 bond vote in order to win a $59M facilities bond. HBCSD also downloaded the misinformation to their website under the heading Measure S videos.
Please see:
Lie #37: Misinformation told by HBCSD Superintendent Pat Escalante in a videotaped and televised presentation regarding North School only two weeks before the district’s $59M bond vote. Partial transcripts and fact checking for the May 25, 2016 Measure S Informational Meeting.
The 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 was that of taxpayer paid Superintendent Pat Escalante with support from school board member misinforming voters under the guise of an informational presentation in order to pass the district’s $59M bond Measure S in violation of California Education Code 7054(2). CDE Code 7054(2) states that school districts must give fair and impartial information to voters of relevant facts to aid the electorate in reaching an informed decision regarding the bond. The information given at the May 25, 2016 Measure S Informational Presentation was not fair and impartial information. In addition, 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.
May 26, 2016 - Counting down to Measure S, by Lisa Jacobs and Alana Garrigues, dated May 26, 2016, The Beach Reporter.
"The Yes on S campaign, registered with the Fair Political Practices Commission (1), is a well organized and well-funded effort, with dozens of people knocking on doors. It has nearly $30,000 in donations from residents (2) and local business, including $10,500 donation from the architectural firm gkkworks, the company hired to conduct a long-range facilities plan for the district."
"It's standard practice in any industry that (gkkworks) might donate to the campaign. It's a relationship," [Michael] Collins said." [Michael Collins is the husband of HBCSD School Board president Mary Campbell. As the chairman of the Yes on S $59M bond campaign AND the husband of the HBCSD School Board president, he had inside knowlege to the events planned by HBCSD prior to the Measure S vote on June 7, 2016.] "The campaign has nothing to do with the district... (3) It's an opportunity to invest in the future of Hemosa Beach, in my opinion, and it doesn't guarantee anything on the back end for them getting work."
Misleading Information:
(1) Bond campaigns do NOT register with the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). This is a misleading statement in the newspaper. All campaigns register with the California Secretary of State, county election office. The FPPC is a political watchdog agency. Claiming that the Yes on S campaign registered with the FPPC gives the impression that the Yes on S campaign would/will follow fair political practices. The Yes on S campaign and HBCSD DID NOT follow fair political practices. The FPPC was alerted to unfair practices by the Yes on S campaign and HBCSD in formal complaints filed in 2020.
Please see: The Law: State of California Fair Political Practices Commission submissions:
The Hermosa Beach City School District June 7, 2016, facilities bond Measure S, The Hermosa Beach City School District failure to file as a Major Donor Committee after making contributions of $10,000 or more 90 days prior to the June 7, 2016 election.
The Hermosa Beach City School District June 7, 2016, facilities bond Measure S, Unreported campaign expenditure and contribution of $10,000 to the Yes on S campaign. (May 31, 2016 Meeting Presentation)
NOTE: If reporters Lisa Jacobs and Alana Garrigues spoke to Yes of S Campaign manager, Michael Collins and Michael Collins gave incorrect information regarding the Yes on S campaing registering with the FPPC, it is because Yes on S campaing manger did NOT actually drive to Norwalk, CA to register the Yes on S campaign. All evidence points to HBCSD Superintendent Pat Escalante as the person who took time from her taxpayer paid position at HBCSD to drive to Norwalk during school hours to register the campaign, NOT Micheal Collins.
(2) The statement in the Beach Reporter that "...it has nearly $30,000 from residents and local business"... is misleading. Only about $3,000 from donations came from local residents. $1,750 of the residential contributions were from three people: $750 was donated by HBCSD Superintendent Pat Escalante (who would ostensibly recieve a bonus and salary increase if Measure S won), $500 was donated by Michael Collins (husband of HBCSD School Board president Mary Campbell) and $500 was donated by John Friberg (husband of HBCSD school board member Maggie Bove LaMonica.) The remaining approximately $31,000 in Yes on S campaign contributions came from business doing business with (or anticipating doing business with) HBCSD or the City of Hermosa Beach.
See Fact #15: Who donated to the School District's bond campaigns?
(3) "The campaign has nothing to do with the district..." is misleading and untrue. There was seamless communications between HBCSD Pat Escalante, HBCSD school board members, HBCSD paid consultants and Yes on S political consultant Larry Fox prior to the June 7, 2016 election. The fact that Yes on S campaign was registered with the county election office in Norwalk, CA by HBCSD Pat Escalante, and NOT the Yes on S campaign manager is indicative of this statement.
May 26, 2016 - Yes on S from mayor, by Carolyn Petty, Mayor of Hermosa Beach, Letter to the Editor, Easy Reader News.
"June 7 is Election Day. I encourage Hermosa Beach residents to vote in support of Measure S. Some objections have been raised and I would like to dispel some myths. First the community center is fully utilized, serving members of our community, young and old. It is not for sale"....
..."The property would have to be purchased at current market rates."
NOTE:
Please see:
Lie #3: Claiming that the Community Center needs to be purchased by HBCSD in order for it to be used by the district.
Lie #13: Misleading information and misinformation regarding district use of the Community Center contained in the October 2013 Update on Proposed Expansion of P.A.R.K. After School Program by the City of Hermosa Beach.
June 7, 2016 – FULL TEXT OF BALLOT MEASURE S
“To reduce student overcrowding and make safety, security, and health improvements; construct, renovate, modernize, and equip classrooms and facilities at North, Valley and View Schools; replace or repair roofs; provide technology improvements for students; and upgrade or replace outdated electrical, plumbing, heating and air conditioning systems, shall Hermosa Beach City School District issue $59,000,000 of bonds at legal interest rates, and have an independent citizens’ oversight committee with no money for administrative salaries or taken by the state?”
NOTE: Only this portion of the bond description is listed on the face of the ballot. There is no mention of the district’s plan to tear-down and rebuild North School at a cost of $29,000,000 on the face of the ballot.
NOTE: Renovating North School was estimated to cost $6.2 million by the Juge Construction Company in 2017. Juge Construction company had also renovated Valley School in 1987 for $3.4 million
1. In Spring 2013, the Facility Planning Advisory Committee “expert” hired by HBCSD, Paul Bunter of BCA Architects, estimated $11 million to renovate North School (and $14.5 million to tear down North School and rebuild it.) The actual cost to demolish and rebuild North School was $29M in 2021.
2. Paul Bunton did not give an estimate or information to FPAC members regarding the ultimately lengthy and expensive Environmental Impact Report that would be necessary when demolishing and rebuilding North School. However, HBCSD school board members should have been well aware of the need for an extensive Environmental Impact Report needed when rebuilding North School.
3. School board members had started the EIR process for North School in October 2015. Please see: October 14, 2015 – HBCSD Board meeting minutes, school board members hire Placeworks to “Conduct Environmental Due Diligence for the “Proposed” North School Reconstruction Project. AKA an Environmental Impact Report.
NOTE: Later, HBCSD would blame the time-frame of the EIR as a "delay". The EIR WAS NOT A DELAY. It was a foreseeable issue when demolishing and rebuilding North School versus renovating the campus. HBCSD school board members should have been well aware of the need for an extensive EIR and Coastal Commission approval BEFORE deciding to demolish and rebuild North School.
Please see:
Lie #45: Claiming that the North School Environmental Impact Report “delayed” the rebuilding of North School.
4. In 2014, the Facilities Master Plan estimated $14.7 million (2014 Facilities Master Plan page 115) and between $16,251,624 and $18,689,368 to renovate North School (GKK Works Executive Summary page 2).
5. Five years later, after North School was rebuilt for 510 students, enrollment had dropped by 270 students, making North School (aka renamed Vista School) unnecessary. HBCSD would lose $230,000/year by not leasing North School out since summer 2017.
June 7, 2016 – PROJECT LIST FOR $59M FACILITIES BOND MEASURE S.
The information below is listed in the back pages of a voter guide that accompanies the ballot description. The first page and first line of the “Project List for The Bond Measure” does not indicate that North School would be completely torn down and rebuilt:
“PROJECT LIST FOR THE BOND MEASURE: Renovate and Modernize Existing Classrooms and Buildings.”
NOTE: Voters must read down to the middle of page two of the “Project List for the Bond Measure” to find the truth about the school board members intentions with bond monies. In the middle of page two hidden at the bottom of the fourth paragraph is this district disclaimer that most voters would probably miss:
Page 2: Bottom of fourth paragraph:
“Projects may also include the costs of demolition and reconstruction of existing facilities currently scheduled for modernization, if the Board of Education determines that such an approach would be more cost effective solution.”
NOTE: The arguably hidden information that is actually profoundly important (MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT IS WRITTEN ON THE FACE OF THE BOND) as to how bond monies are spent is only disclosed on the extended descriptions of all HBCSD facility bond measures (J, Q, S) to date.
NOTE: There is no evidence of how the school board ultimately “determined” that demolition of the entire North School was a “more cost-effective solution” to solving the temporary overcrowding problem at HBCSD than renovating North School.
2016 – Email from Howard Longacre: Pat Escalante states North School will be demolished.
“North School is to be demolished according to Hermosa School Superintendent Pat Escalante last Wednesday evening!” “However, that’s not what it says in the Measure-S legal documents in the Sample Ballot!”
NOTE: The three-page long version of the FULL TEXT of BALLOT MEASURE S, page two, hidden at the bottom of paragraph four, does indeed state that: “Projects may also include the costs of demolition and reconstruction of existing facilities currently scheduled for modernization, if the Board of Education determines that such an approach would be more cost-effective solution.”
NOTE: Obviously, school board members and Pat Escalante had already decided what they were going to do with the $59M from Measure S, but they did not say it out right in the text of Ballot Measure S. School board members were ostensibly trying to play it both ways with the community by not stating their predetermined decision to demolish North School on the face of the ballot.
NOTE: If school board members were not going to demolish North School, why did they ask for a $59M bond? They could have asked for a $30M bond to renovate North School and View School. According to the 2014 Facilities Master Plan it would only cost $14.7M to $17.5M to renovate North School.
NOTE: Why did the cost of renovating North School go from $14.7M on page 115 of the Facilities Master Plan (option B) and then to $16.2M to $18.7M on page 2 of the Executive Summary for the same year? Did school board members or Superintendent Pat Escalante ask GKK Works to inflate the amount to renovate North School on the Executive Summary that more of the public might read?
2016 – HBCSD Website: What is Measure S?
Please see:
Lie #38: Misinformation and misleading information on the HBCSD website prior to the district’s $59M bond offering.
2016 – Residents question Hermosa Beach bond measure, by Ryan McDonald, exact published date unknown, Easy Reader News.
1. “With a bond measure to alleviate crowding in Hermosa Beach schools set for next month’s election, a group of residents is raising doubts about the wisdom of the $59 million construction plan.”
2. “Under Measure S, North School would be rebuilt, with preliminary cost estimates ranging between $28 million and $33 million. The district arrived at this option after commissioning a Long Range Facilities Master Plan, which examined options to “modernize” or to “rebuild” the school.”
NOTE: The statement that: “the district arrived at this option after commissioning a Long Range Facilities Master Plan, which examined options to “modernize” or to “rebuild” the school” gives the impression that the Long Range Facilities Master Plan recommended rebuilding North School over modernizing North School. It did not. It simply calculated the dollar cost for each option. The LRFMP did not make a determination of which option the district should pursue, school board members on their own decided to pursue the most expensive option to rebuild North School.
3. “Opponents of Measure S argue that the district has given insufficient attention to the “modernize” option.”
4. “Resident Cassandra Bates said that school districts both locally and across the country are increasingly refurbishing their old buildings rather than tearing them down, generating savings that could be reinvested in classroom technology.” “HBCSD, she said, has focused single-mindedly on the rebuild.” ““We are just looking for financial accountability – that we truly are getting the most cost-effective solution,” Bates said.”
5. “Superintendent Pat Escalante said that the rebuilding option was the result of “a great deal of consideration.”
NOTE: What exactly was the “great deal of consideration” that was given? Is Pat Escalante referring to the Facility Planning Advisory Committee who recommended rebuilding as opposed to modernization because they were told by the district’s hired “expert” that there would only be a $4 million dollar difference between the two?
NOTE: Superintendent Pat Escalante does not disclose ANY of the negative issues that occurred with the 2013- 2014 Facility Planning and Advisory process.
Please see:
December 12, 2012 – Hermosa Beach City School District School Board meeting minutes
January 2013 - The first meeting of the Facilities Planning and Advisory Committee is convened at the Valley School teacher conference room.
-through-
August 21, 2013 – HBCSD Facilities Planning Advisory Committee August 21, 2013 meeting minutes.
NOTE: Did part of the “great deal of consideration” have to do with the district’s hired consultants predicting that there would be 1,741 more students in Hermosa Beach by 2022? When in fact there were actually 270 LESS students at HBCSD by 2020?
Please see:
Lie #24: The district’s demographic report given to the Facility Planning and Advisory Committee members in January 2013 made no sense and was later proved to be substantially incorrect.
Lie #25: The district’s enrollment projections supplied by Decision Insite seemingly ignored evidence of declining K-12 enrollment from the California Department of Finance, Demographics Unit and the Los Angeles Unified School District.
Lie #26: HBCSD enrollment consultants inflated Transitional Kindergarten (TK) and Kindergarten (K) enrollment and seemingly did not take into account the full-time to half-time change in TK and K classes even as their May 2015 report was titled “Conservative 5-year Projections, Assuming Return to Half-Day Kindergarten.
Lie #27: Less than six months after the district won it’s $59M Measure S bond vote, HBCSD’s enrollment consultants changed their projections from future large increase in enrollment to one of markedly lower overall enrollment at HBCSD.
6. “She [Pat Escalante] said that it was the failure of Measure Q that caused the rebuild aspect bond measure to take its current form.” ““Had measure Q passed we wouldn’t be here” Escalante said.” “Measure Q contained a combination of rebuilding and modernization plan.”
NOTE: Both Measure Q AND Measure S contained language that claimed either rebuilding or modernization of North School to be determined after the bond had passed. It is believed that school board members had already planned to demolish and rebuild North School, thus the high cost of the bond, but remain non-committal in bond language in order to play both sides of the fence with voters.
NOTE: The fact that Measure Q asked for $54M and Measure S asked for $59M shows that HBCSD was only interested in rebuilding North School not renovating it. At the time rebuilding North School was estimated to cost $33M and renovating North School was estimated to cost $14-$17M (estimate given by the district’s hired architects). An independent builder, Juge Construction, who had also done the renovation of Valley School in 1987, estimated that North School would cost approximately $6.2M to renovate in 2017.
7. “Escalante said the district would present a historical resource assessment of the structure [buildings at North School] at the May 11th school board meeting.”
NOTE: The Historical Assessment Report of North School by Pamela Daly, May 2016 contained egregious amounts of misinformation and outright fabrications of fact. The incorrect and misleading information in Pam Daly’s Historical Assessment Report of North School was later used for the North School Environmental Impact Report from 2017 to 2019 and posted to the internet as fact without the corrections that were provided by Hermosa Beach residents.
Please see:
Lie #18: Misinforming the public as to the historical facts and value of the circa 1934 North School in Pam Daly’s Historic Resource Assessment of North School.
8. “The district has commissioned a traffic study for the area, with results to be released at the May 11th [2016] meeting.” Please see misleading and incorrect information contained in Richard Garland’s North School Traffic Assessment.
May 27, 2016 – Email from Debi Howell-Ardila, Senior Architectural Historian/Historic Preservation Specialist. Subject: Re: North Elementary School – Samuel E. Lunden.
“At minimum, North Elementary School does appear eligible for the local/state/federal level and will therefore likely qualify as a historical resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)….” “Under CEQA, demolition of a historical resource is always a significant adverse impact that cannot be mitigated.”
May 31, 2016 – Email from Senior Architectural Historian Debi Howell-Ardila to the May 31, 2016 Joint City and School District meeting. Debi Howell-Ardila is Senior Architectural Historian/Historic Preservation Specialist with SWCA Environmental Consultants and vice chair of the Cultural Heritage Commission (CHC) of South Pasadena.
“In my opinion, and based on the dozens of schools I’ve surveyed throughout SoCal, North Elementary appears eligible for the City of Hermosa Beach Register under local criteria A (“It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural history”) C (“It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction”), and D (“It is representative of the notable work of a builder, designer or architect,” in this case, renowned architects Samuel Lunden and Marsh, Smith and Powell).
“In terms of the California Register, it appears eligible under Criteria 1, as a highly representative example of a 1930’s school, as well as Criteria 3, as an outstanding example of WPA-era Art Deco institutional building.”
NOTE: Since North School has been rebuilt into a 510 student campus in April 2021 and View School has been renovated and new classroom buildings added in September 2022, district capacity is now 1,968 students. (Valley School classroom capacity = 930 students, View School classroom capacity =528 students, North School (aka Vista School) classroom capacity is 510 students.) In 2022, HBCSD enrollment of Hermosa students was 1,200. Therefore in 2022, HBCSD now has UNUSED CAPACITY for an additional 768 students! 768 classrooms seats, or at least 25 classrooms are underused or empty.
NOTE: See also March 1, 2018 – District on a Mission by Jim Fasola (Fasola Architects, Manhattan Beach, CA), Letters to the Editor, Easy Reader News.
“The Hermosa Beach School District is about to destroy the most historically significant building in its jurisdiction, at a great cost in both dollars and community character. The North School main building is a fine example of Mission architecture of the 1920s. [The North School main building was renovated and designed by renowned architect Samuel Lunden in 1934 after the 1933 Long Beach earthquake destroyed the original school building.] It is structurally sound, and its classrooms are large and bright. With proper renovation, upgrades, and replacement of its missing clay tile roof, it could be a beautiful place for our kids to learn and thrive. Yet the District intends to tear down this handsome building, and the two adjacent 1920s [actually 1939] buildings, too. The proposed replacement building is a large, utilitarian mass, adorned with ridiculous imitation buttresses, with the overall look and feel of a public housing block. Almost as bad is the proposed multi-purpose building, which could easily be mistaken for a self-storage facility.”
May 31, 2016 – HBCSD and Hermosa Beach City Council Joint Meeting
Agenda: R-33-15/16: Hermosa Beach Community Center (formerly Pier Avenue School) by Superintendent Pat Escalante and City Manager Tom Bakaly:
“To provide the Hermosa Beach City Council, the Board of Education and the community information to questions that continue to be asked about the use of the Hermosa Beach Community Center (formally Pier Avenue School). Presentation by Mr. Terry Tao, J.D., Senior Partner of Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo specializing in public school facilities. Mr. Tao is a licensed California Architect, and a seismology expert.
NOTE: Terry Tao does not have an engineering degree and is not qualified to make statements regarding the seismic safety of the Community Center (Pier Avenue School)
Please see: May 31, 2016 Joint HBCSD and HB City meeting with presentation by HBCSD attorney Terry Tao. http://hermosabeach.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=4169
Lie #16: Rampant misinformation and misleading information told by HBCSD attorney Terry Tao with collusion by Superintendent Pat Escalante and School Board members in a videotaped and televised presentation one week before the district’s $59M bond vote.
1. 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.
2. HBCSD Attorney Terry Tao was paid $10,901.25 (by taxpayers) for his one hour presentation of misinformation and misleading information at the Joint HBCSD and City meeting on May 31, 2016.
2. The public was not allowed to ask questions during or after Terry Tao’s presentation.
3. As if instructed to beforehand, City Council members all spoke superlatives of Mr. Tao’s and his misinformation during the meeting while on camera to seemingly further elevate Mr. Tao’s misinformation to the public.
4. HBCSD also downloaded the misinformation to their website under the heading Measure S videos.
5. Easy Reader reporter Ryan McDonald wrote an article the day after the meeting entitled Hermosa Beach Community Center’s history key to bond vote, by Ryan McDonald, Easy Reader. The article was published less than a week before the bond vote and basically repeated HBCSD attorney Terry Tao’s misinformation.
NOTE: In September 2016, only three months after the district’s $59M bond vote passed, Easy Reader reporter Ryan McDonald was given the transcripts, fact checking and exact documents to Terry Tao’s misinformation at the May 31, 2016 Joint City and HBCSD meeting. He apparently did nothing with the information he was given by citizens.
NOTE: In the fall of 2016 notebooks containing the transcripts to the May 31, 2016 presentation by Terry Tao and the May 25, 2016 Measure S presentation by Pat Escalante along with fact checking and correct documents were sent to Hermosa Beach City Council members. None of HB City Council members came forward either privately or publicly to denounce the blatant misinformation given to voters prior to the bond vote.
NOTE: School board members did not admit privately or publicly to the misinformation or discipline taxpayer paid Superintendent Pat Escalante and HBCSD Attorney Terry Tao after proof was given to them. On the contrary Pat Escalante was apparently given an all-expense trip to Park City Utah under the guise of being honored by the Creative Coalition an arts and entertainment charity.
The violation was reported to the Los Angeles County District Attorney for Public Integrity in spring and summer 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.
NOTE: For years AFTER documentation and proof of the misinformation that Terry Tao told the public and City Council members after colluding over six hours with Superintendent Pat Escalante, and school board members to give misinformation to taxpayers, Terry Tao was kept on in his position as HBCSD attorney at taxpayer expense.
Response from FPPC dated September 4, 2020.