SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
November 23, 2010· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

On the library deal between the City and County

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

So the spin coming from City Hall today is that a mutually-beneficial deal has been struck between the COLA Public Library and the City of Santa Clarita over the renovation of the Canyon Country library, City library service for unincorporated residents, and the City’s forthcoming application to join the Southern California Library Cooperative. All we have to do is give the County $622,000 and we’re good, right?

Here, I’ll let Assistant City Manager Ken Striplin tell you about it:

“This was the most expedient way of dealing with the issue and getting the library open as quickly as we can,” Assistant City Manager Ken Striplin said.

Striplin said the city and the county “came together very well.”

“The county had a position coming into it, the city had a position coming into it, and we somewhat met in the middle in the best interest of providing library service,” Striplin said.

Just two equal parties coming together in the middle, reasoning with one another like adults in the best interests of the public.

Bollocks!

The City just got pwned by Antonovich. And it’s going to pay dearly for it. Under the terms of the deal:

  • The City will pay $622,600 to complete the renovation of the Canyon Country library which was stopped just six days after the City voted to leave the COLA system. The County was paying for this; now we are, out of our “rainy day” fund no less
  • After paying up, the County will complete its renovation by March and support the City’s bid to join the Southern California Library Cooperative
  • Under the terms of the deal, the City will provide free library services to unincorporated SCV residents for a period of five years, which finally resolves one of the biggest question marks about this deal we’ve had since July

Sounds good right? Need I remind anyone that the original justification presented by City staff for the takeover was that we were sending a surplus of $416,688 to the COLA system every year that they weren’t investing back in Santa Clarita? Why, with all the excess money we could save by leaving the COLA system, we could do some pretty neat things like keep libraries open longer, build a new one in Valencia, all sorts of neat stuff!

For Fiscal Year 2008-09, the total revenue collected within the City of Santa Clarita by the County Library was $6,486,502, and the cost for the County Library to operate the three library branches serving the Santa Clarita Valley was $6,069,834, resulting in a remaining surplus from within the City of Santa Clarita of $416,668.

Well, the numbers just changed. Under the terms of this “deal”, these first year savings and nearly half of the second year savings will be wiped out because we didn’t anticipate the County of LA halting its construction project of the CC Library. Because we rushed this decision and didn’t consider all the ramifications.

Recall the City Council’s shock and befuddlement back in September when they learned the County had ceased construction of the CC library. Marsha “Cracks are Forming” McLean and Darren Hernandez:

“This is very discouraging to me,” Santa Clarita City Councilwoman Marsha McLean said. “The library is still in the county’s hands and will not be in the city’s hands until July of next year. … They shouldn’t be holding Canyon Country residents hostage because they’re mad at what we did. It’s just not fair.”

…

“It’s disappointing, but it doesn’t surprise me,” Hernandez said. “The construction that was begun needs to be completed.
The taxpayers of the Santa Clarita Valley are paying the county library (system) to operate that library.

“The county is not running it, and is instead pocketing the revenue. That was part of the problem the council considered when they made their decision.”

And for all that, for that $622,000 payout, what do we get in return? The County merely has to “support the application of the Santa Clarita Public Library to join the Southern California Library Cooperative.”

As for the County: they get to extract one more pound of flesh before they let the library system go, they look good while finishing the CC library renovation (on our dime), and they secure a five year deal in which our new City libraries will serve their residents in unincorporated County territory.

Does this sound like we “somewhat met in the middle” to you?

And this is all before we’ve even determined whether the City can get revenue from the special 1997 library tax, as detailed in today’s other Signal article.

The tentative agreement between the City and County goes before the City Council tonight at 6pm. Read the whole agenda (plus who applied to be on the City’s library committee) here.

Comments (87)

  1. PetzNovember 23, 2010 at 8:16 am
    Petz is befuddled that he did not make the cut for the advisory committee given his past service to the Valencia facility. Best of luck to those who are serving.
  2. SCV SageNovember 23, 2010 at 8:55 am
    Folks — it is all very, very political in terms of who the City Council will allow to serve on any Commission or Ad-Hoc “Hack” Advisory Board. In fact, by not being selected, perhaps that is an indication that you are truly effective and feared as someone who might take the City Council hacks and their staff on (I omit Bob Kellar from that comment). Also, check out the other article today in The Signal. The City thought they could just take over the collection of a County Library tax, which would be unconstitutional and should be challenged in court if they try it. So, you have hundreds of thousands of dollars, probably millions, going out of the City emergency coffers and they have no legal mechanism to collect the special County Library tax. I’m sure they have gotten all sorts of legal opinions from Newton, et al, but wouldn’t it be funny if they tried it, got sued and ended up out of the County system, in the red about $8 million with no mechanism in place except to put a special ballot initiative out there to be voted on — and it lost? Wow — they sure thought of and analyzed all these details. Thanks for all the great leadership Laurie Ender and City staff
  3. Coastal SageNovember 23, 2010 at 3:54 pm
    SCV Sage says: “The City thought they could just take over the collection of a County Library tax, which would be unconstitutional and should be challenged in court if they try it.” The City Attorney and city staff undoubtedly are counting on Santa Clarita’s taxpayers failing to file such a lawsuit if the County Tax Collector ends up agreeing to continue to collect the county’s library special tax from city residents and then hand it over to the city every fiscal year. History is on the city’s side, because after the California Supreme Court decided in 2008 that open space assessment districts like the one in Santa Clarita are unconstitutional, no one in Santa Clarita filed a lawsuit against the city and the County Tax Collector to get a court order forbidding the continued collection of that open space assessment. (The Supreme Court case was Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority.) What County Counsel apparently has told the City Attorney and city staff is that the city must put its own library special tax measure on a city election ballot (such as the one where Laurie Ender will run for re-election) and get 2/3rds of the city’s voters to approve a new library special tax. The County Counsel’s position in refusing to have the County Tax Collector collect such a library special tax from city residents after 7/1/11, absent a new vote by the city’s voters, is 100% consistent with the “deal terms” in the 1997 county library special tax election materials which the County Clerk has saved in the county’s official records. (Both The Signal and scvtalk.com have copies.) The irony in the city staff’s insistence that the county special library tax can simply be collected from property owners in the city and handed over to the city, without such a special election, is that back in 1997 the Board of Supervisors cited Proposition 218 as the reason they had to put an already existing library special tax on the ballot for approval by county voters. I have been saying for several months that I expect the City of Santa Clarita to offer to pay more than the libraries and their contents are worth, as an inducement to the county to back off from its position that the County Tax Collector will not continue to collect the county’s library special tax from city residents, and simply hand it over to the city, without a further vote. Whether the county will cave in on such an offer remains to be seen, but let’s hope they do not. If the county does cave in to the city’s entreaties that the county continue to collect and hand over the county library special tax from property owners in the city, in any court challenge, the County Tax Collector will have a difficult time arguing in a manner contrary to the Board of Supervisors own 1997 Resolution stating that Proposition 218 mandates a 2/3rds vote by the city voters. If the Board of Supervisors and County Tax Collector stand firm, and refuse to collect the county library special tax from city property owners after 7/1/11, and the City Council for some reason refuses to put a city library special tax on the ballot, I am sure that the City Attorney has a devious “Plan B” up his sleeve.
  4. Saugus SplasherNovember 23, 2010 at 4:59 pm
    I was wondering when you would come down from a vicodin high long enough to be able to treat us to your special blend of out-of-state invective.
  5. Coastal SageNovember 23, 2010 at 6:24 pm
    Saugus Splasher: Unlike House, I don’t need or use vicodin or any other pain medication to think, write or function. I’m quite lucky because my spinal cord is dead from the waist down, so I feel nothing except warm feelings for my home town of Santa Clarita. I always know, when someone like you makes a nasty comment about me, that I am on target in hitting an unpleasant truth which the insulter cannot intelligently deal with. So carry on and perhaps I’ll see you at somebody’s deposition or at the Court of Appeal.
  6. Saugus SplasherNovember 24, 2010 at 9:01 am
    Sorry for not responding sooner but I was busy hiking some of the thousands of acres of preserved open space our city leaders were visionary to buy in spite of the irrational protests of some of your closest “friends.” Ahhhh, it felt great to stretch my legs. “I always know, when someone like you makes a nasty comment about me, that I am on target in hitting an unpleasant truth which the insulter cannot intelligently deal with. ” No, it’s more that your lies and distortions are annoying. And, by the way, you are the queen of insults, a queen bitterly sitting in a stainless steel throne. “So carry on and perhaps I’ll see you at somebody’s deposition or at the Court of Appeal.” Maybe, but I bet I’d see you first!
  7. CCNovember 24, 2010 at 9:31 am
    Wow Splasher, you are a nasty person. Coastal Sage, now that I think I know who you are, I want to thank you for your service to our City over the years. Please continue to contribute here because you bring the conversation to a higher level. Although it might be too much for some people to comprehend, there are many more here that appreciate it.
  8. TimBen BoydstonNovember 24, 2010 at 11:15 am
    “Saugus Splasher” Your comments to “Coastal Sage” are the among the most inappropriate and vicious comments that I have ever seen on this Board. To make fun of someone who is in a wheelchair by writing “Ahhhh, it felt good to stretch my legs” and “…a queen bitterly sitting in a stainless steel throne” is beyond cruel. Put your real name on this hatred, or are you too much of a coward to own this?
  9. Berta González-HarperNovember 24, 2010 at 12:58 pm
    @TBB and CC I agree with you. The lack of civility is appalling and the remarks Saugus Splasher made are uncalled for whomever he/she works for. Splasher I think you should apologize to Coastal Sage for your remarks.
  10. Lori RivasNovember 28, 2010 at 6:48 pm
    One of my acquaintances, who was personally called and pursued by Hernández to apply for the committee, told me that Hernández said the City was looking for “everyday Joes” and not “movers and shakers.” Make of that what you will for who was rejected from the committee.
  11. Timothy Myers SRNovember 23, 2010 at 9:10 am
    Petz: No surprise here. With the possible exception of Cheryl Phillips, everyone who has gone on record against or questioning the City takeover has been excluded from the committee. Also, a 37 member advisory committee will have extremely diluted authority by design.
  12. mikecNovember 23, 2010 at 8:51 am
    “Like sands through the hourglass so are the Days of Our Lives…”
  13. PetzNovember 23, 2010 at 9:51 am
    My feelings exactly, but out of 37 Petz feels slighted based on his service to the actual library system in Santa Clarita. academic qualifications-BA and MBA-professional accomplishment in the mortgage and real estate industries (banker-mortgage broker-agent-manager), and demonstrated leadership abilities.Given the general qualifications desired of committee members, it is tough not to have made the cut. Petz is left standing at the bus stop with Plambeck and Lutness. Petz is not a whiner, but he does have the memory of an elephant.
  14. Timothy Myers SRNovember 23, 2010 at 11:02 am
    Petz: When one sets up a 37 member board, they don’t want leaders, they want people who will not show up to meetings.
  15. Leon WordenNovember 23, 2010 at 11:04 am
    They know the cream will rise to the top.
  16. Bill ReynoldsNovember 23, 2010 at 12:44 pm
    Petz, can you actually imagine being on a 37 person committee!? It’s dam near impossible to get 5 people to agree on anything let alone 37 people. I’d say you totally lucked out especially because everyone knows that City Hall could care less what SCV citizens say unless they happen to agree with City Hall.
  17. DamageincNovember 23, 2010 at 12:49 pm
    Damaginc is hoping for sweet videos from Bill Reynolds
  18. Berta González-HarperNovember 23, 2010 at 1:04 pm
    @Bill, sorry but I disagree with your assessment. I have disagreed plenty of times with “city hall” and lived to win the argument several times. A great example is the Golden Valley Ranch project. The project had been turned down entirely. Due to the efforts of many of us, Council revisited the issue and after much discussion and debate finally approved OUR shopping center for Canyon Country. Because of our current tough economy it is not performing as we had all hoped, but I believe the economy will improve and so will the Plaza at Golden Valley’s tax generating ability into the city coffers. The point is city hall listened to us. I have also lost the argument several times, but someone else won that time. They cannot please all of us all of the time Bill.
  19. Bill ReynoldsNovember 23, 2010 at 4:48 pm
    But Berta, aren’t you on record of supporting the library takeover? I think that’s the point being made about the committee selections.
  20. DamageincNovember 23, 2010 at 5:23 pm
    They must have forgotten about her anti city position when she was on the David Gauny campaign.
  21. Berta González-HarperNovember 23, 2010 at 11:44 pm
    @Nate, supporting any one candidate whether David Gauny or whomever does not represent any anti city sentiment on my part. As you know but choose to ignore, I decide my positions in support of or in opposition to candidates, issues, policies, debates, etc based upon my own research. I formulate my own opinion and do not dismiss anything simply because I do not like the source of the idea. I agree with the city on many things but have also vocally disagreed at times. I do not want to become what many of you are; unreasonable people who are willing sheep to those who simply like to agitate and create chaos.
  22. Berta González-HarperNovember 23, 2010 at 11:52 pm
    @Bill yes I support the City’s efforts to control library services locally but I have also opposed other things in the past. City Council and staff have listened to my comments either way. Sometimes they agree with me, sometimes they do not and that was the point. When they do not agree with me, they agree with the other folks. Your comment was “everyone knows that City Hall could care less what SCV citizens say unless they happen to agree with City Hall.”
  23. PetzNovember 23, 2010 at 10:07 am
    Petz says congratulations to Phil Ellis Jr. and Berta Harper Gonzalez
  24. Berta González-HarperNovember 23, 2010 at 11:41 am
    @Petz thanks!
  25. Daddy Joe GNovember 23, 2010 at 10:43 am
    According to the Signal article, the city will pay the $622,000 out of the rainy day fund, and get paid back from library revenues. What are library revenues?
  26. Coastal SageNovember 23, 2010 at 6:16 pm
    After Proposition 13 was passed by the voters, the Legislature passed a law mandating that from the large revenue stream from real estate taxes, a certain percentage of that cash flow be used for library services, and no other purpose. Those taxes are referred to as “regular library taxes”. Under Education Code Section 19116, when a city like Santa Clarita leaves the county library system, the county is required to hand over to the city each year all of “regular library taxes” attributable to real property within the city. As as result, those city regular library taxes are the library revenues Darren Hernandez refers to. In addition, Los Angeles County collects a “library special tax” from the residents of the City of Santa Clarita and from the residents of the surrounding unincorporated areas. That is the tax the voters authorized the county to begin collecting in 1997. The “library special tax” attributable to real property in the city is what Darren Hernandez said, in August 2010, he and the city staff want the County Tax Collector to continue to collect from city residents and hand over to the city. It’s fairly clear from his statements at the Council meeting, and from the staff reports and other documents concerning the library take-over he’s written, Mr. Hernandez appears to consider the county library special tax revenues as “library revenues” as well. It is the library special tax which Proposition 218 requires to be put up for election, with approval by 2/3rds of the city’s electorate, before the city can receive it after 7/1/11. Then, of course there are the nominal amounts of library fines and fees which also constitute “library revenues”.
  27. Need for Involved CitizenryNovember 23, 2010 at 10:46 am
    Petz: Take not being selected as a supreme compliment. It demonstrates that you are aware of what is going on, can make up your own mind and think critically. The City does not anyone who might rock the boat on any of these sorts of committee’s. How does the MRF committee pick as one of the top 3 sites an old oil refinery that has never been remediated? The libraries will be a huge money pit before this episode is over – mark my words. The only question is how well the City can spin the story to make them eligible for awards. Is anyone home? The Hart District is the same. Look at the constant turnover on the Bond Oversight Committee. Friends who have serviced indicated that they are essentially being “managed” and are tools of the City or District.
  28. Berta González-HarperNovember 23, 2010 at 11:40 am
    @NFIC interesting that you consider me “someone who will not rock the boat”.
  29. MikeNovember 23, 2010 at 11:45 am
    Would seem hard to rock the boat if you’re already in the tank, no?
  30. Berta González-HarperNovember 23, 2010 at 12:49 pm
    @Mike if you consider being open minded, doing my own research and refusing to be part of the “herd” since I have been heard on this issue, wanting the most local control and bang for my library buck, as being “in the tank”, so be it but apparently I am a dolphin swimming amongst anti city sharks. I resent the implication, however that anyone who agrees we will have a better library system under the City’s watch, is somehow in cahoots with someone. That is simply balderdash!
  31. DamageincNovember 23, 2010 at 12:48 pm
    Come on Berta, You only rock the boat when you don’t like something. The objectivity for this endeavor is driving a convertable ’85 trans am locks blowing in the California breeze.
  32. Berta González-HarperNovember 23, 2010 at 12:52 pm
    @Nate, please see above comment to Mike. PS I don’t drive a TransAm either.
  33. DamageincNovember 23, 2010 at 3:34 pm
    People with logic and/or objectivity don’t hand out imaginary awards to things that don’t exist.
  34. john adamsNovember 23, 2010 at 4:34 pm
    Like the Nobel Prize?
  35. DamageincNovember 23, 2010 at 5:25 pm
    Glad to see you have gone green and are recycling your lame jokes. Weak
  36. Bill ReynoldsNovember 23, 2010 at 5:36 pm
    Ha! Liberals don’t appreciate jokes about “The Chosen One”.
  37. john adamsNovember 23, 2010 at 8:44 pm
    Liberals don’t like the truth. They are done. incumbent liberal senators have some 30 seats up for re-election in 2012 repubs have 10. We will pick up in excess of 17 seats. The calif liberal vision is done.
  38. mikecNovember 24, 2010 at 9:48 am
    Just like you predicted Reid was going to lose in Nevada…
  39. Whiskey Tango FoxtrotNovember 23, 2010 at 6:11 pm
    zing.
  40. Coastal SageNovember 23, 2010 at 7:04 pm
    Berta, I have every confidence that you will be a reliable watcher of how the city’s libraries are operated, in terms of patron services, such as those orally promised by Darren Hernandez back in late August, even though the “deal terms” for those services have not yet made it into any document binding on the city. I also have every confidence that you will make sure the 36 other advisory committee members listen to complaints from library patrons, and present them to the City Council in an organized way which will make it possible for the Council to require that problems with “customer service” are solved in a way which continually improves the city’s library services to its taxpayers. Leon is absolutely right when he said “the cream will rise to the top”. The members of the city library advisory committee who take the time and trouble to be active by attending committee meetings and doing research on their own (concerning inevitable operational problems) ultimately will be the ones who will steer the committee in the right direction, in terms of speaking for library patrons and improving library services.
  41. Berta González-HarperNovember 23, 2010 at 11:27 pm
    @J, high praise indeed especially from a smart attorney who is generally not predisposed to compliment anyone in agreement with a city decision. I really do appreciate your very kind and encouraging comments especially given that so many others on this blog are so insulting. Thank you!
  42. Daddy Joe GNovember 24, 2010 at 11:42 am
    The cream did indead rise to the top. Then the council threw that away, leaving a skim milk committee.
  43. Berta González-HarperNovember 24, 2010 at 1:05 pm
    @Daddy Joe G you were able to apply for inclusion on the committee and despite your nasty remarks will be welcome at meetings too. In your case, I guess it would be curdled milk?
  44. WalkerNovember 23, 2010 at 10:48 am
    I notice one of the members is the Home Study (homeschool) facilitator for SUSD. Great to have an advocate for the homeschooling community on the panel
  45. Lori RivasNovember 24, 2010 at 12:27 am
    There are at least 2 from Saugus homestudy. And the owner of Huckleberry Center for Learning, which offers classes to homeschoolers.
  46. Leon WordenNovember 23, 2010 at 10:54 am
    In my perfect world, we would expand the Sheriff’s Station into the existing Valencia library space and build a new, city-run library in partner$hip with the county, somewhere closer to the west side, possibly next to and in association with COC … and then eventually build a library in Saugus.
  47. Bill ReynoldsNovember 23, 2010 at 12:49 pm
    Leon, it just so happens that I made that same exact suggestion to one of our esteemed City Council Members about two years ago (expand the Sheriff’s Station into the existing Valencia library space). I also believe that one library in Canyon Country (east side) and one library in Newhall (west side) would suffice – relocate Valencia Library to Newhall.
  48. Leon WordenNovember 23, 2010 at 1:00 pm
    Well it was a good idea then, too! Although I do believe we need a library to serve Valencia residents (city and county), and if we move it farther away from Saugus, we’ll need one to serve Saugus/North Valencia/Tesoro, as well.
  49. Bill ReynoldsNovember 23, 2010 at 4:50 pm
    Well, I just don’t think we can afford too many public libraries and besides many schools already have libraries.
  50. Leon WordenNovember 23, 2010 at 5:17 pm
    Please see my earlier message about the effect of state cuts on school libraries, and the fact that our local school districts are looking forward to using municipal libraries that are fully stocked with materials and services. (The same way the city’s transit service compensates for the elimination of school bus funding.)
  51. JaneNovember 23, 2010 at 11:01 am
    “How does the MRF committee pick as one of the top 3 sites an old oil refinery that has never been remediated?” a. Because the city loves to buy land at inflated prices that was worthless/in foreclosure before they made known their interest. b. Because the city loves to take on the task of “fixing” properties like this – Porta Bella ring a big, ugly bell with anyone? c. Because someone in the city knows the property owner and wants them to get a good deal, i.e., site of the East campus of COC, site of Golden Valley HS, site of future Castaic HS (you have to buy it, I already started grading it – no matter that I don’t have permits, you’ll fix that), the constant re-working of Magic Mountain Pkwy.
  52. NickelDimeNovember 23, 2010 at 11:17 am
    they secure a five year deal in which our new City libraries will serve their residents in unincorporated County territory. Gee, I thought there would be no distinction between unincorporated and City residents in this new scheme. If that were the case, why the need to carve out a five year “guarantee?” And if “cracks are forming” in the LA County system which “doesn’t know where their next dollar is coming from”, why is the County building new libraries? The communication is all contradictory. This takeover is already unbelievably botched, and they haven’t even started yet.
  53. Saugus SplasherNovember 23, 2010 at 11:47 am
    Kudos to the city and county library for acting like adults and putting the people of Canyon Country first. Thank you! It seems $622,000 for an expanded and renovated library seems pretty cheap, and certainly much less costly than if the city had done the work themselves from start to finish. Y’all might think they are crazy, but it’s more like they are crazy like a fox….
  54. RemStarNovember 23, 2010 at 12:30 pm
    I think the city has been saying all along they’d let unincorporated residents use the libraries the same as city residents. So that doesn’t seem like a big concession for the city. Getting a tenant to pay for much of an expansion to a building just before you kick them out would seem like the landlord getting the better of the tenant. It looks like there’s a decent deal in there for the city, if you think about it objectively.
  55. NickelDimeNovember 23, 2010 at 12:36 pm
    1. The City will have $622k less than it did previously. 2. The renovations would have been completed without residents footing an additional $622k had the City not seceded from the system. 3. The expenditure was not contemplated in the calculus for secession. If that’s “crazy like a fox,” you must be thinking more along the lines of Wile E. Coyote . “Meep meep!” There goes Antonovich.
  56. Saugus SplasherNovember 23, 2010 at 12:46 pm
    5/10, here is my playful paraphrase of your comments: 1. Wahhh, wahhh, wahhh! 2. Boooo, hoooo, hoooo! 3. It’s not fair, it’s not fair, it’s not fair! The train left the station on this in August but you’re still on the platform with your basket of sour grapes!
  57. NickelDimeNovember 23, 2010 at 1:31 pm
    The train left the station and the track was far from finished.
  58. Leon WordenNovember 23, 2010 at 12:50 pm
    County agreed that it had a responsibility, even after secession, to chip in some of its library impact fees to expand a city-owned building because the library serves unincorporated residents, too. It’s the same sort of cooperation we need to expand the Sheriff’s Station and build a new Valencia library that serves residents on both sides of the line.
  59. Alan FerdmanNovember 23, 2010 at 2:58 pm
    SS The City is not buying the Canyon Country Library for $622,000. The city built it for approx. $5,000,000 several years ago. The $600K is for remodeling, partly because COC moved out. Which brings up another question; Anyone know how much COC was paying to use the space in the Canyon Country Library? Was the money going to the City or the County?
  60. gregory molineriNovember 23, 2010 at 3:18 pm
    Oh God, Saugus Splasher is back with more words of praise for another total clusterf@ck. Did you read the article at the top of this thread, SS? That’s another $622,000 on the price of this plan that was supposed to save money! And without the special assessment money, please tell us why this was a good deal again? “Crazy like a fox?” Please… dumber than squat!
  61. DonRickettsNovember 23, 2010 at 12:56 pm
    As more and more problems develop, questions emerge, and the price tag goes up, it is clear that the library questions were not well thought out in the rush to ram this through. At this point it all needs to be re-considered, transparently. Perhaps, after full and careful consideration of the pros and cons, by the voters: Yes No 1. Shall the City of Santa Clarita withdraw from the Los ___ ___ Angeles County Public Library and purchase the libraries from the County that are within the City’s boundaries? 2. If the City of Santa Clarita withdraws from the Los Angeles County Public Library, shall it contract with Library Systems & Services, LLC, for operation of the libraries purchased from the County? ___ ___ I’d think long and hard about dropping the lawsuits if the Council would let the voters decide. .
  62. CCNovember 23, 2010 at 3:10 pm
    Hang in there. Without it, I doubt they would have done this much. They really hang the citizens out to dry with this one. It may have been a good idea, but we will never know because the due diligence was ignored. The sad thing is that voters forget.
  63. Need for Involved CitizenryNovember 23, 2010 at 2:34 pm
    http://westranchbeacon.com/blog/2010/11/library-lawsuits-putting-pressure-on-city-sheds-light-on-city%e2%80%99s-tactics/ Nice write-up in the Beacon…
  64. Timothy Myers SRNovember 23, 2010 at 3:26 pm
    Well Bossert certainly found the Wikipedia entry for “California Depositions” and did a fair cut and paste job, and then conflates Atascadero with Santa Clarita on the issue of FEMA corruption, and somehow Camarillo has to die too. The City filed the application to stop discovery pending a potential dismissal (the Brown Act lawsuit probably has a 50-50 possibility of outright dismissal). On the main suit Don Ricketts has made it clear that he wants to afflict the City by conducting wide ranging depositions where all types of embarrassing information will be made public record and discussed.
  65. DonRickettsNovember 23, 2010 at 4:06 pm
    Affliction may be the effect of legitimate discovery but it is not my intent. Discovery is permitted in litigation to discover the facts–including, in these cases, facts that have been not forthcoming. So far, the only deposition I am seeking is Darren Hernandez who is, plainly, a key witness in all of this. More may be needed, but, for the moment, the range of discovery has not been far-reaching (much less in fact than the code allows at this point).
  66. Coastal SageNovember 23, 2010 at 6:40 pm
    Tim, I believe the reference to the city’s litigator, who is also the City Attorney for Camarillo and Atascadero, is designed to illustrate that the City Council members are not smart enough to switch quarterbacks when theirs is on a major losing streak and is distracted by problems in two other cities. One point not mentioned is that the City’s litigator, Brian Pierik, was also on the “losing team” at trial on the longest and biggest election irregularities case ever tried in California, the Perrodin/Bradley case.
  67. PoliticoNovember 23, 2010 at 3:46 pm
    Hmmmm, mutually beneficial deal. Is that like a mutually beneficial relationship??? One party is getting alot of money and the other is getting screwed.
  68. SterlingNovember 23, 2010 at 3:57 pm
    Just keep your eyes on that Open Space money!! These are the shenanigans that get payed for out of lock boxes like the supposed Open Space tax fraud money.
  69. Spence LeafdaleNovember 26, 2010 at 4:41 pm
    Sterling, Have you lost the ability to think with lucidity? You know the folks on the FAAP. REALLY……….
  70. PetzNovember 23, 2010 at 4:13 pm
    Petz is going to burn his library card .
  71. CCNovember 23, 2010 at 4:19 pm
    Maybe you should form a rally to burn them in front of City Hall.
  72. SterlingNovember 23, 2010 at 4:30 pm
    What would get paid and to whom was all calculated before the deal was done. It was the management of the fall out the city is trying to manage. It’s easier to get forgiveness then permission is the going philosophy here. We just continue to play along with it. We are the suckers.
  73. PetzNovember 23, 2010 at 4:40 pm
    We can all chant “Hell No Petz won’t go ! “
  74. Lori RivasNovember 23, 2010 at 5:43 pm
    Aw, beans, I didn’t make the cut, either. What would really be interesting is to see the applications, and to know what qualifications the Council was seeking.
  75. Daddy Joe GNovember 23, 2010 at 10:00 pm
    Lori didn’t make the cut and Berta did. What more is there to say?
  76. Lori RivasNovember 23, 2010 at 10:04 pm
    FYI, I know two people, personally, who were pursued by Hernández for the committee — he called both people, privately, to solicit their input (only one applied…and was appointed). I wonder how many selected committee members received personal calls from Hernández? I didn’t. I want to Google each of the committee member names, and those rejected, and make a comparison of those that have been vocal pro- or against- the LSSI take-over.
  77. Lori RivasNovember 23, 2010 at 10:55 pm
    Okay. I Googled (web, news and blog) all the approved committee members (name+Santa Clarita+library), and only Cheryl Phillips comes up as someone who has spoken out publicly against the LSSI libraries. At least eight of those rejected from the committee have spoken out publicly against LSSI libraries. Anyone surprised?
  78. Coastal SageNovember 23, 2010 at 11:08 pm
    Not me. And an even bigger surprise is coming tomorrow, when everyone is ignoring news and working on cleaning and cooking for Thanksgiving.
  79. Lori RivasNovember 23, 2010 at 11:20 pm
    Aw, come on…what is the surprise? Good or bad?
  80. PetzNovember 24, 2010 at 5:07 am
    Give me a call @ 661-609-1739. Some good astronomy programs coming up in December and January that home schoolers should know about.
  81. Street KnowledgeNovember 24, 2010 at 11:26 am
    Disgusting. Saugus Splasher works at city hall. Street Knowledge just dropped that knowledge. Do what you will.
  82. Daddy Joe GNovember 24, 2010 at 12:26 pm
    Didn’t think he was a brain surgeon or county librarian. Kudos to the city for hiring the mentally disadvantaged.
  83. john adamsNovember 24, 2010 at 2:10 pm
    look how easy it is to start a business in calif. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRZCiqtorOw
  84. Daddy Joe GNovember 24, 2010 at 6:19 pm
    Saving the world, one grocery bag at a time.
  85. SterlingNovember 26, 2010 at 7:58 pm
    Spence, I’ve not known you to be so sensitive. Of course I trust you guys and have no distrust of you. It’s a point in jest. When desperate politicians need to save face they can pull out funds from anywhere they can hide it, hence “watch out for the open space money”. The depth of multiple investments and location of os moneys can be a target. The only way it won’t be done is good people like you who won’t let them sniff around it. Let’s not rip into our mental abilities here.
  86. SterlingNovember 26, 2010 at 8:08 pm
    Would you use that same phraseology I’m person?
  87. SterlingNovember 26, 2010 at 8:30 pm
    Saugus splasher I’m totally blown away that you would have such a vicious and blatant disregard for anothers human condition. You should be removed from this blog for such a disgusting comment about someone who is different then u. You’re cred if you even have any is done

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support