SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
December 21, 2010· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

Judge Cuts Heart Out of Library Lawsuit!!! Abandon all hope….

By Timothy Myers SR. — Tim Myers

The judge hearing the Save Our Libraries (“SOL”) consolidated case has dismissed without leave to amend the “privacy” portion of the SOL lawsuit alleging that as a private company LSSI could not handle confidential library patron information.  The judge found that LSSI could act as “administrator” on behalf of the City, thus acting as its designate in the handling of confidential information.

While nuances exist in my opinion this basically guts the lawsuit, since this was the only hook that could have potentially resulted in an injunction.  I personally see little reason to appeal this decision or move the Brown Act litigation forward.

So abandon all hope those who oppose the elected City Council.  Prepare for Laurie Ender to cruise to victory, probably setting a record for the most votes received in a City Council election.  The only saving grace is we can actually see if Dave Bossert’s head will actually explode when Laurie Ender sets an electoral record while “fighting for her political life.”

Comments (58)

  1. NickelDimeDecember 21, 2010 at 11:37 am
    Myers: Time for all of us to do the right thing here and be “willfully ignorant” of what the City is up to. Then we can lend some credence to Ender Math and ultimately live the SCV dream – to use the time honored measuring stick of punctual garbage pickup as a proxy for prudent city stewardship! Dear TMS, please pass the lobotomy probe — I am ready. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7BuQFUhsRM
  2. cashDecember 21, 2010 at 12:05 pm
    I never knew your resume included a law degree! Might you be wrong again?
  3. Timothy Myers SRDecember 21, 2010 at 1:14 pm
    Cash: Drake University School of Law-Class of 1984, Law Review and Order of the Coif. SOL MIGHT win an appeal, but I see no percentage in pursuing that.
  4. cashDecember 21, 2010 at 3:01 pm
    I guess you can never have too much information. Why did you not put the law degree to good use, or did you?
  5. Timothy Myers SRDecember 21, 2010 at 3:29 pm
    One year in general practice, and then embraced the CPA side of my brain.
  6. cashDecember 21, 2010 at 3:31 pm
    It’s not too late. http://www.legal-aid.org/en/home.aspx
  7. Saugus SplasherDecember 21, 2010 at 3:04 pm
    There are two things you need to know about Timothy Myers: 1). he is one of the smartest people around, and 2) he knows he is one of the smartest people around. Both are intended as a compliment.
  8. cashDecember 21, 2010 at 3:10 pm
    Around his house?
  9. Timothy Myers SRDecember 21, 2010 at 3:35 pm
    Around my house they all disagree with that assertion.
  10. SCV SageDecember 21, 2010 at 12:44 pm
    So are Don Ricketts and Save Our Library going to appeal? I told you to affidavit Judge Barbara Scheper. She is by far the worst of the jurists in Chatsworth.
  11. Timothy Myers SRDecember 21, 2010 at 1:15 pm
    They are considering whether to appeal. If they asked my opinion I would tell them no.
  12. Saugus SplasherDecember 21, 2010 at 3:32 pm
    It’s sour grapes to say papering the judge with an article 170.6 would have altered the outcome. The “privacy” lawsuit was always a 4th down, time expiring, 80 yard, Hail Mary pass attempt, and a 72 year old retired quarterback isn’t exactly who should be on the field at such critical moment. And with a judge sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend, this ricketty quarterback fumbled the snap and wasn’t able to execute the play. Hopefully he didn’t sprain a hip. The question isn’t “why didn’t Ricketts 170.6 the judge” but, “why didn’t Ricketts ‘clients’ pull him from the game?”
  13. SchizoDecember 21, 2010 at 3:47 pm
    Brett Favre is a judge?
  14. Timothy Myers SRDecember 21, 2010 at 4:18 pm
    While I think SS is a bit rough on Mr. Ricketts, you roll the dice and you put your best base forward and live with the results. Where judges have a lot of discretion there is very little reason to lodge an appeal.
  15. Library Card Carrying BookreaderDecember 22, 2010 at 10:52 am
    You weren’t in court. Performance failure in court Tuesday was not on the part of Don Ricketts, but the judge, who seemed to be reading the contract between the City and LSSI for the first time, and relied on the City’s attorneys to interpret the meaning of relevant law. Hopefully Ricketts will appeal.
  16. Saugus SplasherDecember 23, 2010 at 9:44 am
    Judges frequently enter court prior to oral arguments having formed an opinion (and even post a tentative) based on the submitted written pleadings. This brings transparency to the proceedings and gives counsel on each side the opportunity to explain to the judge why the tentative is correct or incorrect. Any lawyer or judge other than Ricketts would have looked at the law and arrived at the same conclusion as Judge Sheper given the clear language in the Public Records Act that specifically permits library registration and circulation records may be disclosed and used “by a person (defined as any natural person, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, firm, or association) acting within the scope of his or her duties within the administration of the library.” On what basis would Ricketts appeal? Is it his decision anyway? Isn’t the client SOL – literally and, now, figuratively – and Ricketts merely the lawyer? Or is he really the man behind the SOL curtain? How will Ricketts convince a panel of 3 court of appeal judges that Judge Sheper abused her discretion? And is that a wise tactic considering she will hear the balance of his flimsy lawsuits? For simple entertainment value, and to keep him busy, out of trouble and off the streets, let’s hope Ricketts does “appeal.”
  17. Lori RivasDecember 21, 2010 at 1:10 pm
    No reason to give up all hope — there is plenty of stink that is yet to be discussed –
  18. Timothy Myers SRDecember 21, 2010 at 1:15 pm
    True Lori, but only among this select sliver of the citizenry, never reaching the ears of the Ender zombies.
  19. Saugus SplasherDecember 21, 2010 at 3:16 pm
    Wah-wahh-wahhhhhh. Moan and complain, but the die is cast and you are just nattering nabobs of negativism.
  20. Lori RivasDecember 21, 2010 at 3:26 pm
    Interesting that you choose to quote Spiro Agnew, in this particular instance. Didn’t he resign by pleading no contest to tax fraud charges? Forever aligned in history with Nixon?
  21. Kevin D. KorenthalDecember 21, 2010 at 1:20 pm
    The Library Lawsuit was on weak ground to begin with. This is the fallacy in using lawsuits to take your anger out on elected officials that you disagree with. It is one thing to say that the City ran roughshod over the citizens when they did this and a wholly different matter to claim that the decision was somehow outside their power or that the deal is somehow illegal. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the library plan outside of the fantasies of the public employee union supporters and general haters of our city council. Local control of libraries is the future. There is no longer any need for behemoth County library constructs in most parts of California. We need to take control and responsibility for the services being provided within our borders and I hope to see more of the same in the future. I’m just sayin…
  22. Timothy Myers SRDecember 21, 2010 at 1:42 pm
    KK You should know better than most that the ONLY redress citizens have against incumbents in Santa Clarita are lawsuits. There is no other effective accountability.
  23. Kevin D. KorenthalDecember 21, 2010 at 1:52 pm
    I do not think that lawsuits are an effective redress. The last 4 years of my career against the creeping power of unions has proven that lawsuits against the “powers that be” always come out supporting those powers. What Santa Clarita residents need to do, just like my members who are adversely affected by Big Labor need to do, is BE INVOLVED. There is a great need to increase participation in city elections. That is where activists should point their guns.
  24. Timothy Myers SRDecember 21, 2010 at 2:00 pm
    KK Not to be unkind, but you do realize that in “the most successful grass roots campaign” to date you lost by a larger margin then the other two challengers who did not even campaign. In other words, if Mr. Colley was a treaty, he would have been ratified; if a veto, overridden. This is the reward for activists who attempt to increase involvement.
  25. Street KnowledgeDecember 21, 2010 at 2:46 pm
    BURN
  26. NickelDimeDecember 21, 2010 at 2:01 pm
    “BE INVOLVED.” Whatdya say we jam City Hall with more people than ever before – far more than attended the Mayo expansion meetings at its peak, and raise our grievances there. Whatdya say we pack the microphones with, I dunno, 50 to 3, mostly non-usual suspects and ask that the City Council to simply slow down. Whatdya say? Is that involved enough? City elections? What, every two years, only one of which coincides with a major election? This issue goes beyond the City – it hits unincorporated residents too, Mr. Korenthal! Be involved. Right. That’ll fix’em. C’mon, TMS, pass the lobotomy probe already… I’m done “being involved.”
  27. JeffDecember 21, 2010 at 2:08 pm
    Hand me the nasal lobotomy probe next. I’m eager to refer blissfully to the entire SCV as “Valencia city” once again.
  28. Saugus SplasherDecember 21, 2010 at 3:22 pm
    You need to drive down to the Board of Supervisors, 5/10, because Tesoro is outside of Santa Clarita so your “local government” is LA County (give extra time for traffic and bring lots of coin for parking). Bring 500 to 3 and see if that moves a single vote on that body on any issue. From what I can tell your neighborhood wants to annex to Santa Clarita by roughly that margin, but your “Mayor” Antonovich is effectively blocking annexation on behalf of the developer controlled HOA. After you bring “accountability” to your local government, then please help us bring it to ours.
  29. NickelDimeDecember 21, 2010 at 3:31 pm
    Splasher, You’re preaching to the choir. It’s buried deep in the bowels of SCVTV and SCVTalk, but I’m one of the only souls that actually attended and spoke at a planning commission meeting on the annexation for West Creek+Tesoro. I was flanked by NL and Montalvo and came only with a desire to be a part of the City. I’ve never understood why folks in unincorporated SCV want to stay that way. The reasons given generally run contrary to the reasons developers want it to remain unincorporated until the last parcel is sold — because the City tends to be much more diligent and stringent in its acceptance of the project. Anyhow, we’ve since sold our home in that area and are in temporary digs inside City boundaries.
  30. Saugus SplasherDecember 21, 2010 at 3:48 pm
    Cool! Buy in Saugus!! We don’t have the inferiority complex of Canyon Country, the superiority complex of Valencia, nor the negative perception and of Newhall!!!
  31. NickelDimeDecember 21, 2010 at 3:51 pm
    Saugus, huh? Do they have ocean breezes ?
  32. ReaderMamaDecember 21, 2010 at 8:07 pm
    No, but there’s a lot of hot air coming from Petz’ house . . .
  33. NanAndSamDecember 21, 2010 at 2:06 pm
    This is truly the privatization of the library. If LSSI is the “administrator” what is the City? I guess we can fall back on our touchy-feely library committee.
  34. Kevin D. KorenthalDecember 21, 2010 at 2:23 pm
    What I am talking about Tim is a long-term strategy to get voters involved in local elections (including CLWA) so that there is a wider base of folks who are educated on the issues and vote. And not voting for the sake of voting but voting for issues because they care about them. Tim, There is no doubt that the power of incumbency killed me in the election. But a huge assist came from 2 hit mailers at a cost of $50,000 that the unions sent to every voter in the division. If those mailers had not gone out, I might not have won but I would have done far better than I did. So be careful what you extrapolate from the raw numbers. No CLWA challenger has ever faced what I faced in this election. Ever.
  35. Timothy Myers SRDecember 21, 2010 at 2:58 pm
    KK: I don’t know how to break this to you but those mailers were not funded by unions. No union would spend $50K to keep you off the CLWA Board. The interests that funded those mailers are represented by people that you have met at Republican party mixers.
  36. Kevin D. KorenthalDecember 27, 2010 at 12:03 pm
    No Tim, you are wrong. The mailers were tracked to the unions that I. in my career fight against. I know it is hard for a union-lover like you to understand, but Big Labor is a vindictive bitch.
  37. augustDecember 21, 2010 at 3:38 pm
    What unions? No union spent $ on you. That said, I did vote for you. I still think you were the better candidate.
  38. Kevin D. KorenthalDecember 27, 2010 at 12:05 pm
    august, here is a link to one of the mailers that went out against me. http://www.korenthal.com/newsletter/web-version.php?id=33 There were 2 and they each went out to 25,000 homes which makes up the entire division.
  39. Kevin D. KorenthalDecember 21, 2010 at 2:24 pm
    We need to hold city elections along side of other local, state and federal elections.
  40. Timothy Myers SRDecember 21, 2010 at 2:59 pm
    Camarillo does and the incumbents win by even more.
  41. Kevin D. KorenthalDecember 21, 2010 at 2:28 pm
    NickelDime: The number of County employees that appeared at the meeting equaled the number of residents. Everyone knows that public employees spend more time trying to justify their inflated wages and benefits than they do in actually doing their job. If anything, the knowledge that public employees would be losing a little power has led to voter apathy over this issue. Residents don’t want to see city government run roughshod over them but they also resent the power and influence of the Public Employees Unions and the wages and benefits that those people receive. Next time you want to fight an issue against the city, leave the overpaid Big Labor folks at home.
  42. Lori RivasDecember 21, 2010 at 3:37 pm
    Ugh. Can we put the labor thing to rest already? Unless someone did an actual count, and can show evidence that the bulk of attendees at the 8/24 City Council meeting were union-related, continually trotting out this thread-bare argument is worthless. I attended the 8/24 meeting. Within my small circle of friends and acquaintances, I knew a couple dozen of the attendees, who showed up for personal reasons: homeschoolers, book club members, library users, students, children, seniors, etc. I CAN make a list of those I know who attended — I CAN verify a very large non-Union contingent. Do you want to bring out your list first, or shall I?
  43. ToddDecember 22, 2010 at 12:02 am
    I wasn’t there, but from the few bits I’ve seen online, a good number of people speaking (easily on the order of 2.5:1) were either current library employees, volunteers, etc. (Not including the usual suspects/gadflies/Ferdman/Berta etc.) The executive director of SEIU (not a Santa Clarita resident) was one of the first speakers… And one woman mentioned some other organization… AAUW… not sure what their interest is… but OK. I saw a lot of “I heart LA County” shirts, who made and paid for those? On a side note…. This is the first time I’ve taken in a council meeting here… I’m usually involved in some way or another in a different city’s meetings on Tuesday nights… but quite frankly I’m appalled at the lack of decorum and respect from the dais toward staff and public. Call me old fashioned, but I would NEVER refer to a member of staff or the public by their first name during a council meeting… no matter how casual or familiar the relationship is outside of council meetings. In the city where I work, one of the council members is a former assistant scoutmaster of mine, his kids and I went to school together for at least 9 years. We’re as informal and as social as one can be. However, when acting in a formal capacity, he would NEVER refer to me as “Todd.” I guess this town’s politics really do demonstrate a lot of disrespect for the citizenry and backroom closed door dealings, if thats the way they’ll act in full public view. Shocked.
  44. Lori RivasDecember 22, 2010 at 12:22 am
    Hi Todd, I spoke at the 8/24 meeting, and I know one other person who spoke at the meeting — neither of us is affiliated with SEIU, nor did we even know we would see each other at the meeting. The vast majority of people I know who attended the meeting did not speak. The day of the meeting, I was told that some shirts had been donated by an anonymous donor. I saw that the shirts were being passed out in the parking lot before the meeting. I did not get a shirt, nor did my son, but I did know to wear red. The idea was just to give a united visual of all the people who were opposed to leaving COLA. It was not until days later that I learned that the union had paid for the shirts.
  45. NanAndSamDecember 21, 2010 at 3:42 pm
    Those library employees aren’t making inflated wages and their benefits are nothing to brag about. They’re covered by LACERA, NOT the state. They don’t even get PERS. Check your “facts.”
  46. ToddDecember 22, 2010 at 12:05 am
    To be fair, KK never mentioned PERS, just said public employee pension… LACERA qualifies as such… even if its outside of PERS. LACERA isn’t a bad deal either.
  47. Kevin D. KorenthalDecember 21, 2010 at 2:30 pm
    NanAndSam: What is with this insistence that Government should run everything? What, besides police and fire is government good at running locally. Everything they do is half-ass and costs twice the price. If we are to get serious about stream-lining and increasing the efficiency of government, we need to take tasks away, not add to them.
  48. ReaderMamaDecember 21, 2010 at 3:03 pm
    And businesses are run to benefit their shareholders, not the people they serve and certainly not their employees. You complain about hit mailers sent out by labor unions, but the same sort of hit mailers have been mailed out by developer interests to oppose candidates they saw as a threat to their interests in our local elections. Hit mailers are nothing new in the SCV and you aren’t the only candidate who has been victimized.
  49. DamageincDecember 21, 2010 at 3:25 pm
    Didn’t all but one person dropped their lawsuit when they found out they would probably have to pay the city’s legal fees if they lost? Something in the neighborhood of $6000 a piece.
  50. Saugus SplasherDecember 21, 2010 at 3:52 pm
    And that’s why Ricketts is the “general counsel” and not the complaintant, so he doesn’t have to dip into his social security to pay damanges to the City. Shain is the last patsy standing.
  51. ToddDecember 22, 2010 at 12:15 am
    I would have hoped that they would have realized that, as noble as an effort as this is, it was a losing effort from the start. Hate to break it to you kids, but the ability of your Government to share your info with private companies has been around and sanctioned for a long long time. There are some strict rules about how private contractors can get that sort of information, and more strict are the rules about what they can do with that, and even further strict are the penalties for crossing the line. But, as we rely on vendors to provide services for governments, more and more information is shared. It has to be. The whole “privacy” angle was never going to hold up. If there is a way to legitimately prove that some Brown Act violation happened, that would hold up, but a.) they’re so hard to prove (unless you were in the room with 3 councilmembers when they talked about it and could prove it) and b.) usually the consequences are minimal anyway (the deal would be void, and the council could just start over again 100% in the public) that its not worth chasing down either unless its a matter of life and death. What is the most striking thing out of all of this to me is this: The council members don’t seem to do any thinking for themselves. I still support the council’s decision to form their own libraries, and I believe that ultimately it will prove to be of benefit to Santa Clarita. But they didn’t need to rush like they did. They could have taken more time to think it through. The question before us now, clearly, is this: How do we ensure that we get the best library possible now? The answer is simple. Constant pressure. Make your voice heard. What direction do you want the library to go in? Interlibrary loans need to happen? Demand it. Children’s storytime a priority? Make sure you’re asking for it, and showing up for it. Want better hours? Better make the most of those hours you’ve got, and demonstrate a need for more/expanded hours. Move beyond the decisions that can’t and won’t be undone, and move toward making the Santa Clarita Library be your library. You have the opportunity to set the precedence for what will come. Don’t waste the time standing on the sidelines pouting like a child who had their candy taken away from them.
  52. Lori RivasDecember 22, 2010 at 12:23 am
    Yup. That is what some of us are trying to do, by attending the library committee meetings, and giving input during public comments.
  53. Daddy Joe GDecember 22, 2010 at 8:34 am
    We could do all that, or we could form a weekly car pool to Castaic.
  54. Library Card Carrying BookreaderDecember 22, 2010 at 10:18 am
    No one is standing on the sidelines and pouting. Questions are still be raised or will be asked again until what the City’s library decision means to this community, and how it was made are thoroughly understood by the public. Doing so is the means by which we can create the pressure necessary to get the best possible outcome from this hasty and poorly thought out decision. Moving on cannot happen unless we first learn from the past. Discovering how this decision was made, with so little public input, will help us learn how to prevent the City from making other badly formed decisions in the future. It ain’t over until it’s over, and there are still many who say it ain’t over. So the questions will continue to be asked…
  55. DonRickettsDecember 22, 2010 at 9:40 am
    The reports of my senility are greatly exaggerated.
  56. Bill H.December 22, 2010 at 10:55 am
    “You complain about hit mailers sent out by labor unions, but the same sort of hit mailers have been mailed out by developer interests to oppose candidates they saw as a threat to their interests in our local elections. Hit mailers are nothing new in the SCV and you aren’t the only candidate who has been victimized.” Well stated! And Laurie Ender, certainly made good use of lie-infused hit mailers against Bob Spier. If not for G&L Realty money, that woman would not be sitting there and the money for her hit mailers would not have been available to unjustly besmirch other candidates with lies.
  57. Alan FerdmanDecember 22, 2010 at 11:09 am
    Todd While Library services to be provided is the prime question, there is an equally important second issue to be addressed. We need understand how our Library money is being spent. Is our portion of Property Tax allocated to Library services truly being spent on Library services. Are we getting the best value for each dollar? If there are savings, will those savings be returned to the public? Do we need another Special Library Tax? Is our city amassing more debt? I realize these questions are not as high profile as the overall Library takeover, but, the answers provide a representative sample of how our city is being managed. We will just have to wait and see how this plays out.
  58. Myrna BeardDecember 24, 2010 at 4:11 am
    We could do all that, or we could form a weekly car pool to Castaic.

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