A Little Snark Somethin’ Somethin’ to start the weekend

By Timothy Myers SR. — Tim Myers

Late this afternoon members of the SCV Talk editorial board received an email sent to many folks from the Save Our Libraries (“SOL”) organization that announced that they intended to dismiss the Brown Act litigation against the City with respect to the library takeover; the only (tenuously) surviving piece of the litigation in the package originally filed.

While this was predicted after the initial unfavorable rulings by the Superior Court, the email appeared to be in response to the following email sent from Lynn Plambeck to Council speaker mavens David Gauny, Alan Ferdman, Cam Noltemeyer and Carol Luteness:

—– Original Message —–

Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 8:14 PM

Subject: New library tax on Tuesday’s Council agenda

I hope everyone will go to the Council and protest this duplicitis language. The City does not HAVE a tax. This is a new tax. Seems to me if they tell this kind of lie, someone would certainly be able to take them to Court over it. Please come to the Council meeting Tuesday.

The response to this original message, as follows:

Maybe some of those who signed the Brown Act letters?

I am going to dismiss the Brown Act case.

For those not deep in the weeds on the activities of SOL (and others) several people, including some of those on the email above, originally threatened Brown Act litigation on the takeover vote but then did not sign on as parties to the actual lawsuit. I think it is safe to say that their is more than a little sarcasm aimed at “legal expert” Lynn Plambeck’s threat of a lawsuit over what is spin, and while detestable, not actionable, and that she would not in the end involve herself in any lawsuit.

Comments (16)

spineflower2January 21, 2011 at 5:46 pm

I think you owe this forum a little explanation as to why you are posting emails not addressed to you on a public site. Or are you working with wiki-leaks now? And speculating as to the motivations of someone thusly, behind their back, is really quite… presumptuous.

CCJanuary 21, 2011 at 5:53 pm

It is no secret that Tim hates Lynne.

David GaunyJanuary 21, 2011 at 6:10 pm

You were copied on this original email from Lynne and received it at the same time myself, and dozens of others did. Since you are now making it public, you should mention all of the people included in it, like TimBen Boydston, Michael Wilkerson, Lori Rivas, Suzie Rizzo, Patti Skinner Sulpizio, Kathy Carbone, Jennifer Kilpatrick, and other members of your board like Tim Myers. There were dozens of others. Furthermore, I think a clarification is appropriate. I signed the Brown Act Cure letter with the strict understanding that I would never be involved in litigation on the matter. The letter requested corrective action (aka “cure”) and I can’t speak for Plambeck, but I do know that many of the people who signed that letter had no desire to pursue litigation. The Brown Act lawsuit was filed by Don Ricketts without consulting me or many other signers (possibly including Plambeck). I admit that I was hopeful Ricketts’ actions would slow the city’s reckless process on the library takeover and maybe –just maybe- force transparency. I am still convinced that this deal was done well before the vote but I never sought litigation, just fair process. As you know, it unfortunately required a separate lawsuit to get the city to provide documents that should have easily been sourced through a simple California Public Records Act (CPRA) request. That is a fact about how this city is dealing with its residents and that is wrong. Finally, I believe Mr. Rickett’s sarcasm in his response (if any) was directed at the SEIU who did not get behind the suit even though their members signed the letter. The SEIU said plainly that given the small number of impacted employees and the difficulty of winning such a case severely hindered their ability to support. These reasons were understandable but Mr. Ricketts was also understandably frustrated by the answer. He put in his time, effort and money, and then had no backing. In short, I believe many acted in good faith with the hope that the city would play fair and provide a fairly represented solution to our public. They did not and now they are covering up unforeseen costs and new taxes. From this standpoint, Plambeck’s email request is both accurate and necessary.

David GaunyJanuary 21, 2011 at 6:14 pm

Sorry, thought Jeff wrote the piece. Jeff and Tim were both copied on the email, as was Nick Ziegler and still many more. It’s disappointing that you would publish this email with so many unfactual innuendos, Tim.

Nate's MomJanuary 21, 2011 at 6:31 pm

Nick Zeigler? He can’t be as handsome as Nick Zigler.

NateJanuary 22, 2011 at 9:12 am

Hahahaha I prefer to call him NicZig.

ReaderMamaJanuary 21, 2011 at 7:35 pm

If you address an e-mail to someone on the “editorial board” of SCVTalk, don’t count on the contents remaining confidential, unless you were so promised. I don’t see anything “unfactual” about Tim’s post, although his sarcasm in referring to Lynne Plambeck as a “legal expert” is palpable, he is entitled to an opinion, especially since he is more familiar with the law than many here, having graduated from law school. Lynne has certainly been a force to be reckoned with in Santa Clarita and has been instrumental in filing lawsuits on many occasion. Although I doubt anyone is going to file a lawsuit based on the duplicitous language of the proposed library tax, she is to be commended for rallying support to defeat it.

Lori RivasJanuary 21, 2011 at 8:51 pm

For the record, since my name was mentioned above, I did receive this email exchange, and promptly deleted it. I simply did not understand it, so I guess I am not as knee deep as others in the library issue.

Alan FerdmanJanuary 22, 2011 at 12:36 pm

Tim I agree with David. This does not show good judgment. In addition, if you are going to post someone else’s email you should, at least, post the complete version of the one you received unedited.

Timothy MyersJanuary 22, 2011 at 6:08 pm

Alan and David: I think the person who forwarded this email was making that point that some people won’t put their behinds on the line to back up their mouths. I’m just sayin’

Alan FerdmanJanuary 23, 2011 at 11:04 am

Unfortunately, you are speculating based on one email. In reality, the reason why the original Library Brown Act suit was not perused was the SEIU Legal Team pointing out that a Brown Act suit, even if successful, could not invalidate the LSSI contract if the LSSI contract was signed before the judgment. The Lawyers decided not to pursue the action and no one was ever asked to take part in it. Your assertion is, therefore, not based on fact.

spineflower2January 22, 2011 at 11:19 pm

And the person who posted it here was… doing what?

IHeartSCVJanuary 23, 2011 at 12:34 pm

FYI, it’s “Lynne” Plambeck, not “Lynn.”

Jim FarleyJanuary 23, 2011 at 3:49 pm

The recomended action on the Library Tax at the next council meeting is to continue it until May 5 so they have more time to research it. Seems this will leave a very short time to hold an election that would change the tax by July 1 when LSSI takes over.

Jim FarleyJanuary 23, 2011 at 3:50 pm

Actually May 10.

Fed Up N SCVJanuary 24, 2011 at 2:56 am

This whole post seems like something the city council would do. Isn’t this the type of behavior that we have all been complaining about for the last year and half? Shame on you Tim. This post is beneath what I have come to expect of SCV Talk.

spineflower2January 21, 2011 at 5:46 pm
I think you owe this forum a little explanation as to why you are posting emails not addressed to you on a public site. Or are you working with wiki-leaks now? And speculating as to the motivations of someone thusly, behind their back, is really quite… presumptuous.
CCJanuary 21, 2011 at 5:53 pm
It is no secret that Tim hates Lynne.
David GaunyJanuary 21, 2011 at 6:10 pm
You were copied on this original email from Lynne and received it at the same time myself, and dozens of others did. Since you are now making it public, you should mention all of the people included in it, like TimBen Boydston, Michael Wilkerson, Lori Rivas, Suzie Rizzo, Patti Skinner Sulpizio, Kathy Carbone, Jennifer Kilpatrick, and other members of your board like Tim Myers. There were dozens of others. Furthermore, I think a clarification is appropriate. I signed the Brown Act Cure letter with the strict understanding that I would never be involved in litigation on the matter. The letter requested corrective action (aka “cure”) and I can’t speak for Plambeck, but I do know that many of the people who signed that letter had no desire to pursue litigation. The Brown Act lawsuit was filed by Don Ricketts without consulting me or many other signers (possibly including Plambeck). I admit that I was hopeful Ricketts’ actions would slow the city’s reckless process on the library takeover and maybe –just maybe- force transparency. I am still convinced that this deal was done well before the vote but I never sought litigation, just fair process. As you know, it unfortunately required a separate lawsuit to get the city to provide documents that should have easily been sourced through a simple California Public Records Act (CPRA) request. That is a fact about how this city is dealing with its residents and that is wrong. Finally, I believe Mr. Rickett’s sarcasm in his response (if any) was directed at the SEIU who did not get behind the suit even though their members signed the letter. The SEIU said plainly that given the small number of impacted employees and the difficulty of winning such a case severely hindered their ability to support. These reasons were understandable but Mr. Ricketts was also understandably frustrated by the answer. He put in his time, effort and money, and then had no backing. In short, I believe many acted in good faith with the hope that the city would play fair and provide a fairly represented solution to our public. They did not and now they are covering up unforeseen costs and new taxes. From this standpoint, Plambeck’s email request is both accurate and necessary.
David GaunyJanuary 21, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Sorry, thought Jeff wrote the piece. Jeff and Tim were both copied on the email, as was Nick Ziegler and still many more. It’s disappointing that you would publish this email with so many unfactual innuendos, Tim.
Nate's MomJanuary 21, 2011 at 6:31 pm
Nick Zeigler? He can’t be as handsome as Nick Zigler.
NateJanuary 22, 2011 at 9:12 am
Hahahaha I prefer to call him NicZig.
ReaderMamaJanuary 21, 2011 at 7:35 pm
If you address an e-mail to someone on the “editorial board” of SCVTalk, don’t count on the contents remaining confidential, unless you were so promised. I don’t see anything “unfactual” about Tim’s post, although his sarcasm in referring to Lynne Plambeck as a “legal expert” is palpable, he is entitled to an opinion, especially since he is more familiar with the law than many here, having graduated from law school. Lynne has certainly been a force to be reckoned with in Santa Clarita and has been instrumental in filing lawsuits on many occasion. Although I doubt anyone is going to file a lawsuit based on the duplicitous language of the proposed library tax, she is to be commended for rallying support to defeat it.
Lori RivasJanuary 21, 2011 at 8:51 pm
For the record, since my name was mentioned above, I did receive this email exchange, and promptly deleted it. I simply did not understand it, so I guess I am not as knee deep as others in the library issue.
Alan FerdmanJanuary 22, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Tim I agree with David. This does not show good judgment. In addition, if you are going to post someone else’s email you should, at least, post the complete version of the one you received unedited.
Timothy MyersJanuary 22, 2011 at 6:08 pm
Alan and David: I think the person who forwarded this email was making that point that some people won’t put their behinds on the line to back up their mouths. I’m just sayin’
Alan FerdmanJanuary 23, 2011 at 11:04 am
Unfortunately, you are speculating based on one email. In reality, the reason why the original Library Brown Act suit was not perused was the SEIU Legal Team pointing out that a Brown Act suit, even if successful, could not invalidate the LSSI contract if the LSSI contract was signed before the judgment. The Lawyers decided not to pursue the action and no one was ever asked to take part in it. Your assertion is, therefore, not based on fact.
spineflower2January 22, 2011 at 11:19 pm
And the person who posted it here was… doing what?
IHeartSCVJanuary 23, 2011 at 12:34 pm
FYI, it’s “Lynne” Plambeck, not “Lynn.”
Jim FarleyJanuary 23, 2011 at 3:49 pm
The recomended action on the Library Tax at the next council meeting is to continue it until May 5 so they have more time to research it. Seems this will leave a very short time to hold an election that would change the tax by July 1 when LSSI takes over.
Jim FarleyJanuary 23, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Actually May 10.
Fed Up N SCVJanuary 24, 2011 at 2:56 am
This whole post seems like something the city council would do. Isn’t this the type of behavior that we have all been complaining about for the last year and half? Shame on you Tim. This post is beneath what I have come to expect of SCV Talk.