SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
February 14, 2011· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

Save Our Libraries Throws Hail Mary Pass

By Timothy Myers SR. — Tim Myers

Save Our Libraries (“SOL”) announced today that they would amend their complaint in the library litigation to seek to have the contract with LSSI set aside.  Here’s why:

In a case from 1989 a California appeals court held that a City library system must be under the management of an independent board of library trustees, appointed by the municipality.  Said independent board must approve all contracts.

As SCVTalkers know, the City has formed no independent board of trustees to run the City libraries.  SOL alleges that without an independent board the contract is null and void, and the judge should issue an injunction forestalling any more payments to LSSI pending the constitution of an independent board and the issuance of new contracts.

A new chess move has been made.  Stay tuned.

Comments (65)

  1. Library Card Carrying BookreaderFebruary 14, 2011 at 10:23 pm
    See more details at http://www.savesantaclaritalibraries.org , including the pertinent law, the entire complaint, and the suggestion by the attorney for Save Our Libraries, Inc., Don Ricketts, for a way to further avoid expensive litigation and provide time for both sides to cool down and examine the best course of action.
  2. RemStarFebruary 15, 2011 at 11:10 pm
    The sensational claims by S.O.L. that their latest amended lawsuit could somehow prevent Santa Clarita from leaving the loving comfort of the county library is completely overblown and, quite simply, inaccurate. Rather than being a silver bullet, this is just another deeply flawed and delusional legal gambit by an underprepared retired attorney. Withdrawal of a city from the county library is governed by Section 19116 of the California Education Code. Section 19116 explicitly authorizes a city council to take action to withdraw from the county library. Section 19116 (a) states: “The legislative body (note: this means city council) of any city or the board of trustees of any library district, whose jurisdiction is within the County of Los Angeles or the County of Riverside, may notify the board of supervisors for Los Angeles County or Riverside County, as appropriate, that the city or library district no longer desires to be a part of the county free library system.” In the amended complaint S.O.L. is seeking to convince the judge that a council-appointed library board of trustees (which could be the members of the city council), and not the city council per se, should approve the contract with LSSI. However, if the judge agrees with S.O.L. this would have no bearing on the decision made by the city council to withdraw from the county library pursuant to the authority granted to the city council by the provisions of Section 19116. Rather, the simple cure would be for the council-appointed library board of trustees to approve the contract.
  3. KevinAFebruary 16, 2011 at 7:04 am
    RemStar works for the city, so the comment is not unexpected. You do need to remember that the city council is operating outside the law with major conflicts of interest. RemStar has pointed out exactly how the council will once again throw the library issue in our faces and laugh at the peasants.
  4. RemStarFebruary 16, 2011 at 8:41 am
    Incorrect. Not everyone who support the city takeover of the library is a city employee, just as not everyone who opposes the takeover is a county or union employee.
  5. Coastal SageFebruary 16, 2011 at 4:35 pm
    I’m joining this debate a day late, because I’m on vacation. RemStar’s comments are correct as far as they go. The outright mistake that the City of Santa Clarita’s attorneys made was to not research their subject fully in August 2010, before they prepared the documents upon which the Council acted at the end of August. It was not until well after an “assistant” City Manager signed the contract on behalf of the City, with LSSI, that “someone” discovered that Education Code Section Sec. 18900 had not been complied with. From a “bad lawyering” point of view, the LSSI contract is all the worse because some Junior Pee Wee at the City Attorney’s law firm, Burke Williams & Sorensen, signed the lower left side of the LSSI contract, on the signature page at the back, saying that that the City Attorney “approved” the contract. As a result, what the taxpayers of Santa Clarita have is a City Attorney law firm which doesn’t know what the heck it is doing. “Someone didn’t do their homework”. California law requires that the library trustee board was be created BEFORE any library-related contracts are signed. A competent City Attorney law firm would have included the creation of the library trustee board in the first set of ordinances and resolutions creating the City Library System, and then would have insisted on the LSSI contract being set up for approval and signature by the trustee board, and that the LSSI contract be signed by the trustee board and no one else. At the same time, the taxpayers of Santa Clarita are paying close to $1Million per year in salaries and benefits for the City’s top employee management. For the taxpayers’ $1Million, one would have expected the non-lawyer employee charged with setting up new city library system to do the sort of research which people with “public administration” college degrees are supposed to do: Call around to other cities who are doing “what you want to do” and ask for all of the details. That’s one of the reasons why the California League of Cities exists. To create a networking opportunity for management employees of California cities to learn from each other. In theory, people who have “public administration” college degrees, and who are paid more than $100,000 per year should be expected to have a rudimentary ability to look at the Government Code, and at least try to figure out what laws apply to what they are doing. At the same time, the taxpayers of Santa Clarita are paying close to $1Million per year in salaries and benefits for the City’s top employee management. For the taxpayers’ $1Million, one would have expected the City Manager, Ken Pulskamp, to have supervised the City employees involved in the library program and the City Attorney law firm, to make sure those employees and attorneys had not made mistakes. It’s important to note that the Government Code makes it clear that except with respect to the City Attorney, a City Manager is the “boss” of the city employees, not the City Council. The reverse validation proceeding which Don Ricketts filed several months ago exists for just this sort of circumstance, to invalidate public agency contracts which are not lawfully formed. I call these sorts of lawsuits “invalidations”, because the plaintiffs seek to invalidate an unlawful contracts. The existence of the law inviting reverse validation lawsuits is not a waste of taxpayer money, because it works to force cities’ and counties’ lawyers and executive decision makers to comply with state law in entering into important contracts. For example, the last thing anyone who buys a municipal bond wants is a city to later file bankruptcy and disavow the bond, saying that there were legal defects in the way the bond offering was organized. People far smarter than those of us here on SCVTALK have created the validation/reverse validation procedures as a means of insuring that cities and counties can borrow money, and enter into important contracts, without subsequent city councils and boards of supervisors wriggling out of the contracts under a time honored principle that “you can’t contract away a public agency’s police powers”. Police powers are the self government powers left to the states and their instrumentalities under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As a result, what Santa Clarita taxpayers face is the City itself entering into a contract with LSSI in the Fall of 2010, when it had no authority to do so, and then trying, surreptitiously, to fix the problem in January 2011. Santa Clarita’s reality, which has existed since its incorporation, is that no one on its City Councils has been sharp enough, legally, to prevent the City Attorney law firm from making mistakes. Similarly, Santa Clarita has never had City Council members sharp enough to see that non-lawyer City staff members were making mistakes, and hiding both problems and mistakes from the City Council. Instead, Santa Claritans have elected country and western clothing store owners, realtors, soccer moms, rhetoric majors, window washing company owners, department store assistant managers, housewives, school principals, drunks, neurotics drugged out on anti-depressants, and an otherwise odd-ball cast of characters. That has been the voters’ choice time and time again. I have had friends on the Council for more than 10 years, and I could tell you all amazing-but-real stories about the mistakes senior city staff members have made, and about a few whopping mistakes made by attorneys working for the City Attorney law firm. That’s why, for nearly 10 years, some of the Council members have been talking about the need to get rid of Burke Williams & Sorensen as the City Attorney law firm. That’s why several of my friends and I figuratively threw up when I learned that Ken Pulskamp had been permanently appointed as City Manager. Ken had been trained, in Santa Clarita and Bakersfield, by the master of manipulation and intimidation of Council members, and the master of screw ups and skull duggery, George Caravalho, Santa Clarita’s first City Manager. Lisa Webber and Gail Ortiz are also graduates of the George Caravalho school of city management. In contrast, those who have made legalistic mistakes along the way, on the library issue, are disciples of Ken Pulskamp, who appears to be a far more clever manipulator and politician than George Caravalho. I might also add that Ken Pulskamp’s biggest failing is that he is absolutely tone deaf, in terms of protecting the City Council members from criticism by the public, and Ken Pulskamp’s staff is even more politically tone deaf than he is. One of George Caravalho’s favorite maneuvers, in terms of outright skull duggery, is to not “let” the City Attorney see everything the City staff was doing. Only certain matters were referred downtown, to Carl Newton’s office. Mr. Newton would, in turn, distribute the legal work to his partners and associates who he thought could get the job done properly. Back in 2001, we caught one of George Caravalho’s right-hand-girls drafting a new Development Agreement for the Bermite property owner, rather than sending it to Carl Newton so that a lawyer expert in the legal nuances of preparing Development Agreements could do the work. (Development Agreements are some of the most dangerous documents a city ever enters into.) Mr. Newton was quite shocked at what we found in that non-lawyer’s city files, through a public records act. On another occasion, we found that without Mr. Newton’s involvement, we found that the City Manager had hired an “environmental consultant” to certify a certain property the City would “lease” as being free of toxic substances. The environmental study was a joke from a professional point of view, the consultant taking soil samples at a 6″ depth. Then the City Manager’s assistants had truck loads of dirt hauled in to further bury that property’s contaminated soil. Mr. Newton only lear
  6. augustFebruary 17, 2011 at 7:58 am
    Costal Sage, thank you for the best explanation I’ve seen yet. So the city manager FORCED the ad hoc committee to sing the praises of LSSI? Seems the whole lot operates outside the law, and it would indeed seem we have an illegal contract.
  7. DleeFebruary 16, 2011 at 9:48 pm
    Why do people care about what the City is doing about the Libraries? I was at the West Ranch Town Council meeting a few weeks ago when a rep from the County said that they were going to build a new library in Stevenson Ranch. The only problem was that they were going to have to build it on top of a sub-terranean parking lot, after having removed a bunch of oak trees. Sounds like a great plan to me.
  8. augustFebruary 17, 2011 at 8:03 am
    We care about the libraries because there is no equivalent source of free information. The current libraries belong to the American Library Association, and they are prohibited from censoring our reading material. Having seen 3 LSSI run libraries, you’d better learn to love best sellers, because research was impossible. LSSI wouldn’t even pay for the newspaper articles database. And Stevenson Ranch is at least 2 years away.
  9. Cheryl PhillipsFebruary 14, 2011 at 10:32 pm
    Interesting – I kept wondering when we would appoint our Library Board of Trustees! My sister is on the Whittier City Library Board and went through a rigorous interview process last year to become a trustee. There are other City Library Trustees that are members of the Children’s Literature Council of So. Calif. and I’ve heard them discuss their many responsibilities as a trustee. This will be interesting………..
  10. Lori RivasFebruary 14, 2011 at 10:37 pm
    You can read about the new lawsuit here: http://savesantaclaritalibraries.wordpress.com/2011/02/14/big-news-new-lawsuit-by-save-our-libraries-inc-may-invalidate-library-takeover/ As a show of support, and to, once again, state our wishes for our public libraries, the attorney, Don Ricketts, is asking that citizens write a letter to the Council members, especially Bob Kellar (who was the only Council member to vote against this whole shenanigan). Please be especially vocal about supporting a stay for the year, which means that the Council would cease in paying LSSI, and put the whole library matter on hold for a year, and then re-evaluate anew, from square one, the feasibility of a municipal library. Kellar’s email: bkellar@santa-clarita.com McLean’s email: mmclean@santa-clarita.com Ender’s email: lender@santa-clarita.com Ferry’s email: fferry@santa-clarita.com Weste’s email: lweste@santa-clarita.com )
  11. ToddFebruary 14, 2011 at 11:47 pm
    I’d really like to look into this further… but the link to the documents doesn’t seem to be working at this very moment…. Or, is it that I don’t have permission, because I’m not an insider to this elite group of library lovers? In either case… I think we’re really stretching things here. And getting to the point of beating a dead horse. What do we hope to accomplish? Nullify a contract at what expesnse to you and me? Only to have the City Council appoint a board of trustees sympathetic to the cause, and have them re-approve a contract, with no doubt additional expenses that didn’t previously exist (be it legal or otherwise). Yes we need a board of trustees…. but in my experience, they’re nothing more than a rubber stamp stop on the way to the council, who will ultimately make the say as to what contracts are approved or denied. Time to start being realistic here people, and stop wasting our money, our time, and our resources.
  12. Lori RivasFebruary 15, 2011 at 11:16 am
    The links are working now. The links didn’t work for me, yesterday, either, when I used Firefox; I could only access the links through a Safari browser. But, again, the links are working for me in both browsers now.
  13. Library Card Carrying BookreaderFebruary 15, 2011 at 1:54 pm
    The documents are store on Google Docs. If you are signed in with another account, the links may not work. Sign out and try again.
  14. DonRickettsFebruary 15, 2011 at 3:51 pm
    Todd: you don’t understand it or get it.
  15. ToddFebruary 15, 2011 at 4:51 pm
    All due respect, I both understand, and get it. We disagree about the tactic. You’re trying to undue a decision made by an elected body. Short of finding some violation of the Brown Act (which are nearly always impossible to find) or CEQA (which, I hardly think would be applicable, but its possible) you’re really not going to be able to nullify a contract that was voted on and approved in an open, noticed meeting. You’ve got options: 1.) Recall councilmembers 2.) Referendum But wasting my taxpayer dollar on lawsuit after lawsuit which has little chance at the outset, well I’d rather you just put that money toward the library funds and create some adult literacy programs…
  16. RemStarFebruary 15, 2011 at 5:04 pm
    Todd, you don’t understand. If Ricketts isn’t working on his typo-filled frivolous lawsuits, then all he has left to do is watch reruns of Matlock and Murder, She Wrote.
  17. DonRickettsFebruary 15, 2011 at 5:58 pm
    Still don’t get it.
  18. ToddFebruary 15, 2011 at 10:45 pm
    Explain it to me then, counselor. And, by all means, go into great detail as to why all of your previous motions and efforts in this arena have been unsuccessful up until this point. Your first effort (based on privacy concerns) was, from an casual observer’s viewpoint, a frivilous one at best. Your assertion was that, due to privacy restrictions, a public agency is to be prohibited from contracting with any sort of private entity where information might be shared. Well, I hate to tell you but any second grader can identify where public and private have shared information back and forth in a productive, lawful and protective way. Its fundamental now. We have legal instruments (via non-disclosure agreements, perhaps you’ve heard of them) which restricts what a private entity can do with the information they receive. So, again, please educate me as to what I don’t get.
  19. Coastal SageFebruary 16, 2011 at 4:46 pm
    No Todd. It’s time for the Council to terminate the City Manager and the City Attorney who the City Manager agreed should be hired. It is time for the Council to insist that a new City Manager remove the City’s senior managment team in the City Manager’s office, in the finance office and in the planning office. If the Council won’t do than, then it is time to fire the Council members.
  20. ToddFebruary 17, 2011 at 1:47 am
    And you see this sitting council doing that? No chance. The council signed off on it… they failed to do their due diligence.
  21. RemStarFebruary 14, 2011 at 11:56 pm
    Apparently the City Council can appoint themselves as the library board. Apparently a number of cities in California do it this way.
  22. ToddFebruary 15, 2011 at 12:35 am
    Further proof that this legal gambit would result in nothing but a delay, and money out of our pockets. I reapeat my call to arms: Lets not keep kicking and screaming… whats done is done. Let us be proactive and work in a positive fashion to shape our new forthcoming library into what we want it to be.
  23. Berta González-HarperFebruary 15, 2011 at 11:26 am
    Amen!
  24. Lori RivasFebruary 15, 2011 at 12:42 pm
    Okay, so be clear, being “part of the solution” involves allowing the City Council to run rough-shod over 3 hours of public testimony, expressing concerns over leaving COLA, as happened at the 8/24 City Council meeting. Being “part of the solution” also involves turning a blind eye to internal memos and meetings that illustrate that LSSI was, perhaps, even the instigator in this whole process. http://savesantaclaritalibraries.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/what-happened-staff-bringing-back-the-library-issue-the-process-part-2/ Being “part of the solution” means accepting that a 2-member ad-hoc library committee can provide enough expertise to recommend establishing a municipal library. Being “part of the solution” means over-looking laws that are meant to protect the public interest from private politics and gain (as illustrated with the current lawsuit). Being “part of the solution” means to sit back and take it, when the City puts an LSSI executive in charge of a committee to select library services. Being “part of the solution” means not joining arms with and fighting for the jobs of fellow SCV’ers. Being “part of the solution” means allowing elected officials to do whatever the hell they want, without any public accounting for their actions, or how they spend our tax money, or how they treat our citizens. Being “part of the solution” means that if enough time has passed, and the City is still holding firm to their erroneous decision, then just give up and walk away. If this is “being part of the solution,” then, why even bother to show up for anything? Long live democracy, baby.
  25. Berta González-HarperFebruary 15, 2011 at 1:51 pm
    @Lori Rivas: It is painfully obvious that if a decision does not go the way you want it to, then it is not democracy at work. The decision to leave COLA library system and form our own Santa Clarita Public Library System DID go the way I wanted it to. I prefer local control of local dollars, nicer facilities with more books, programs and materials that I want to have available for the use of myself and others, better parking, longer hours, and whatever other services WE determine we need our libraries to provide. I also want to be able to have local access to the decision makers to register a thank you for a job well done, complaint, suggestion, etc. Although Supervisor Antonovich has local staffing, it is not quite the same as attending a local meeting to voice your opinions and besides he does not control the entire County budget anyway. You see, I would prefer to have a for profit company managing the day to day operations of my libraries, whose contract can be revoked or cancelled if things are not done right, than a huge cumbersome and unresponsive county entity that spends/wastes millions of our tax dollars. This is the same government agency, the County, which has never asked my opinion on anything relating to libraries other than will you pay extra taxes. We, the residents, will be the owners of our libraries, not simply tenants paying to use the facilities but denied any upgrades or improvements at our property owner’s whim. The City, we the residents, maintains ownership and control, just like an apartment owner retains control of his property regardless of who the property manager is. I am a native Angelena and have lived in different communities within Los Angeles County for most of my 60 years. The County of Los Angeles has never asked my opinion and I have been in County libraries virtually my entire life. In fact, they have ignored my requests when made due to “budget issues” despite receiving literally millions of our tax dollars from both within and without City limits. When we asked for a larger library with parking in Canyon County the County said “no”. The City stepped in, held meetings to ask what WE wanted, and then built it for us. We the residents of Santa Clarita have been paying three ways for our libraries: 1. Once via our regular property tax assessment 2. Twice via special Library Parcel Tax assessment 3. Thrice via City General Fund dollars to build Canyon Country and soon new Newhall Library facility All that money paid in without control of what hours, days, materials, programs, personnel, physical plant, parking, etc. When the County makes cuts, they do not ask our permission nor care if we like it or not. Go to the Board of Supervisors meeting and complain about cuts to services in Santa Clarita and see how much Gloria Molina and everyone but Supervisor Antonovich even gets off the phone to listen to you. On the other hand, please do go ask them for new facilities, materials, programs, etc. for libraries. Until very recently, they had not built a library in our area for about 50 years so good luck… That is where you should ask, why bother to show up. However, apparently none of that bothers you. Just because the Council did not listen to you personally, SEUI, County employees, Lawsuit plaintiffs, etc and others who agree with you, or set up tables with flyers outside libraries, provide free tee shirts, etc that does not mean they made the wrong decision. In fact, I could argue it proves that they made the right decision based upon whom the opposition members have been and continue to be.
  26. Library Card Carrying BookreaderFebruary 15, 2011 at 2:11 pm
    U shud weev a baskit wit al ur strawmens….
  27. Lori RivasFebruary 15, 2011 at 2:46 pm
    Berta, you addressed exactly zero of my points of discussion, and clearly did not understand what I was saying. It would help if you didn’t take everything so personally, and discussed issues, rather than anecdotes.
  28. Berta González-HarperFebruary 15, 2011 at 3:08 pm
    @Lori Rivas: I understood exactly what you are saying and I responded, as I felt appropriate. I do not take your comments personally, as I understand your comments are coming from your perspective, which obviously differs from mine, but I do hold you accountable for what you say. I discuss the issues at length, just ask ANYONE on this site, you simply do not agree with anything I have to say, and hear only what you want to hear and that is certainly your prerogative. Lori, after July 1 when we assume ownership of the libraries within the City of Santa Clarita, will you reimburse us for the additional legal fees the taxpayers have spent on yet another bogus lawsuit? Will you refrain from using the beautiful new Newhall Library once it is built by our City, or any other City owned library for that matter? I will bet the answer is “no” to both questions.
  29. Library Card Carrying BookreaderFebruary 15, 2011 at 3:20 pm
    I wont too tel yoke in cutuall quit rum wile u weeving dem strawmens baskitz. Walls be padded der?
  30. Alan FerdmanFebruary 15, 2011 at 8:27 pm
    Berta Neither the Canyon Country or Newhall Libraries was/is being built with City General Fund Dollars. In particular, the new Newhall Library is being built with $19 million of Redevelopment Bonds. You can verify that on the City Web Site by looking at this year’s Budget.
  31. Berta González-HarperFebruary 16, 2011 at 11:21 am
    @Al Ferdman thanks for the information. I do not remember any RDA bonds available in the Canyon Country area to build the Jo Anne Darcy Canyon Country Library but if I am incorrect, please point me in the right direction. I should have however been more specific, you are correct RDA bond money will build the new Newhall Library, so it is a different funding mechanism with the same results. The tax increment money is generated within the specific redevelopment area in Newhall. It is still local tax money that will repay those bond monies used to build the new Newhall Library. As I said, residents within the City have been paying the County for years for our local library services via three different tax collections. Unincorporated residents have been paying in via their regular property taxes and Special Library tax for years but also using the same libraries we use within the City limits since the County failed to build other facilities for them. Developers in unincorporated County areas also paid into an additional County library fund, much like park Quimby fees, while those homebuyers also used our same libraries.
  32. ToddFebruary 15, 2011 at 2:08 pm
    Lori- I don’t like it either. I have many issues with our council… mostly that they don’t even give the appearance of having concern for the public, let alone any semblance of decorum or formality (e.g. addressing members of the staff and the public alike by their first name from the dais). Certainly, in this instance, the council didn’t even give the appearance of having any contemplation or consternation over the issue… and its one that I believe merited it. Would more debate, more time, more rhetoric have changed their opinon? I hardly think so. When the time comes to elect your officials, stand up loud and proud and denounce this action, and use it as fire to get them ousted. Hell, if you want to start a recall, go ahead and again use this. But I really, sincerely, truly wish that people would come to realize that this is happening, and it is going to happen, short of overthrowing 3/5ths of the Council via recall. If you’re asking me, as a taxpayer, a resident and a voter, my opinion is this: Stop wasting my taxpayer money in frivolous litigation. Start making the moves to the ballot box, and I will follow you.
  33. Lori RivasFebruary 15, 2011 at 2:37 pm
    Todd, I get what you are saying. However, I happen to believe that by stopping this train wreck, we can *save* taxpayer money. And, yes, I do believe there is a chance of stopping the whole thing. If I were on the City Council, I would answer to these serious concerns and allegations, rather than leave the debate to a bunch of citizens trying to piece together a puzzle. I am hopeful that more time and discussion would have, perhaps, stopped this particular deal, or, at the very least, would have avoided so very many of the concerns and and problems with the contract. If nothing else, I hope that by exposing all this that we can force more transparency, can hold the City accountable for that which was promised, and can bear witness to what we understand to be true.
  34. navigatorFebruary 15, 2011 at 4:01 pm
    let alone any semblance of decorum or formality (e.g. addressing members of the staff and the public alike by their first name from the dais). Todd, that is one of the big differences between City control and County control. We know our City and they know us. Whether we all agree or not is another matter but at least everyone knows who they are talking to. Don’t get me wrong though. I believe the Council erred in ignoring the 48 people who were complaining about the takeover at the Council meeting.
  35. Berta González-HarperFebruary 15, 2011 at 4:49 pm
    @Navigator: Our City representatives not only “know us by name” but also frequently remember the issues we are most passionate about and ASK us for our opinions. If we are Veterans, they ask us about naming a bridge. If we are cyclists, they ask us about the transportation circulation element. If we live in older neighborhoods, they ask us what concerns we want to see addressed. If we are in Canyon Country, they ask a developer intending to build here to meet with us before the project is approved. If we are in the redevelopment area of Newhall, they ask what improvements we want to see. If we are non-profits, they ask us what they can do to help. Etc… I appreciate the fact they all know my name. It is one of the things that still give Santa Clarita that friendly, small town, feel. I do not believe they take offense either when all of us call them by their first name.
  36. ToddFebruary 15, 2011 at 4:58 pm
    Regardless of how well they know each of us, I think its improper in a formal meeting to be so casual. Behind closed doors, the President may tell his closest advisors “Call me Barry” all day long. But you’ll never once see them refer to him as anything other than “Mr. President” in public. Why is that? Because elected and appointed officials should be (and mostly are) still held to a level of courtesy and respect, even when you disagree. Its part of what keeps us civil (most of the time, at least). As I’ve stated before, I’m longtime friends with an elected official in the jurisdiction where I work. I would NEVER, EVER presume to address him by his first name in a public meeting, and he would never to me. Despite the fact that I’ve known him 20+ years, was in Boy Scouts with his sons, and went over to play at his home, just a block and a half from mine. We clearly know each other, and we’d say so publically… but mutual courtesy and respect is above all.
  37. Berta González-HarperFebruary 15, 2011 at 5:10 pm
    @Todd: We will have to agree to disagree then because I do not believe I respect anyone more, or anyone respects me less, because of formal address or lack thereof. We are not children in school standing before Mother Superior but rather neighbors with varying degrees of responsibility all working to improve our City together. I respect people, or not, based upon their individual comportment and interestingly enough it was a Mother Superior who taught me to do that.
  38. KevinAFebruary 16, 2011 at 7:08 am
    Amen, Lori. This council is supposed to work FOR us, not against us. At this point, they have zero credibility. I read all those internal documents–Bella Clarita!!
  39. Coastal SageFebruary 16, 2011 at 4:48 pm
    Lori, read my comment about how California cities really work, above. It’s time for the Council to terminate the City Manager and the City Attorney who the City Manager agreed should be hired. It is time for the Council to insist that a new City Manager remove the City’s senior managment team in the City Manager’s office, in the finance office and in the planning office. If the Council won’t do than, then it is time to fire the Council members.
  40. Lori RivasFebruary 16, 2011 at 5:58 pm
    Coastal Sage, you are sullying all my political idealism. In all honesty, I know what you are saying to be true — I’ve known it for a long while. But how do citizens force the Council to fire the hand that feeds them? The city manager/City Council relationship seems to be so deeply entrenched, so disfunctional, so automatic pilot — how could citizens penetrate that wall?
  41. Timothy Myers SRFebruary 15, 2011 at 12:28 pm
    Todd: The problem with your view is that as we peel back the onion LSSI (which solicited this takeover) looks more an more inept. Is it a good idea to turn the management of something over to a company that does not know about such things as Trustee Boards and collection of parcel taxes? If they are as slick as advertised they should have this part down (they don’t) which calls into question how they will actually operate the libraries.
  42. ToddFebruary 15, 2011 at 2:11 pm
    I have no doubt that LSSI is fully aware of library boards and parcel taxes. I am of the opinion that it is the City Council that didn’t care much about it to do their due diligence. I might add, this is one of the benefits of having your own, fulltime City Attorney with a staff, working for the city and the Council, and not hired out by a law firm…. they dedicate 100% of their time on the City’s and the Council’s business.
  43. Coastal SageFebruary 16, 2011 at 4:51 pm
    Todd, I agree with your comment, about having a full time, in house City Attorney. Many of Santa Clarita’s founders and Republican movers and shakers have been saying that, repeatedly, for 20 years.
  44. Coastal SageFebruary 16, 2011 at 4:49 pm
    Tim, I agree with your use of the word “inept”, at least as to the library fiasco. It’s time for the Council to terminate the City Manager and the City Attorney who the City Manager agreed should be hired. It is time for the Council to insist that a new City Manager remove the City’s senior managment team in the City Manager’s office, in the finance office and in the planning office. If the Council won’t do than, then it is time to fire the Council members.
  45. Eric HeilbrunFebruary 15, 2011 at 5:33 am
    I found this part of the Education Code interesting regarding the establishment of municipal libraries… 18900. The common council, board of trustees, or other legislative body of any city in the state may, and upon being requested to do so by one-fourth of the electors of the municipal corporation in the manner provided in this article, shall, by ordinance, establish in and for the municipality a public library if there is none already established therein. 18901. The request may be by a single petition, or by several petitions. The several petitions shall be substantially in the same form. The single petition, or several petitions in the aggregate, shall have, the signatures of the requisite number of electors. Question….Did one-fourth of the electors of our municipal corporation request the council to establish a public library? Whether I agree or disagree with the decision to create our own libraries is less important to me than the integrity of the process.
  46. Lori RivasFebruary 15, 2011 at 5:10 pm
    Yes.
  47. NoreasterFebruary 15, 2011 at 5:58 pm
    If the library takeover was presented before a vote, with an opportunity for community input and clear & accurate numbers, it could have had overwhelming support from the community. The county has plenty to answer for (they wasted no time in canceling the New York Times subscription from the Valencia Library; also, was Friends of the Library evicted from there?). What people object to is the secretive way this was handled by the city.
  48. Berta González-HarperFebruary 15, 2011 at 7:09 pm
    @Nor’easter: Accurate and clear numbers have been presented by the City to the public many times. The County numbers have excluded certain figures and have not been as clear and forthcoming as I would prefer. Those persons opposed to the City wanting ownership of our local libraries simply do not accept the numbers and keep coming up with their own. These same folks would oppose this change in library ownership, regardless of how much time and effort had gone into any public process. I said it back then and affirm it here. Many of them oppose ANYTHING the City does as some grand conspiracy. I do not personally feel that it is only about taxpayer money although it is a factor. I believe local control of all facets of a library system and accountability are also big factors. By the way, do you also call it a takeover when someone buys a house instead of continuing to rent it and throw money down the drain? I also would dispute that this issue was handled secretively. This issue was first brought up over ten years ago when we asked for a new library in Canyon Country and were blown off by the County. It was again brought forward at a public hearing before summer break. Several articles appeared in the local media. After summer break, the item was publicly noticed and on the agenda at a public hearing where we had the opportunity to address the Council. Before the scheduled hearing, the opposition had flyers available at libraries, free t-shirts to give out to supporters, and rallied about 40 people, many of them SEIU members and/or County employees, to speak in opposition. I can guarantee you if I had been out talking to people about this issue, the millions of dollars paid to the County, and the cuts in services looming on the horizon, even without free t-shirts, I could have wrangled more than forty folks myself. The fact that the issue was decided that night and against the wishes of some of those in attendance does not make it secretive. I do agree with you however that the County has much to answer for…
  49. Library Card Carrying BookreaderFebruary 15, 2011 at 8:04 pm
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.— Daniel Patrick Moynihan
  50. Coastal SageFebruary 16, 2011 at 4:52 pm
    Noreaster, I agree with you as to the probable outcome of such a vote, and as to the secrecy involved. See my comment above about how general law cities in California really work, and Santa Clarita’s in particular. It’s time for the Council to terminate the City Manager and the City Attorney who the City Manager agreed should be hired. It is time for the Council to insist that a new City Manager remove the City’s senior managment team in the City Manager’s office, in the finance office and in the planning office. If the Council won’t do than, then it is time to fire the Council members.
  51. DonRickettsFebruary 16, 2011 at 8:04 am
    I don’t know where Ms. Gonzalez-Harper’s reference to 40 people comes from. 48 people requested the right to speak in opposition at the 8/24 council meeting, but about 2000 people expressed opposition in writing. If organized, 2000 people could decide a city council election. Not only was the 8/24 resolution done quickly, and secretly, they did the same thing this January when they slipped the proposal to establish the state-law required board of trustees on the consent calendar. It wasn’t until the agenda for the 8/24 council meeting was published on that day that the proposal to contract with LSSI was revealed–to anyone. I got into this because I was concerned about privacy. But everything I have seen since then confirms all of the complaints about an autocratic city council that secretly makes decisions before revealing them to the public and voting. I am appalled at what I have learned. One could argue that there has been a conspiracy to suppress free speech, the right to assemble, and the right to petition elected officials–a very serious violation of Federal law (see 18 USC 241).
  52. RemStarFebruary 16, 2011 at 8:58 am
    Incorrect. On January 11, 2011, under New Business and not the Consent Calendar as you allege, the city council introduced and passed to second reading on January 25, 2011, “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 2.70, PUBLIC LIBRARY, TO THE SANTA CLARITA MUNICIPAL CODE, ESTABLISHING FOR THE MUNICIPALITY A PUBLIC LIBRARY” ( http://apps.santa-clarita.com/agendas/ViewMinutes.aspx?MeetingID=206 ). On January 25, 2011, a second reading of the ordinance occured and, after hearing from one speaker on this item, it was adopted by a unamimous vote of the city council ( http://apps.santa-clarita.com/agendas/ViewMinutes.aspx?MeetingID=207 ). From reading your amended complaint, it is quite apparent this ordinance, which was on the council agenda for two consecutive meetings, somehow “slipped” past you. How embarrassing for you that you had to learn about this ordinance from the media after the fact. By the way, there is nothing illegal or improper about adopting ordinances by placing them on the consent calendar. Items on a consent calendar are part of the agenda for a duly noticed public meeting that is required to be noticed 72 hours in advance of a meeting and, by this nature, items on a consent calendar are not “snuck” or “slipped” past anyone. Shame on you, Mr. Ricketts. You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts!
  53. Library Card Carrying BookreaderFebruary 16, 2011 at 11:09 am
    Right. Only the City is entitled to its own “facts.”
  54. Coastal SageFebruary 16, 2011 at 4:55 pm
    Remstar, the problem with your comment immediately above is that it does not contain a case law or statutory analysis of whether the LSSI contract, to manage the City’s libraries, entered into by the city, as opposed to the library trustees, would be unlawful under Section 18900 et seq. Please explain your legal reasoning on that precise issue.
  55. Berta González-HarperFebruary 16, 2011 at 11:28 am
    WARNING LONG RESPONSE @ DonRicketts: I got my “40” number from those I recall speaking before Council. If it was actually 48, I stand corrected but I could just have easily brought 48 bodies also, especially if their jobs depended on it. You claim and count the signatures of 2,000 residents and 48 speakers who were LOBBIED to support your “clients” position. Several of those folks were not even local residents. Yet you do not count those who travelled from other areas into Santa Clarita and spoke in support of a City owned, LSSI managed, library system. Nor do you in any way account for the other 177,000 + residents. Many of the “locals” against City ownership of our libraries oppose EVERYTHING the City wants to accomplish. It must be some sort of nefarious conspiracy if the City proposes it. “Bella Clarita” “conspiracy to suppress free speech, the right to assemble, and the right to petition elected officials-” are invoked. Puleez… The City by contrast lobbied NO ONE. Yet you discount the number of other people who live within the City that did not come out to support your position. My “Ender” math says using your figures of 2,048 between signatures you claim and those speaking before Council, deducted from approximately 180,000 current City residents’, leave a vast number of people who did not care EITHER WAY to show up. We have not even accounted for what unincorporated residents might prefer in these discussions here, since they are going to be City libraries, although they get to use them same as everyone else. If all of these other folks had agreed with you, I could argue more would have shown up. I could argue more did not show up to support the City, because they were unaware of the campaign to STOP the proposed City ownership of our local libraries. My discussions with people who do not attend meetings, watch Council or Planning hearings is that they really do not care who owns them or is running them as long as they have access to the books and materials they want to borrow when it is convenient for them, and free of charge. If pressed to chose, they prefer City to County for the same reasons we became a City in the first place. That the City took a proactive approach to forestall library service cuts due to County budget shortfalls is to their credit, not detriment. They are looking out for their constituents, City residents, not just the County’s. Question for Tim Myers and Al Ferdman: What percentage do you extrapolate AGREED with the City’s decision out of the supposedly silent 180,000-2,048= 177,952 177,952-3=177,949 since three of us locals spoke in support, and how many residents does that extrapolated percentage represent? Which by the way, Phil Ellis and Dennis Verner were representing the Newhall Redevelopment Committee I believe but I do not know the accurate number of folks that represents. I am willing to bet that your extrapolated number is in excess of 2,048. Please, stop wasting my money on lawsuits against City and County “decedents” which by the way, is yet another typo among many that I do not hear you criticizing Lori. Or do you only notice if it is Mr. Dubberly’s typo. Different standard, huh? After July 1, the proof is in the pudding, Mr. Ricketts, et al. Will there be massive boycotts of our City of Santa Clarita Public Library System? Or will residents, both within City limits and without, go about their daily lives and enjoy our new and improved libraries?
  56. DonRickettsFebruary 16, 2011 at 10:04 am
    Actually, I learned about the City’s lapse from Mr. Hernandez report on the 1/11 agenda item: “To join SCLC requires the City Council adopt an ordinance formally creating the Santa Clarita Public Library, effective July 1, 2011. Attached to this report is a proposed ordinance that complies with the requirements of the California Education Code regarding municipal libraries. As part of this ordinance, State Law requires the creation of a Library Board of Trustees. ” http://apps.santa-clarita.com/Agendas/CouncilItemPrint.aspx?ID=5417
  57. Lori RivasFebruary 16, 2011 at 9:29 pm
    Ya’ll missed a great CCAC meeting tonight. Big, tremendous kudos to Alan Ferdman for pulling together such a thorough and compelling presentation. If Alan posts the video, it is well worth the time to watch Alan unravel the threads related to library monies.
  58. Library Card Carrying BookreaderFebruary 16, 2011 at 10:26 pm
    If we had five City Council members who could understand and explain the issues as well as Al did tonight, then we would a truly functional and open city government.
  59. Berta González-HarperFebruary 17, 2011 at 12:07 am
    @Lori and Michael: I am not surprised you were so impressed by Al’s presentation tonight since your group, SOL, was his preferred and most quoted source of information regarding the library issue. This presentation followed the same pattern, as all of Al’s other presentations before the CCAC within the last several years. Al presents only information that supports his conclusions, interprets all documentation in a manner, which verifies his “facts”, editorializes throughout the entire presentation to reinforce his bias and position, and always makes sure that the City folks are “bad guys” in his version. He has a receptive audience these days since anyone disagreeing with him has been pushed out of the committee or simply given up, with one notable exception. New folks brought in to the group are Al devotees, like you folks. You should consider joining too. Do not worry; he threw out the approved By-Laws, which actually had membership requirements. Under his newly created in secret but as yet undisclosed By-Laws and with full support of his meet only at undisclosed locations self-appointed “Board” members, you do not have to even be a Canyon Country resident. Heck, tonight two out of the three badge-wearing “Board” members live in Saugus. Apparently, eligible CCAC Members approving or voting on any of these changes is not necessary.
  60. Lori RivasFebruary 17, 2011 at 4:16 am
    Just to clarify, Ferdman used primary documents for 99% of his presentation. So, if you are going to argue against his presentation, then you, also, need to use primary documents, not slander.
  61. Berta González-HarperFebruary 17, 2011 at 8:21 am
    @Lori Rivas, According to my Webster’s Dictionary, the definition of “slander” is as follows: “The utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another’s reputation.” Not ONE thing I said is false or a misrepresentation and is all on the meeting videotape if it is not edited out by the new “Board” member running the equipment.
  62. Library Card Carrying BookreaderFebruary 17, 2011 at 1:41 pm
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.— Daniel Patrick Moynihan
  63. Berta González-HarperFebruary 17, 2011 at 3:02 pm
    @Michael, apparently your favorite quote but one that you do not believe applies to you.
  64. Library Card Carrying BookreaderFebruary 17, 2011 at 3:06 pm
    @Bertie, Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.— Daniel Patrick Moynihan
  65. Berta González-HarperFebruary 17, 2011 at 3:36 pm
    Hey, Mickey now I feel like channeling King George, thanks! Tea anyone?

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