The Motive

From 2002- 2019 school board members’ decisions made no sense given the true facility facts and the needs of the school district. Given the facts, school board members’ decisions to allocate the majority of Measure J $13.6M funds to construct a low-priority gymnasium from 2005 to 2008 and then pass the $59M Measure S bond to demolish and rebuild North School from 2016 to 2020 only makes sense if the real motivation was to keep HBCSD out of the Community Center, not to take care of the actual needs of the school district.

It is believed that the true motive for school district decisions was controlled by a clique of prominent Hermosa citizens which included certain school board members and city council members. The plan was a quid pro quo to keep HBCSD out of the Pier Avenue Community Center so that the city of Hermosa Beach could retain unencumbered ownership of it despite the Sale and Purchase Agreement signed in 1978.

The Quid Pro Quo:

It is believed, and supported by the evidence in this website, that the cabal’s quid pro quo with HBCSD school board members was:

School board members with the help of their Superintendent and HBCSD attorney would deny and give up their priority leasing rights to use classrooms, offices, storage facilities, and the gymnasium at the Community Center and provide misinformation about the district’s use and historic value of the iconic 1935 grandfathered-in North School.
In exchange the city would also deny the use of the Community Center for students and work to support HBCSD in building a low-priority gymnasium at Valley School and a brand-new campus at North School.

Neither the gymnasium nor a brand-new campus was required or necessary for the school district. In fact, the school board’s decision to go along with the quid pro quo arguably hurt Hermosa students, staff and taxpayers by creating years of overcrowding and compelling taxpayers to pass an overly expensive and unnecessary large facility bond while students waited five years for their brand-new campus at North School to be completed. By the time the brand-new North School (aka the new Vista School) was completed district enrollment had dropped back down to pre-2010 levels and taxpayers had spent $59M or approximately $98M with interest added over 30-40 years. There is no evidence that HBCSD enrollment will ever rise to the point where they will need the new campus.

The Misinformation Campaign:

For approximately two decades (2002-2019) voters and taxpayers were unwitting subjects of a misinformation campaign by high level city employees and school district employees, school district consultants, and several city council members and school board members. It is assumed that some city council members and school board members may not have been aware of the quid pro quo, but unwittingly went along with the cabal’s plan because, like most people, they trusted their colleagues, wanted to be team-players and did not fact check the statements that were made. The information contained in this website will prove these statements. Please see the List of Lies.

Blaming Opponents and Shutting Down Dissent:

Part of the cabal’s misinformation campaign consisted of misinformation contained in their Letters to the Editor in local newspapers. The misinformation campaign against opponents occurred during both the construction of the gymnasium at Valley School AND the rebuilding of North School. The clique of prominent Hermosa school board members involved in the quid pro quo actively used their community standing and clout to denigrate citizens who did not agree with their plans, blaming the citizens for the ills associated with the school board’s decisions. Blaming citizens is believed to have been a part of the cabal’s strategy to target and denigrate opponents and create an ‘us versus them’ scenario in the community. (Please see Lie #25, Lie #26 and Lie #32)

Ignoring the Facts and the Actual Needs of the School District:

Because of the artificially determined quid pro quo the actual needs of the district were ignored by school board members at the expense of students, teachers and taxpayers. HBCSD school board members from the start could have opted to use the grand-fathered in North School or their lease agreement for classrooms, office and storage space and the gymnasium and changing rooms at the Pier Avenue Community Center to solve the overcrowding situation at Valley and View schools. Instead, an ongoing misinformation campaign was used to quash these two options as school board members held out for a brand-new campus at North School. School board members spent over $1M to add temporary classrooms that only exacerbated the overcrowding at Valley and View schools. During this time, school board members also withheld up to 25.5% of school district funds or almost $3M dollars from being spent on students and plant operations. (TL-2015Jun30 Available reserves)

The 2002 Facilities Master Plan had recommended that HBCSD supply 14 classrooms by 2012 to accommodate projected enrollment increases. However, school board members ignored their own Facility Master Plan and the opinion of the majority of Hermosa Beach voters to instead build a low priority $11M gymnasium at Valley School. The California Department of Education does not require middle schools to have a gymnasium and Hermosa Beach has nearly perfect year-round weather for outdoor activities. In addition, HBCSD had priority leasing rights to the gymnasium and changing rooms at the Community Center.

At an April 11, 2002 HBCSD Citizens’ Meeting (TL-2002Apr11 HBCSD Citizen’s meeting), years before the school board decided to spend $11M on the gymnasium complex at Valley School, an HBCSD PE teacher said that every inch of the open space is needed. Gym space is on top of the existing open space.

When school board members ran out of funds from the 2002 $13.6M bond, they were forced to use approximately $1M of district funds to finish building the gymnasium. (Please see 2002 Facility Master Plan and the timeline from 2002 to 2009)

Measure J $13.6M bond will cost taxpayers approximately $30M (including interest over 28 years) when it is paid off in 2030.

Overcrowding at HBCSD:

After the gymnasium was built in lieu of classrooms, overcrowding at HBCSD campuses predictably ensued. School board members then ignored the overcrowding from 2009-2012 until it became a crisis at district schools. (Please see information on Superintendent Bruce Newlin and Pat Escalante) True to the saying “never let a good crisis go to waste”, HBCSD school board members seemed to leverage the overcrowding to pass their overly expensive $59M facilities bond to completely rebuild North School. It is believed that rebuilding versus renovating North School was part of the quid pro quo surreptitiously agreed to by members of the clique of city and the school district officials.

It is believed that in order to pass an expensive bond to completely destroy and rebuild North School as part of the plan for the quid pro quo, school board members also unnecessarily exacerbated overcrowding at View School panicking teachers and parents one year before the bond vote. (Please see information on unnecessarily overcrowding View School) In addition, overcrowding fears seemed to have been exploited by HBCSD hired enrollment consultants with projections of imminent increases in enrollment prior to the district’s bond passing. Six months after the district’s $59M Measure S bond passed, the district’s enrollment consultants changed their enrollment projections to that of a significant decrease in enrollment. (Please see information on district enrollment consultants Decision Insite)

During this time students, staff and parents were used as unwitting pawns by the city and the school district to accomplish their unspoken quid pro quo agreement regarding district use of the Community Center/Pier Avenue School.

It does not matter whether one agrees with the quid pro quo agreement, what matters is that the school district and the city purposely lied to taxpayers and voters to pass their bonds and apparently had no problem throwing the students, teachers and the community under the proverbial bus to accomplish their goals.

The Truth: The Lease Agreement for Pier Avenue School:

In 1977 past school board members had offered to sell Pier Avenue School to the City of Hermosa Beach for 40% below fair market price to ensure that HBCSD students would have priority use of classrooms, office and storage space at the Community Center if enrollment rose above 1,266 students in the future. (MOU Article 4, Section 4.02)

There is no expiration to the district’s use of classrooms, office space and storage space at the Community Center. The leasing provisions are solely dependent on district enrollment above 1,266 students. The leasing provisions for district use of classrooms, office and storage space are described in the Memorandum of Understanding, Exhibit G, that the city accepted on June 14 and 28, 1977. (TL-1977Jun14 CC Meeting Mins) and (TL-1977Jun28 CC meeting mins page 8) Neither the city nor the school district needed to sign the Memorandum of Understanding because the city automatically executed the MOU, thus making it binding, when they took out an escrow following the instructions contained in Article 3 Escrow in the MOU in June 1977. Thereafter, the city and the district entered into good faith negotiations to hash out the final terms of the sale over six months of workshops. The MOU was included as Exhibit G with the signed Agreement and all the other exhibits when it was sent to the Los Angeles County Registrar’s office in 1978.

During negotiations between the city and HBCSD from 1977 to February 1978, school board members also used the low selling price to ensure that students would have priority use of the gymnasium, changing rooms, tennis courts and auditorium for free with a fifty-year lease, renewable in three-year increments.

The provisions for district use of recreational facilities are defined in Exhibit K, Lease Agreement for Future Use of Pier Avenue School. Exhibit K was the last exhibit to be added to the agreement and was originally referred to as the Recreation Agreement when it was first conceived at a workshop meeting in December 1977. (TL-1977Dec14 joint workshop #6) It made sense that since the district had provided for future educational needs of students at Pier Avenue Community Center in the Memorandum of Understanding, Exhibit G, that they also provide for future recreation needs in Exhibit K.

Therefore, starting in 2002, when HBCSD school board members decided to build an $11M low-priority gymnasium at Valley School and ignore future classrooms needs, HBCSD already had priority contractual use of the gymnasium, tennis courts, and changing rooms at the Community Center. It is believed that the cabal members reasoned in 2002 that their first priority should be building a gymnasium at Valley School in order to keep HBCSD out of the Community Center.

The City of Hermosa Beach Reneged on their Agreement to Lease the Community Center to HBCSD for students:

The city had agreed to these provisions in order to purchase the Community Center from the school district for 40% below fair market value. However, from 2002 to 2019 the Hermosa Beach city council members and school board members would systematically misinform the community as to the provisions of the district’s use of the Community Center and therefore renege on their promises to the community and taxpayers.

The Truth: North School:

Like Valley School and View School, North School was a grandfathered-in campus and so was considered by the California Department of Education to be code compliant as is. All major additions and changes to all district schools, including North School, have been overseen by the Division of State Architects to ensure appropriateness for students and safety. Many older schools, including View School in Hermosa Beach, Robinson School in Manhattan Beach, Newport Elementary School in Newport Beach (circa 1936) and Richmond Street School in El Segundo (circa 1935) and scores of others have been leased out to private business and then renovated for student use when enrollment increased.

The HBCSD 2014 Facility Master Plan had given an estimate of approximately $14M to renovate North School. A written estimate from Juge Construction company who had also renovated and expanded Valley School in the 1980s, estimated $6.8M in 2017 to renovate North School and building an administrative and classroom building to the campus. HBCSD had been receiving approximately $230,000/annually from leasing North School to Children’s Journey. Children’s Journey served mostly Hermosa Beach families.

Since the district’s $59M facilities bond was passed in 2016, taxpayers are now on the hook to pay approximately $98M ($59M with interest over time) through 2040 or 2050 for 600+ seats of unneeded student capacity with no future increases in enrollment in sight. Taxpayers will be paying off the 2002 $13.6M facilities bond through 2030. The final cost of the $13.6M bond with interest over time is approximately $30M. In addition, HBCSD has lost the leasing income from North School. Since Children’s Journey was evicted from North School in 2017, HBCSD has lost approximately $1.5M in income. The district is now actively poaching students from surrounding school district’s trying to fill empty classrooms and make up for the lost leasing income from North School.

HBCSD provably lied, provided misleading information and omitted important information in their Environmental Impact Report to the community and the Coastal Commission in order to justify demolishing North School:

HBCSD did not disclose information about their valid leasing agreement for Pier Avenue Community Center, provided provably false information in the Historic Assessment of North School and the Naylor Act as it applies to North School, among other misinformation, misleading information and omissions in the Environmental Impact Report given to the Coastal Commission in order to justify demolishing the historic North School. Please see information on the Environmental Impact Report. Please see information in this report regarding the Environmental Impact Report.

The Instigators:

It is believed and supported by the evidence that the quid pro quo was hatched by former city council members and signers on the Sale and Purchase Agreement for Pier Avenue School, George Schmeltzer and Lance Widman, to renege on their promise to taxpayers and students by keeping the district out of the Community Center. If school board members and city council members had allowed HBCSD to use classrooms, office and storage facilities at the Community Center, students would only have used the Community Center for, at most, 9 years (2010 to 2019) and taxpayers would have saved millions of dollars.

It is believed that the reason George Schmeltzer and Lance Widman did not want to share the Community Center with the school district is because they wanted to turn the Community Center into a “performing arts center” and/or new City Hall. (2017Apr13 RFP CC Theater)

Former City Council member Jeff Duclos is quoted as saying in an article in the Beach Reporter “Council member Jeff Duclos said the city’s vision of the theater when they took over in 1978 was that it would become a performing arts center.” City considers private management for Hermosa Beach Community Theatre, November 1, 2016 by Michael Hixon, (Exhibit JM-17) See also the City of Hermosa Beach Request for Proposals for programming and management of the Community Center Theater (2016Nov1 Article City considers private mgmnt), (TL-2018Feb22 CC RFP) When the city took over Pier Avenue School from HBCSD in 1978, the city’s decision makers were George Schmeltzer, Lance Widman and George Barks.

Note:

In April 2018 former City Council member and signer on the Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Pier Avenue School in 1978, George Barks wrote a letter to the editor (TL-2018Apr5 LTTE George Barks) in which he stated that:

“To set the record straight, as a former city councilmember during the time of the sale of the Pier Avenue School to the City, I can attest first-hand that when this issue came before the council, we absolutely guaranteed that the students could return to use the school if needed in the future. A simple lease-back option was included within the contract between the district and the city.”

It is believed that the cabal justified their lies to the community by planning a quid pro quo for the district to give up rights to use the Community Center in exchange for city support for an $11M low-priority gymnasium at Valley School and a brand-new $29M campus at North School. It is assumed that the secret clique of community members believed that they knew better than taxpayers and voters what the community needed therefore it was okay to lie to the public. To this end several school board members, Superintendent Pat Escalante, HBCSD attorney Terry Tao, HB City Manager Tom Bakaly and HB City attorney Michael Jenkins routinely mislead and misinformed the community regarding the leasing provisions of the Agreement and the safety and appropriateness of using the grandfathered-in North School or the Community Center to relieve overcrowding.

For over two decades Hermosa Beach residents have been given false and misleading information from the city and school district.