CC MINS 20080219 ADJ MINUTES
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 19, 2008
The meeting was called to order at 6:21 P.M. by Mayor Stern at Fred Hesse Community
Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, notice having been given with affidavit thereto on
file.
City Council roll call was answered as follows:
PRESENT: Clark, Gardiner*, Long, Wolowicz, and Mayor Stern
ABSENT: None
Mayor Stern stated that Councilman Gardiner's absence was excused.
Councilman Long moved to appeal the Mayor's ruling that Councilman Gardiner's
absence was excused. The motion died for lack of a second.
Also present were City Manager Carolyn Lehr, City Attorney Carol Lynch, Deputy City
Manager Carolynn Petru, Director of Planning, Building & Code Enforcement Joel
Rojas, Director of Finance/Information Technology Dennis McLean, Director of Public
Works Jim Bell, Director of Recreation and Parks Ron Rosenfeld, Deputy Planning
Director Greg Pfost, Deputy Director of Finance/IT Kathryn Downs, Senior
Administrative Analyst Gary Gyves, Senior Administrative Analyst Matt Waters, Senior
Engineer Ron Dragoo, and City Clerk Carla Morreale.
FLAG SALUTE:
The Flag Salute was led by Mayor Stern.
*Councilman Gardiner arrived at 6:23 P.M.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Councilman Long moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Clark, to approve the Agenda
as presented.
Without objection, Mayor Stern so ordered.
Organization-Wide Management Assessment Final Report (1101)
City Clerk Morreale reported that she distributed late correspondence regarding this
item prior to the meeting.
Mayor Stern reported that during the last week after the agenda package was
circulated, he received a telephone call from an attorney representing Councilman
Gardiner, and he asked that the Council meet in Closed Session as a full Council prior
to taking up the Organization-Wide Management Assessment Final Report. Mayor
Stern noted so that he did not misquote he would read to everyone present portions of
the email that the attorney sent him on Saturday, February 16, 2008, which was
addressed to Carol Lynch and himself, although it was copied to all of the City Council
Members.
Mayor Stern read, "This email confirms my oral request to Doug yesterday that the
Closed Session be moved earlier in the evening on Tuesday, and my notification that I
would be coming with Peter. Peter refuses to become involved in a conspiracy to
violate the Brown Act or to cover up prior violations of the Brown Act, nor will he be
involved in conspiracies to cover up, to destroy evidence of, to allow the destruction of
evidence, or to withhold from the public evidence of public corruption, campaign
misconduct, and misuse of public funds. As a result, he will not attend meetings where
topics are discussed that address such topics without having his own counsel present.
The fact the counsel for the City is present, is not enough. That counsel does not
represent him and has not prevented clear violations of the Brown Act and other
misconduct that I wish to discuss quietly in Closed Session, if allowed. The purpose of
moving the Closed Session forward, as I told you, was to allow me to propose possible
quiet and cooperative approaches to resolving current issues without creating a
massive public outcry, which would necessarily occur if Peter were forced to make all
the issues public at the hearing without the possibility of having a prior discussion with
everyone involved and having the opportunity to work toward a common approach in a
way that will advance the interests of the City without the need for a public
confrontation. Peter's desire is to advance the interests of the City in the smoothest
way possible. If forced to protect the City outside of a cooperative approach he will do
so, but that is not his first option. As I also told you, any cooperative approach would
necessarily need to involve either the tabling of full discussion of, or the limiting to only
general discussion of, two topics: the report on IT we discussed and the employment
situation of the City Manager. Those two topics will need to be deferred for a
reasonable time for further evaluation with full discussion and decision making to occur
at a later date after more information is known. I was prepared to discuss a proposal in
more detail at the "early" Closed meeting but clearly no one is interested in a
cooperative approach and you have precluded any such discussion by your decision to
block my attendance and to refuse to advance the time of the Closed Session. We
request that you reconsider. If I do not hear from you to both my email addresses by
noon Monday that I will be allowed to come to the closed session and also that it will be
advanced in time, you can expect to see me and Peter at the open session and you can
expect Peter to take all action he feels is necessary to advance the interests of the city.
Sincerely, Chip Rawlings"
Mayor Stern reported that he prepared a statement in response. Mayor Stern read,
"The decisions that are made by this City Council must not be tainted by threats; they
should not be made questionable by a cloud or taint that any Council Member made a
City Council Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 2 of 29
decision or was influenced in this decision by his own concern for his own well being
that arose from threats that someone would publically accuse the Council Member of
wrongful conduct if that Council Member did not follow the suggestion of that Council
Member. Our decisions cannot be made under threat by anyone and certainly not a
fellow Council Member; that accusations of wrong doing will be dealt with "quietly" and
in private, and kept away from the public so long as we do as that Councilman desires.
They cannot be made in violation of the very Brown Act which that Councilman is
accusing others of having violated. They cannot be made by convening a meeting of all
City Council Members in Closed Session to address a matter agendized on the open
agenda. No Council Member should demand that his fellow Council Members violate
the Brown Act so that he can convince them to conduct our public business in a
particular manner, and certainly not under the threat of these accusations of wrongful
conduct. And if such a demand is made, we must resist the temptation to conduct a
private meeting simply because we have been threatened that absent such private
meeting that Councilman will bring forth public accusations harmful to us individually or
collectively. I recognize that by rejecting Councilman Gardiner and his attorney's
demands that we meet privately, so that he could set forth his desires in private, outside
of public view, that I am subjecting myself individually to the threat he has made, that he
will make public accusations against me of wrongdoing; yet that is precisely why I
refuse to consider the personal consequences. I feel I must make this public statement.
If I were to make my decision because of the threat made by a Councilman and his
attorney, that he would accuse me or others of illegal conduct, I would be unfaithful to
the oath I took. While I certainly regret that he has chosen this tactic to try to achieve his
goals, I am unwilling to place my personal interests above that of the City and the
residents I have been elected to serve. Those matters agendized to be discussed in
open session must be addressed in open session. Unfortunately, in light of the
accusations and the obvious threat of exposure of alleged criminal conduct if the full
City Council would not meet privately with Peter and his counsel to work a solution,
coupled with his demand that he and his attorney be allowed to meet with the full City
Council so that Councilman Gardiner and his attorney could "discuss quietly in closed
session" his proposed approaches to current issues to "work a common approach" I felt
it necessary to take appropriate action with respect to that clear threat made against
each member of this City Council, trying to influence and obtain an action of the City
Council on an issue here before the City Council. I believe that an attempt has been
made to affect official action of the City Council under threat or fear of some alleged
exposure of criminal conduct. I believe there has been an attempted extortion of the
City Council Members. As such, I felt compelled to bring the matter to the Los Angeles
County District Attorney's Public Integrity Division to investigate this attempted extortion
reflected by Mr. Rawlings' emails, and earlier today I provided this information to the
District Attorney's Office for its investigation. I sincerely regret the tactics that have
been employed by Councilman Gardiner and his attorney. I sincerely regret that he has
chosen to take this tact to pressure the City Council to take some particular action. The
City, in my view, deserves much better."
Councilman Long stated that he endorsed Mayor Stern's comments and reported that
he had taken some independent action and read from a statement he had prepared.
City Council Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 3 of 29
Councilman Long read, "I regret having to take this action for the first time in 25 years of
practicing law. I have concluded that one of my fellow colleagues as a licensed lawyer
has engaged in unethical conduct. In reaching that conclusion I consulted with a
number of attorneys that are members of an organization I belong to called the
Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers. I am, for my law firm, one of the
Ethics Officers for my law firm. The conclusion, as hinted at by the Mayor, that a
number of the ethics attorneys reached, is that the conduct described in the emails by
the attorney retained by Councilman Gardiner, and I can only hope and pray that that
attorney acted beyond the scope of authority he got from his client, the consensus
among the attorneys was that the actions taken in writing in emails to this Council were
extortion. As a result I sent the emails that I had at the time, I've since received some
additional ones which I intend to forward as well if the State Bar is interested in them, to
the State Bar along with the following statement which I will now read: `Rawlings, as
counsel for Rancho Palos Verdes Council Member Peter Gardiner, claims to have
evidence of alleged misconduct by other Council Members and the City Manager which
he states that he and his client will treat privately' (I think the Mayor more accurately
described it as "quietly", but I believe the word "private" was used as well) `in exchange
for the Council acting on two agenda items to the satisfaction of his client. The specific
action his client wants is not specified but can be inferred from prior statements by his
client. The misconduct alleged includes purported Brown Act violations and other
unspecified actions by other Council Members and the City Manager. Rawlings has
asked the RPV City Council to discuss an item on the public agenda in closed session
to reach agreement on the approach outlined above. Rawlings actions are outlined in
his attached email communications with me, the City Attorney, City Manager, and
Council Members.' He stated, "I forwarded this statement and emails and I will be
making copies available for my fellow Council Members and any members of the public
who are interested. I was only able to get 12 copies done before I came here tonight. I
sent this to the California State Bar on February 18th, and also yesterday I asked the
City Attorney to take steps to present the facts to the District Attorney, and I am now of
course since advised that the Mayor has already taken those steps, so that is good to
hear."
Councilman Gardiner left the dais at 6:37 P.M. and sat in the audience.
Andrew Belknap, Management Partners Incorporated, introduced his colleagues Jan
Perkins, Lynn Dantzker, and David Jensen, who outlined in a PowerPoint presentation
the steps they took in the Organization Wide Assessment resulting in the production of
the Final Report and recommendations for the Council.
During the presentation Councilman Gardiner left the meeting at 6:47 P.M. and returned
to the dais at 6:48 P.M. He left the dais again at 7:15 P.M. and returned at 7:19 P.M.
Council discussion with Management Partners included the following topics: priorities of
their recommendations; suggested personnel changes described as new, vacant, or
modified positions; Rancho Palos Verdes as having a low tax base compared to other
South Bay cities; the public's general unwillingness to pay for anticipated infrastructure
City Council Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 4 of 29
repairs; the need for more complete cost recovery through City fees, especially with
remodel and teardown projects; attracting and retaining quality staff members; the
limited number of middle-management positions; policy ramifications regarding
finances; and the need for a full-day workshop on the report.
Kevin Hamilton, Rancho Palos Verdes, commented on the Organization-Wide
Management Assessment Final Report, particularly the Information Technology (IT) and
volunteer aspects. He refuted the Report's assertion that, in the case of Palos Verdes
on the Net (PV NET), the volunteers added significantly to the City's overhead and
suggested the Council consider PV NET an integral part of the community.
Mayor Stern commented on one of the findings in the Organization-Wide Management
Assessment Final Report where it was noted that the computers designed by PV on the
Net function well, are reliable, and cost less than major brand computers, yet
Management Partners recommended that the major brand computers be purchased
even if they are more expensive.
D. M. Rawlings, attorney representing Councilman Gardiner, stated, "I was very
surprised to hear the comments that were made about me when I came in this evening.
After over 33 years of law practice, this is the first time that a person who actually is
reporting a potential problem is being accused of inappropriate behavior for reporting
that problem to appropriate persons. I would note that all that we did was we have two
agendas on this evening's, two agendas. There is one in the closed session which is
the discussion of the conduct of the City Manager and the City Manager's performance
and the current matter that's before the City on PV Net and other matters relating to this
report. The issue was what is the appropriate context for certain information that had
come to my attention when I did certain investigations starting last week after I was
contacted by Peter. And there was certain information that came to my attention as a
member of the public and because of Peter's responsibility as a City Councilperson it
was required that this be brought to the attention of the City Attorney and the City
Council and the question was how to do that in the best possible way. It was our view
that the better way was to first start in the closed session and then to move to the open
session, but the City Council disagreed and so we are doing it this way. I would note for
the record that the two people on the City Council where there are issues raised, I don't
say that there is any misconduct I just say issues raised, there are two people on the
City Council who have received free benefit from PV Net. They voted on previous
issues that had to do with PV Net and those two persons are Mr. Long and Mr. Stern.
Last August in 2007, Peter made several suggestions to the City Council that it
consider; those were set forth in an informal report, a report that Peter openly stated to
everyone who received it that he had cut and pasted from several Internet sites and
several sources and that he footnoted. Prior to the meeting, where that was discussed
we now find out through this is an investigation that I conducted over the last week,
there was email traffic between three members of the City Council, Mr. Stern, Mr. Long,
and Mr. Wolowicz. As a result of that email traffic in which the City Manager and the
Finance Director were involved with the involvement of Ted Vegvari, questions were
prepared for the meeting so that Mr. Gardiner and his proposals could be ambushed at
City Council Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 5 of 29
the meeting; so that he could be approached for the first time with information that he
didn't have; so that he could be asked questions that everyone knew that he could not
answer off the cuff; and as a result at the meeting, the merits were not discussed and
for months and months PV Net was not looked at closely. And it is until today in the
report, this wonderful report actually by these consultants that now we have these many
suggestions, good suggestions that are being made. Now what the public didn't know,
and what Peter didn't know until yesterday, what Peter didn't know until yesterday, was
that these same consultants were given Peter's report last August, before the meeting
on August the 21St. They read his report and for the most part, not in every single
respect, for the most part they agreed with it. Why didn't Peter know that they wrote to
the City Manager and agreed with it? Why didn't the entire City Council know that these
very experts had read Peter's report and agreed with it? It's because the City Manager
buried the report, with the agreement of the Finance Director. We have the email traffic
that confirms that this occurred. The report from these consultants agreeing with Peter
was not provided to the City Council as a whole. Meanwhile, the City Manager and the
Finance Director prepared questions that were sent between Mr. Stern and Mr. Long
and then after a communication, an email between them, Mr. Long communicated with
Mr. Wolowicz before the meeting. Mr. Wolowicz appropriately emailed back, saying
have you communicated with any other member of the Council and was told by Mr.
Long in the email `no.' On that basis Mr. Wolowicz went ahead and communicated in
preparation for the meeting and was given material; however, Mr. Stern and Mr. Long
had communicated before the meeting. When I asked Mr. Long why had he not shared
the material also with Peter, he said that would have been a violation of the Brown Act.
He did not explain why it was not a violation of the Brown Act to communicate with Mr.
Wolowicz, but it would have been a violation of the Brown Act to communicate the
information to Peter so that Peter could also prepare for the meeting with the same
information that was being provided the other members of the Council. The net result
was that last August's meeting, the Council as a whole got off the topic, got off the
merits and there was a significant delay beyond the election to address the merits of the
relationship between the City and PV Net. The very issues that Peter Gardiner raised
last August have now been flagged, raised, addressed by this report. Last August,
when two members of the City Council were receiving benefits from a major vendor to
the City, there was discussion and voting by members of the Council, with respect to
that very vendor. Now I don't know what the Conflicts of Interest rules are for this
particular City. I've communicated with the City Attorney and these issues are before
the City Attorney. Mr. Gardiner is going to be making recommendations that the City
adopt clear Conflicts of Interest rules for the City Council, particularly with respect to
what discussions should be had and voting rules should be had in the future if they are
not clear, with respect to members of the City Council when they are receiving benefits
from major vendors with the City. There are certainly questions that members of the
public might raise when members of the City Council are receiving benefits from major
vendors and then are voting in ways to have the public not given information with
respect to the same vendors; with respect to having audits not made of those vendors;
with respect to having actions not taken to have those vendors carefully looked at which
is what Mr. Gardiner was attempting to have done last August, which has now been
delayed for many months as I stated. So this issue is now before the City Attorney. It is
City Council Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 6of29
unfortunate that it had to be to come up in this manner; in fact, because of the email
traffic we had decided that we would, that it was unnecessary for us to say anything at
the meeting, but in light of the fact that the comments were made at the very beginning
of the meeting by the very people who were the people who as to whom issues have
been raised, with respect to their conduct, I feel it's necessary to note for the public the
very issues that were raised. But in addition to that, there's a more fundamental issue
that's missing from the report and that it's absolutely no fault of Management Partners
that it's missing, and that is the following. As a part of the recommendations, the issue
is who will oversee all of these recommendations that have to do with PV Net. It is clear
that the City Manager and the Finance Director, who have primary responsibility for this
relationship, have lost independence in their oversight over this particular vendor. They
have covered for the vendor; they have worked with the vendor in making sure that a
close look has not been"
Councilman Long interjected, "Mr. Mayor, point of order. Now we seem to be
wandering off the agenda item. The speaker has far exceeded his three minutes; we
are now wandering into personnel issues and ad hominem attacks on staff rather than
Council Members. How long will this continue?"
Mayor Stern stated, "If you could keep your remarks to the topic that would be
appreciated."
Mr. Rawlings stated, "And the topic is this."
Councilman Long inquired, "How long do you have, sir? How much more time?"
Mr. Rawlings replied, "I just have a couple of minutes."
Councilman Long moved, seconded by Mayor Stern, to grant the speaker two additional
minutes.
Mr. Rawlings replied, "Thank you, I appreciate that."
Councilman Long stated, "There is a clock over there, sir."
Mr. Rawlings stated, "I note that the issue is who will oversee these particular changes
and these particular recommendations as they are made? There is a need for the
public to know that the people who are overseeing the recommendations and the
changes that are made be people that can be trusted to oversee them and not to be co-
opted by the people that they are overseeing. People who can be called upon to do this
are not people who cover up reports, who withhold reports from the public, who withhold
reports from members of the City Council and who conduct themselves in a manner like
that. Those are not the only facts that have come to our attention in the last week; there
are many others. We don't want to take time during this meeting to bring those to the
attention of the public and we feel it is unnecessary. As a final note, I want to note that I
was not the one who hid the prior management report. I was not the one who sent
City Council Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 7 of 29
emails between three City Councilmen before the August 21St meeting. I was not the
one who blind-sighted Peter at the August 21, 2000[7] meeting and who successfully
put off a close look at PV Net while Management Partners' agreement with Peter's
recommendations was kept from him and from the public. I was not the one who
received free benefits from PV Net and then voted to stop them from being audited. I
feel like this is one of those things that no good deed goes unpunished, but we have
reported what as citizens Peter is required to report. We have done it to the appropriate
people. We have left it in the hands of the City Council; and we trust the City Council
and the City Attorney to do the appropriate thing and we call upon them to do so.
Thank you."
Councilman Long stated, "Mr. Mayor, point of personal privilege."
Mayor Stern stated, "Yes, granted."
Councilman Long thanked Mayor Stern and stated, "Mr. Rawlings, I have no questions
for you obviously, but I certainly do want to thank you for bringing your charges in a
public forum, rather than as you originally suggested as to how you were going to bring
them. Just so"
Councilman Long was interrupted by Mr. Rawlings.
Mayor Stern stated, "The Councilman has the floor, thank you."
Councilman Long stated, "Mr. Rawlings, as was described, suggested to us that the
concerns he just raised, which as you will notice he has not provided evidence for and
to this day I haven't seen his evidence despite asking for it, that the concerns he raised
would be discussed in private, and that all we had to do to keep them private, to keep
them handled quietly, was agree to do what his client, Councilman Gardiner, and his
other client, Gabriella Holt, wanted us to do, although since then he has now told us
Gabriella Holt is not his client. That is, as the Mayor has pointed out, extortion. The
Penal Code is very clear about what extortion is. One of the comments it makes is that
extortion includes trying to obtain an official act of a public officer, and obtaining it either
through threats, or force, or fear. And threatening someone with a criminal violation,
charging someone with a Brown Act violation and trying to seek advantage and obtain a
particular official act in return for it is extortion. I very much appreciate the fact that after
considerable encouragement, it took a number of emails, which I have now made
public, part of which are in the hands of the State Bar and which will ultimately be as
widely disseminated as I can, I would encourage people to read those emails and judge
for themselves what the conduct of Mr. Rawlings was in writing. That conduct has been
reported to the District Attorney and to the State Bar. I am not going to comment on it in
great detail, except to suggest that I will of course cooperate with any investigations that
the State Bar and the District Attorney choose to launch of Mr. Rawlings and/or his
client and their activity in attempted extortion. You should note under the Penal Code
that attempted extortion is considered extortion as well, in other words if you don't
succeed, if you don't get what you wanted, you don't get the official act you were trying
City Council Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 8 of 29
to get, it's still extortion. I won't respond to the ad hominem attacks on staff. They are
entirely out of order. They go beyond the scope of what was in the agenda. The ad
hominem attacks on me, anyone is entitled to say whatever they want about a public
official and unless it can be proven that it was acted, the person knew it was false or
was entirely reckless, there is little the public official can do other than respond. I did
not and I do not speak about the substance of a matter on an agenda item with more
than one Council Member at a time. Now, Mr. Rawlings hasn't laid out his specifics, but
I believe what I did in this case was provided to the Mayor, then Mayor Pro Tem Mr.
Stern, the portions of the website that Councilman Gardiner had omitted from his report
of August 21. And as I recall, the Mayor Pro Tem indicated that he could not discuss
the matter with me, he had already discussed it with another Council Member. I then
forwarded the same materials to Councilman Wolowicz. I don't recall any substantive
discussion with Councilman Wolowicz. I did not forward the materials to Councilman
Gardiner. They were full copies of the website that he himself had gone to as the
source of his study which was virtually copied word for word, the majority of it, from that
study with key conclusions left out. The report you heard tonight on IT does not
vindicate Councilman Gardiner's position. I did not vote against the audit; I voted
against the very study we have had here. I was concerned that we were being urged to
go out to bid without having an understanding of whether we were ready. The study
shows that we were not ready. We were not ready any more than we were ready to go
out to bid the fiasco we had with waste hauling, where we went out to bid.
Unfortunately I voted in favor of that, where we spent $100,000 preparing specifications
for a bid only to have the price brought back as 100 percent increase. I trusted
Councilman Gardiner's judgment at that time in encouraging us to do that. The report
here indicates not that a proper threshold or benchmark for IT spending is 2 percent of
the budget as Councilman Gardiner had urged, it indicates, and that was from a study
that Councilman Gardiner took that looked at institutions with 50 million or more a year.
Instead it indicates, as was just reported, the threshold is 3 to 6 percent. In any event,
we can discuss all of these details more in a workshop, and I think we should. In sum,
Mr. Rawlings has gone about his presentation, in my view, in a completely improper
way. His charges are unsubstantiated, insubstantial, completely false and misleading. I
did not violate the Brown Act. I did not receive free benefits that create a conflict of
interest from PV on the Net. I received a free email address available to everyone in
the Palos Verdes Peninsula and I have a number of free email addresses I get from my
Internet providers. I received a free webpage offered to every candidate for City
Council and to a number of non-profits on the Peninsula, without regard to who they
are. Those are the free benefits that I received. These ad hominem attacks on myself,
my fellow Council Members, are outrageous and they are an effort by one Council
Member through the use of an attorney to bludgeon and intimidate the rest of us to
make himself a majority of one."
Mayor Stern stated, "Yes, Councilman Gardiner."
Councilman Gardiner stated, "As the residents can no doubt tell this is a lively
discussion we are having. I would like to set the record straight once and for all on the
trash contract, which Councilman Long continually brings up. If you go back and look at
City Council Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 9of29
the minutes you will find when the Council first discussed the trash contract, I was the
only Councilman who questioned whether we needed to go out for bid again. The
Council in its wisdom formed a subcommittee. I was a member of that subcommittee
along with Mayor Stern. We carried out our charge. We came back and reported. The
person who made the motion, the person who made the motion to go out on an RFP
was Tom Long. It certainly is unreasonable to assume that one person can direct the
Council to go out on an RFP, as anyone who has been a witness of these meetings; it
takes three votes to get anything done. It's hardly fair to say it's all my fault. I would like
to respond to the rest of Councilman Long's questions through my attorney, Chip
Rawlings, and I'd ask him to come to the microphone to respond on my behalf."
Mayor Stern commented, "Well, I think it's appropriate for you as an elected official to
answer."
Councilman Gardiner interjected and stated, "I think it's appropriate to have me have my
spokesman, my attorney, respond."
Mayor Stern responded, "I will give him time if you, if that's how you need it."
Councilman Gardiner answered, "I do."
Mayor Stern stated, "I will recognize Chip Rawlings as counsel for Councilman
Gardiner."
Mr. Rawlings stated, "I would note that the statement that I provided no basis and
support is absolutely incorrect and Mr. Long knows it. He's not provided a full set of the
interchanges. I provided the support including the email traffic in the citations to the City
Attorney; she knows of those citations. I've provided the support for it; I've not made
just vague allegations. I've noted to her the issues. She said she's investigating them
and looking into them. I have not said anything that isn't supported by a specific
document. When I say that there was an email from these experts to the City Manager
that supports Peter's findings, in light of the fact that I've been accused of not
supporting it, I would now quote."
Mayor Stern inquired, "Could you identify the specific date and time just so we have that
in the record?"
Mr. Rawlings responded, "Actually, let me get it."
Mayor Pro Tem Clark inquired of Mayor Stern if there would be a time limit for the
comments.
Mayor Stern replied, "No, I'm not going to put a time limit on this gentleman. Obviously,
Councilman Gardiner wishes him to speak for Councilman Gardiner, and I will allow it.
Perhaps you should run for City Council."
City Council Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 10 of 29
Mr. Rawlings stated, "This is an email from A. Belknap at managementpartners.com,
Friday, August 17, 2007, 11:06 a.m. to Carolyn Lehr, with copies to Jan Perkins and
David Jensen, Subject: IT Issue, Follow-Up Flag Follow-Up Flag Status Red.
`Carolyn, Some comments regarding the issue of moving directly to request proposals
for outsourcing IT and use of the citizen's committee. (This by the way is August 17th,
the meeting as I note was on August the 21st.)
1. At first blush the total IT costs for RPV, including the $200,000 in outsourced
labor costs do appear relatively high. However this may well be a function of the
manner in which costs are categorized and/or service levels, for example a
relatively high level of on-line functionality. An assessment phase would provide
an opportunity to complete a more meaningful comparison against peer
organizations. In any event Councilmember Gardiner's flagging of the cost issue
as something requiring further analysis seems valid.
2. The Councilmember also makes some helpful and cogent points in regards to
some of the benefits of outsourcing IT functions. We have found that the rate of
change in the industry is such that keeping skills current and maintaining access
to the right skill sets is often easier by contracting via a larger service provider.
He also is correct in recommending that any service contract include relevant
and enforceable performance metrics....something you are also well aware of.
Now I could go on, but this report' "
Mayor Stern replied, "Please do; let's hear the whole email."
Mr. Rawlings queried, "You want to hear the whole thing?"
Mayor Stern replied, "I do; I gather there is more?"
Mr. Rawlings stated, "This goes on for pages."
Mayor Stern replied, "Well, you are suggesting that we didn't get the benefit of it.
Please keep reading."
Mr. Rawlings responded, "Okay."
Councilman Long stated, "It is nice to look at things in context, sir."
Mr. Rawlings replied, "Okay" and continued with the following:
"3. The 2% spending rule is not particularly meaningful or helpful in this discussion.
For example, it is not clear what is meant by "total revenues". (By the way I
would note that they said 2-4%, and I would note that 6 percent is the high end.
And again you're quibbling with the data instead of the substantive
recommendations he made, but let me keep going.) Most IT experts would
City Council Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 11 of 29
agree that you need to compare with industry peers, since the level of technology
utilization varies greatly from industry to industry. (By the way I note that nobody
on the Council received this. Peter didn't receive it; nobody received it.) Based
on actual observations and discussions with IT managers we would say the
typical range for city IT budgets would be 3-6% of basic `Operations and
Maintenance Budget.' State and Federal Government is in the range of 5-8%
although even higher in certain branches. Private sector is usually expressed in
5-9% of operating costs, with certain industries as high as 12%. `Operations and
Maintenance Budget' in the local government context would mean GF, plus any
cost centers such as community development, recreation, utility operations, and
any CIP funding for IT acquisitions and replacements. It does not include gas tax,
grants, the redevelopment, or CIP generally.
4. A major weakness in just going out to bid is that it would expose less than %/2 of
the total IT costs to any kind of market test, and the City runs the risk of entering
into a contract which might `lock in' other inefficiencies not directly related to
outsourced labor. This is why an assessment followed by the development of
specifications would yield more optimal results. Again the ideas regarding a
performance based contracting approach are good, but any subsequent RFP can
be improved and the final results made better for the City if an assessment is
completed first.
[5.]The use of a committee is problematic. Citizen committees are usually most
valuable in dealing with issues relating to community identity and dynamics, not
in dealing with business issues. Contrary to what one might think, properly
supporting a citizens committee is relatively expensive and this cost is over and
above costs associated with dealing with the business problem at hand.
Assuming that a business [citizens] committee can function with little or no
support from the City and that volunteer labor will address the business issue the
City is seeking to solve is unrealistic. At best the end result would be a relatively
slow and expensive way to address what is[a] fairly straight forward business
problem.
6. Many of the Councilmember's comments are helpful and can be incorporated
going forward. However the City would be advantaged by completing a
comprehensive assessment so that it can maximize the opportunities for savings
in connection with the process."
Mayor Stern stated, "Thank you, Mr. Rawlings, I do have a question of you. Did you
understand that when we rejected the approach proposed by Councilman Gardiner,
which was go immediately out to bid, we opted for the very assessment which these
people apparently recommended in that email? Did you not understand that?"
Mr. Rawlings replied, "I understood, and do understand, that an overall assessment was
made. I also understand that this report was not given to the entire Council."
City Council Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 12 of 29
Mayor Stern stated, "Do you understand, I heard a number of times, and we can ask
these gentlemen, the gentleman, that he was recommending the assessment, the very
thing that the majority of the Council opted to do, the very thing that we have in front of
us now, so I am a little hard-pressed to understand why you say that Peter's suggestion
in August to immediately go out to bid is supported by that email, and you called it a
report, but I gather it's an email, but I think you've probably answered my question, and
I don't want to belabor."
Mr. Rawlings stated, "But you are trying to characterize what Peter suggested was
going immediately out to bid; that was not what he only suggested. He gave a number
of alternatives. One of the alternatives was to put some or all of the matters out to bid.
He also had, by the way if you go into the entire history; he had suggested over time
that there be an audit. He had suggested that there be an assessment. Over time
there were varying alternatives and various things that had come up before the Council
at various moments in time, each of them at each moment, rejected and put off. And if
you cover the history, in fact, the history of the relationship with PV on the Net is a
history of a delay over a substantial period of time, where finally this report is now here,
and this City has the report. But the point that I'm making here, is that there's one thing
that the people who prepared this report today don't know about, and that is that there
was back traffic of emails, showing that the City Manager and the Finance Director, who
are responsible for this relationship, were involved in withholding information from
certain of the members of the City Council. And that they were also involved in other
issues which I've raised with the City Attorney, which I don't need to sit here and cover
in detail. The issue therefore is, who's watching the store and is it appropriate to have
those people solely responsible for overseeing the implementation of all the
recommendations including the financial recommendations that are being made with
respect to PV Net, particularly with respect to what may be a one year period, where PV
Net says that it's operating and giving these services on a non-profit basis to the City,
but where there are certain indicators that are such that would indicate to those who
know; by the way, I've been involved in four Internet conversions, about half my cases
are software and Internet type lawsuits. I deal with experts in the area on a constant
basis."
Mayor Stern inquired, "Where are we going? Is that on this topic? I mean, I'll give you
all the room you want, but I don't want to hear about your law firm."
Mr. Rawlings replied "It is on the topic. On the topic is that there are certain indicators
here to indicate that there are services here that may be overpriced. There needs to be
an audit. There needs to be somebody watching the store; the issue is who to do it.
And given that the people who are so close to the process that they are withholding
information from City Council people, the issue is, are they the right people to be
overseeing this process. But, I'll note again that the idea that it's extortion and accusing
Peter or his counsel of extortion, for giving a choice of trying to figure out, okay, do we
do this in the context of the assessment of the conduct or the work of the City Manager
or in the context of this particular issue when the two are intertwined is simply a
misstatement. And what you've done is you've taken one part of the email traffic,
City Council Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 13 of 29
because I have communicated at great length with the City Attorney as well. And that's
completely unfair and it's a completely unfair characterization. The issue isn't whether it
would be reported because this is information that needed to be reported, and that there
was an obligation to report. It was just a question of how to report it in the most
appropriate manner possible and how to get the facts before the appropriate people so
they could be properly investigated."
Mayor Stern queried, "Could I just ask a question along that line? And I appreciate your
comments. The email traffic between you and the rest of the Council Members over this
weekend; you probably sent at least a half a dozen. Were you acting for Peter Gardiner
in that capacity at all times? That is what I understood."
Mr. Rawlings replied, "I was reporting to the Council information, because again"
Mayor Stern interjected, "Let me make it cleaner. In one of those emails you suggested
that you were his proxy, I think was your word; and that your presence in closed session
would not violate the Brown Act, would not be the same as just having an outsider
present. Were you his proxy at all times, to use your word?"
Mr. Rawlings replied, "I think that that's a discussion I should be having with the City
Attorney."
Mayor Stern responded, "Okay."
Councilman Long inquired, "Well, let me ask, if I may Mr. Mayor, a question. Were you
his proxy in the context of, of asking us to act in a certain way?"
Mr. Rawlings inquired, "Do you mean am I making a suggestion?"
Councilman Long replied, "In the email traffic. I only have the emails you sent me. I
don't have the ones you sent to the City Attorney that you didn't copy me on. In the
emails you sent me, were you Councilman Gardiner's proxy, in suggesting that I should
vote a certain way in order to keep things private, sir?"
Mr. Rawlings responded, "I didn't ask you to vote in a certain way, in order to keep
things private."
Councilman Long said, "I know you're back-peddling now, but that's, my question is, in
your emails to me, were you Councilman Gardiner's proxy?"
Mr. Rawlings replied, "I never, never, when you characterize things that way. I know that
you throw stones; I know that you call people names, Mr. Long, but I never made such a
suggestion. What I was suggesting was an orderly way to approach making issues
known to the appropriate people. And the appropriate and orderly way given that there
were issues raised with respect to individuals as well as to the relationship with PV Net,
in my opinion the orderly way would have been to do it in closed session then in the
City Council Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 14 of 29
open session, but the City Council wanted it done in this particular way, and that's the
way it's being done."
Mayor Stern stated, "Just for the record, I would point out, when I received your email
making the accusations of conspiracy to cover up, conspiracy to violate the Brown Act."
Mr. Rawlings interjected, "I didn't make those accusations, as accusations."
Mayor Stern stated, "Please."
Mr. Rawlings stated, "I said that there may be issues raised, if you'll read it very
carefully, you'll see."
Mayor Stern stated, "At that point, I directed you in an email to bring all such evidence
to the attention of the City Attorney, did I not?"
Mr. Rawlings replied, "Yes, and I have."
Mayor Stern added, "And I appreciate that you have done so. Thank you. That is the
proper way to deal with it, rather than suggest that we need to rearrange our agenda, go
into closed session and quietly, your words, quietly work this out. Let me, thank you, I
appreciate your comments."
Mayor Stern addressed staff with the following questions. He inquired, "With respect to
the email he read, there was a reference in there to $200,000 per year sounding high.
Now, we as the majority voted to have you do this assessment, which at least as I
understood the email was what your recommendation was, not to do what Peter said.
But, is the $200,000 reference in that email in August to the service cost analysis which
I see at page 52 of the report? The reason I ask is because after pointing out that PV
on the Net charges us $40 an hour, which has not been raised since 1998. You then,
on the lower half of page 52 say `assuming an average hourly charge of$45 for PV Net,
the $164,566 tech support charge reported in 2007 is equivalent to 3657 hours of labor.'
You then do the analysis as to what it would cost us if we did that on our own and you
say `PV Net's hourly rates are competitive with both the general service market and
internal staff. For the City to provide the same labor would require a junior and a senior
level technician at a cost approximately $50,000 more than PV Net.' Now, my question,
long-winded: Is that $200,000 figure what ended up being the roughly the $165,000
which is according to you a $50,000 savings to the City because of how we do it?"
Mr. Jensen responded, "At the time we received the $200,000 estimate, it was an off the
cuff estimate by the Finance Director, so it does correspond to the expected labor that
would have been acquired from PV Net in that time."
Mayor Stern inquired, "So, when you did the final analysis, am I correct in saying, your
final analysis on that topic was we are $50,000 ahead because of what we had done?"
City Council Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 15 of 29
Mr. Jensen replied, "Well, in the hourly labor that you acquire, you are paying for
effectively two FTEs. But there are a number of other charges that PV Net is charging
you for, email service, and filing service, and backup; there is a whole variety of them
listed in the report."
Mayor Stern stated, "But, I am trying to compare apples to apples because Mr.
Rawlings read from an email that said $200,000 sounds high. I am trying to find out, is
this the same category such that I have now your complete report and you are telling
me I saved $50,000?"
Mr. Belknap replied, "I, it's been awhile since that was back in August when we wrote
that. I would have to go back and look at exactly what I was reacting to, but I think what
you have there is just an example of how we were trying to scope this project to meet
your needs. I think the City Manager was asking us the right questions and"
Mayor Stern inquired, "Was that a complete report, or was that, well, give me the
context in which that was written."
Mr. Belknap responded, "We were attempting to write this scope of work and we were
trying to figure out what way was the best for the City to approach the analysis of its IT
function, which we did and my impression was that Carolyn was just sharing information
with us so that we could write a better scope. That's all we were doing."
Mayor Stern stated, "I am going to recognize the City Manager since Mr. Rawlings has
engaged in conduct that I find a little bit unsatisfactory to say the least."
City Manager Lehr stated, "I think I can clarify several points. And I think I'm led to
understand that the entire scope of the wrongdoing on staff's part, I guess, has to do
with `withholding' this one set of comments, the email that was sent to me by Andy."
Mayor Stern stated, "It was prepared to scope the work in advance of it."
City Manager Lehr stated, "And let me clarify this. The point is that Councilman
Gardiner, which is his right, chose to write what essentially is normally a staff report. He
wanted to write his own report, present his facts and figures and make certain
recommendations, completely outside of staff involvement."
Mayor Stern inquired, "Did he direct it that way? I'll get to you, Councilman."
City Manager Lehr replied, "Councilman Gardiner determined that he wished to
approach the subject himself. He wished to provide the staff report, what I would say
staff report; but then, it's obviously not a staff report, it was his agenda report. The staff
was not involved in that issue. He did send me an email when he sent over the draft
report for the agenda and it indicates, `Here is my agenda report. Anyone can submit
any additional material, or contrary material; but, please do not alter my report, unless I
have made a computational error. And even then, please get my permission. The only
City Council Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 16 of 29
number I am not sure of is the number of full time equivalent RPV [employees] currently
has. I used 50 as the number.' I then responded back to Councilman Gardiner, `Hello
Peter.' (And this is prior to the report coming to the Council) `one thing I thought I would
clarify from what I read in your IT report is that the City already outsources a large
portion of its IT services, of course to PV on the Net. There are other points relating to
the report that I would be happy to share with you, if you want to give me a call or email
me. As we discussed, please let me know if there are any other issues with the other
Council reports. Thanks, Carolyn.' " She continued with, "The fact is that the
subsequent discussion, or that his email returned back to me, did not ask what were the
other points that you were interested in. This was not a trick. It's just that I have a
pretty good sense of when my comments are welcome and when they are not welcome.
And there is a difference and I think I read the differences pretty accurately. Now, I did
not attach the report, or the email, from Management Partners for the following reasons.
They were getting ready to interview for this engagement. They were not engaged with
the City. They had done no research whatsoever. They were preparing to interview
and I was attempting to tell them about the City and the various issues that we
experience. One of those issues, of course, was the debate about IT; cost; how the
services are provided; debate about whether we should go out to bid, etc. In order to
give them a sense of what the debate was, even within the City Council, I provided them
with Councilman Gardiner's draft report that was going to be coming up to the Council
for discussion. This is so that they could prepare, and that I was anticipating that in
their interview they would be asked about IT services. I wanted them to understand
what the issues were in our City so that they could respond intelligently, particularly to
Councilman Gardiner's questions about IT. I did not ask Andy Belknap, correct Andy,
for a response. I did not ever ask him for a response; however, they did offer their
comments in any case. You can see that the comments are very mixed. You can see
that he points out the positives about Councilman Gardiner's points in his reports. They
pointed out deficiencies in the report as well as the bottom line recommendation that we
would immediately go out to bid, immediately, using perhaps, a group of volunteer
residents to do so. I felt that that was something they should be prepared for. And that
was the extent of it. My efforts had nothing to do with attempting to bury any
information. My input was not requested and it would not have been welcome. So, it
was not appropriate that I bring to the fore comments from a group that had not even
started the study yet. If this is what amounts to burying a report, then I leave it stand.
It's, I'm sorry, I find it insulting. It's absurd."
Deputy City Manager Petru queried, "May I remind the City Manager that she also
provided the same report to the other firm that was also to be interviewed by the
Council?"
City Manager Lehr stated, "I did. I also submitted the same IT report to the other firm
that was interviewing for the position. Nothing was withheld."
Mayor Stern stated, "One simple comment, then I will let Peter Gardiner [speak]. A
comment like that in advance of a report is hardly a study. I find it very disturbing that
City Council Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 17 of 29
Mr. Rawlings will level the charges that he has, in light of that situation. Councilman
Gardiner, you have the floor and then we will take a break."
Councilman Gardiner stated, "I would just like to review. My understanding was I had
requested that the IT item be put on the agenda and in discussing with the City
Manager, I had understood that you were delighted, and in fact were in favor of me
writing the report, since I had requested it and it would take the burden off your staff."
City Manager Lehr responded, "I made no such judgment."
Councilman Gardiner replied, "Well, then your recollection is different than mine.
Number two, when I submitted the report, I submitted it early. And I said, anybody else
got anything to say, add it. That's in the email. I can hardly be expected to ask for a
document that I don't know exists. Had that document been circulated around the night
we discussed it, I probably would have changed my recommendation. I gave five
options, and based on what I knew at the time I thought maybe this one particular option
was better. But if I had had that document, we could have come up with a different
recommendation. So, the point is, I think the Council Members, all Council Members
are entitled to information. All Council Members are entitled to the same information
rather than selectively having the information, or not having it at all. I have a question
for Management Partners on Page 41."
City Manager Lehr inquired, "Mr. Mayor, can I make a clarification?"
Mayor Stern replied, "Yes."
City Manager Lehr stated, "The comments from Management Partners that we're talking
about that I buried, that it was not provided to any Council Members."
Mayor Stern stated, "I was going to say, none of us saw that."
City Manager Lehr stated, "No one did because it would have been inappropriate
coming from folks who had not yet studied the issue."
Mayor Stern stated, "Thank you, go ahead Councilman."
Councilman Gardiner stated, "By the way, staff did prepare some information, and other
information was prepared, but it was not circulated before the meeting like I did. I
circulated everything I had to say so people could comment. That same courtesy was
not extended to me. The information did not get to me until the night of the meeting
when I had no chance to say anything or prepare. On page 41, am I reading the chart
correctly? And I don't mean to get you all in the middle of the crossfire. We are having
a disagreement; and, I don't mean to get you caught in the crossfire. The desk-side
service support $230,000 for Rancho Palos Verdes, then the next most expensive is
$117,000 and then it drops off from there. Now I noticed the number of PCs is 85, but
my understanding was we had 50, roughly 50 employees. And you have down here in
City Council Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 18 of 29
your notes, 15-25 PCs that are not common to other cities, so it seems to me we need
to interpret very carefully what this table means. But doesn't that mean that we are
paying $230,000 when other cities are paying $117,000, and if you subtracted out those
15 or 25 PCs that were not common we'd get down to the range of other cities, which
are paying $79,000 for example? Or am I misreading the chart?"
Mr. Jensen replied, "PCs are a large component of that but network devices are also a
significant component and other infrastructure."
Councilman Gardiner replied, "Understood. Yes, that would be the same for all cities,
right?"
Mr. Jensen replied, "Well, it would have to be the same to be roughly comparable. But,
in addition to all of that, there are the business applications that are run on these
systems and that varies from city to city, as well. Some cities have very small software
inventories and others have more complex, which is what I was alluding to with my
comments about the Financial System."
Councilman Gardiner replied, "I understand, but did you see in our budget that the
maintenance of the software issues, some of the software that is run is carried on other
budgets?"
Mr. Jensen replied, "We didn't have boots on the ground in those other cities, so we
can't tell you what's on there."
Councilman Gardiner responded, "No, in our city."
Mr. Jensen replied, "Well we know what's in your inventory, but we don't know, for
example, what's in Laguna Hills, Lomita, Palos Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills Estates."
Councilman Gardiner replied, "Yes, same kind of trouble I ran into trying to do
comparisons."
Mr. Jensen stated, "Benchmarks can only be the start of a conversation."
RECESS AND RECONVENE:
Mayor Stern called a brief recess from 8:42 P.M. to 8:53 P.M.
Councilman Long moved, seconded by Mayor Stern, to amend the agenda to hear the
Ceremonial item next.
Without objection, Mayor Stern so ordered.
CEREMONIAL:
City Council Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 19 of 29
Commendation of Susan Kurata
Lt. Jason Lum, Lomita Sheriff's Department, presented a commendation to Susan
Kurata for her assistance in recent burglary arrests in her neighborhood.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Stern announced that this meeting was dedicated in the honor of Los Angeles
Police Department SWAT Officer Randy Simmons, a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes,
who lost his life in the line of duty on February 7, 2008. He read an excerpt from an
article in the Daily Breeze regarding Officer Simmons.
Mayor Pro Tem Clark called Officer Randy Simmons a hero and stated that he would
like to see a naming opportunity in the City to honor him.
Councilman Long commented that the loss of Officer Simmons was an extraordinary
tragedy.
RESUME DISCUSSION OF ITEM NO. 8:
Organization-Wide Management Assessment Final Report (1101)
Mayor Stern noted that he had indicated prior to the recess that Councilman Long could
speak and that he hoped a motion would follow to set a date for a workshop to address
the issues.
Councilman Long stated, "I just wanted to note that the email that was read to us, that
just heard for the first time; I do not in any way feel that it was suppressed or hidden
from me in any way. I think the City Manager has explained her actions, and they were
appropriate, and the email strikes me as being nothing more than a discussion of scope
of work very similar to the discussion that we had at the August 21st meeting. And I
think it's particularly noteworthy that when Mr. Rawlings was reading the email, he
stopped partway through and omitted the very portions of the scope of work that a
number of us discussed, that raised concerns that have been discussed earlier. I am
glad we were able to encourage him to set the proper context by reading the entire
email. I stand by my accusations regarding Mr. Rawlings' misconduct and I sincerely
hope that it will be examined by both the State Bar and the District Attorney. I hope and
pray that the answer to my question Was he Councilman Gardiner's proxy?' which he
didn't answer, is that he wasn't. Perhaps someday we'll learn the answer to that
question. In any event, I've looked through the emails he cited; I've given them along
with all of the emails I received from him and my complaint to the State Bar of
California. The complaint was two pages, the emails with Mr. Rawlings and emails he
cites are dozens of pages to the press and I intend to make them available to the public.
I hope and trust now that there will be a recognition that these issues have been aired
publically and can be examined publically, that we can move on and get back to work."
City Council Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 20 of 29
City Manager Lehr stated, "Mr. Mayor, just to make it be known that the City Clerk has
several copies of the entire set of emails that have been referred to. And we wanted to
bring them to the meeting in their entirety so that anyone wishing to view them can do
so. I don't know how many copies we have left, probably enough for most people who
may request it. And if there are any others that are requested, I'm sure that if we have
their name given to the City Clerk, that we can provide those copies, perhaps tomorrow.
We will make some additional copies available."
Mayor Stern stated, "Thank you. And I didn't want my silence to the accusations made
by Mr. Rawlings to mean I agree with what he said. I think people understand I
vehemently disagree with his accusations against me. I will not waste more time
addressing it at this point."
Ted Vegvari, Rancho Palos Verdes, PV NET, presented a slide show on the portion of
the results of the Management Partners report concerning PV NET. He addressed all of
the report's recommendations and highlighted PV NET's benefit to the community.
Council discussion included the following topics: the origin of the contractual
relationship with the City and PV NET and how the indefinite term had transpired; the
thorough review of the issues related to IT resulting in 1/5 of the recommendations
included in the Management Report to be related to this topic, even though this function
made up only 6% of the City's budget; and the City's dependency on PV NET.
Suzanne Wright, Rancho Palos Verdes, inquired if the comprehensive assessment of IT
services by Management Partners included a full audit. She inquired about the financial
software used by the City and who would be responsible for the plan and timeline
regarding the separation of the City from PV NET.
Richard K. Smith, Rancho Palos Verdes, asked that Senior Analyst Gyves continue to
handle issues related to emergency preparedness.
Mayor Pro Tem Clark moved, seconded by Councilman Long, to set a date for a
Council Workshop to discuss the recommendations of the Organization-Wide
Management Assessment Final Report with Management Partners Incorporated.
Without objection, Mayor Stern so ordered.
RECESS AND RECONVENE:
Mayor Stern called a brief recess from 9:50 P.M. to 10:00 P.M.
RECYCLE DRAWING:
Mayor Stern announced Recyclers of the Month from the February 5, 2008 City Council
meeting, Marcelo Stame and Cole and Alec Rubin. He indicated that all winners
City Council Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page21 of 29
receive a check for $250 representing a year of free refuse service and urged everyone
to participate in the City's recycling program.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Michael O'Sullivan, Rancho Palos Verdes, wanted the record to be corrected to show
him as compliant with the Council's resolution regarding View Restoration Permit No.
161.
Al and Barbara Sattler, Rancho Palos Verdes, expressed appreciation for Mayor Pro
Tem Clark in his leadership role as a Coastal Commissioner in defeating the proposed
toll road through State Park land in the Orange County area.
Alan Walti, Rancho Palos Verdes, representing the Surfrider Foundation, expressed
appreciation for Mayor Pro Tem Clark's efforts in defeating the proposed toll road.
Mayor Pro Tem Clark explained that the item being referred to was the proposed
extension of Orange County Toll. Road 241, which was proposed to run through State
Park land in Orange County. He added that the California Coastal Commission meeting
concerning that item was very long and attendance was between 3,500 to 4,000.
Bill Van Den Hoek, Rancho Palos Verdes, spoke about ongoing traffic calming efforts in
the Strathmore area. He reported residents in the Strathmore area had been requesting
speed humps on four of the neighborhood streets for over three years and they had
been advised that due to budget constraints there may not be funds available to install
them. He asked the Council reconsider the installation of the speed humps in the area.
Suzanne Campi-Lundin, Rancho Palos Verdes, spoke regarding ongoing traffic calming
efforts in the Strathmore area, noting the matter was a safety issue as the area is a
highly traveled residential neighborhood.
Hanson Kwock, Rancho Palos Verdes, spoke regarding the need for traffic calming
efforts in the Strathmore area citing concern for children.
Oscar Esteban, Rancho Palos Verdes, spoke regarding traffic calming in the Strathmore
area, stating that the approved cost of$60,000 for speed humps by the Traffic Safety
Commission was inflated.
Frank D'Ambrosi, Rancho Palos Verdes, spoke regarding traffic calming in the
Strathmore area asserting that the residents had been working on a solution to the
problem since 1998. He added that the slurry seal of the streets in the area had been a
factor in the delay of the installation of the speed humps.
Ralph Shack, Chairman, Palos Verdes Citizens for Public Safety, Rancho Palos Verdes,
spoke regarding continued power outages in the Country Club subdivision area and his
City Council Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 22 of 29
organization's efforts with Southern California Edison to solve the problem. He asked
for the Council's support in the matter.
Scott Goble, Southern California Edison (SCE), provided an update on SCE's efforts to
fix the power outage problem in the Country Club and surrounding areas and
announced that SCE anticipated a completion date of April 1, 2008 for the project.
CITY MANAGER REPORT:
City Manager Lehr reported on the receipt of a new Public Records Act request made
on February 2, 2008, by Grey Williams.
Councilman Wolowicz moved, seconded by Councilman Long, to amend the agenda to
move Item 11 forward for consideration.
Without objection, Mayor Stern so ordered.
Water Quality and Flood Protection (WQFP) Program — Scope and Purpose of
Oversight Committee (602)
Councilman Long moved, seconded by Mayor Stern, to waive the staff report and hear
public speakers concerning the item.
Frank Lyon, Chair of the Storm Drain Oversight Committee, Rancho Palos Verdes,
reported on the differing views of the Committee members regarding the scope and
purpose of the Oversight Committee, stating that the majority agreed with the staff
recommendation.
John A. Constantino, Storm Drain Oversight Committee Member, Rancho Palos
Verdes, asserted that he believed the intent of the voters and the City Council in the
establishment of the Oversight Committee was to assess the reasonableness of the
storm drain expenditures; he inquired if the Committee would have the ability to review
the project priorities and have access to expenditure data.
Lowell R. Wedemeyer, Storm Drain Oversight Committee Member, Rancho Palos
Verdes, stated that the Council should consider the benefits of the expansion of the role
of the Oversight Committee in order to make use of an efficient tool to assist both staff
and the City Council.
Council and staff discussion included the following topics: the expanded role of the
Committee in possibly causing disruption of or conflict with staff; possible duplication of
efforts of the Financial Advisory Committee; allocation of additional staff time to
accommodate the expanded role of the Committee; and, setting of guidelines
establishing that the Committee would only consider the prioritization of future projects.
City Council Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 23 of 29
Councilman Long moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Clark, to expand the role of the
Storm Drain Oversight Committee to provide input on expenditures and the prioritization
of projects, providing: 1) examination of priorities would not include budget items other
than the funding for this program; and, 2) that additional staff time necessary for
additional meetings would be provided.
Further Council and staff discussion included the following issues: the proposed motion
as an additional layer of bureaucracy; unintended consequences of an expansion of the
role of the Oversight Committee; the prioritization of projects; and, the need for a
decision to determine the charter of the Storm Drain Oversight Committee.
Director McLean questioned the need to include a process to review project priorities in
light of the fact that only a few construction projects will be conducted over the next
several years.
Councilman Long amended his motion to indicate that the Oversight Committee's role
expansion would not be effective until the after the June 2009 Rate Hearing, and that
the City Attorney would bring a revised resolution to the Council for approval. Mayor
Pro Tem Clark agreed to the amendment as the seconder of the motion.
Ken Dyda, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that the committee was an Oversight
Committee, not an Advisory Committee and their function should be to make certain the
funds.
Frank Lyon, Rancho Palos Verdes, asserted that the professional staff could handle the
prioritization of projects, which in most cases would be determined by the forces of
nature. He opined that expansion of the Oversight Committee's role would not be
productive.
John Constantino, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that the intent in expanding the
Oversight Committee's role was not to create conflict.
Councilmember Long restated the motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Clark, to adopt
Minority Report provisions with direction to staff to return with a recommendation on
staffing needs so that no projects are delayed and the Oversight Committee has the
ability to examine the reasonableness and the priority of projects not yet in the planning
stage, effective with the process rate hearing in 2009.
The motion carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Clark, Gardiner, Long
NOES: Wolowicz and Mayor Stern
Mayor Stern moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Clark, to amend the agenda to move
up Item 10.
City Council Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 24 of 29
Without objection, Mayor Stern so ordered.
Lessons Learned: Channel 33 (305)
City Clerk Morreale reported that late correspondence regarding this item was
distributed prior to the meeting.
Michael Freedman, Telecommunications Management Corp., presented the results of
his firm's report with the aide of a Powerpoint presentation.
Council discussion included praise and support for the report and its conclusions.
Council asked staff questions regarding the manner in which the recommendations of
the report would be integrated with those of Management Partners.
Mayor Pro Tem Clark moved, seconded by Councilman Long, to receive the report
findings and direct staff to incorporate the guidelines into City Council Policies, the
Administrative Manual and Channel 33 Policies for future adoption.
The motion carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Clark, Gardiner, Long, Wolowicz, and Mayor Stern
NOES: None
NEW BUSINESS:
APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:
Councilman Long moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Clark, to approve the Consent
Calendar with Item 5 removed from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration.
The motion carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Clark, Gardiner, Long, Wolowicz, and Mayor Stern
NOES: None
EMERGENCY STORM DRAIN PROJECT:
Mossbank Storm Drain Rehabilitation (1204 X 604)
Reviewed and reconfirmed by a four/fifths (4/5) vote, the Council's previous action on
August 21, 2007, authorizing staff to proceed with emergency repairs to the Mossbank
Drive Storm Drain.
OTHER CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS:
Motion to Waive Full Reading
City Council Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 25 of 29
Adopted a motion to waive reading in full of all ordinances presented at this meeting
with consent of the waiver of reading deemed to be given by all Council Members after
the reading of the title.
Approval of the Minutes 301
Approved the Minutes of the November 20, 2007 and December 4, 2007 Regular
Meetings.
2007 Annual Report on the Implementation of the Rancho Palos Verdes Housing
Element (701)
Directed Staff to forward the City's Annual Progress Report on the implementation of
the Rancho Palos Verdes Housing Element for the 2007 calendar year to the
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
2006-2007 Annual Report on the Implementation of the Rancho Palos Verdes
General Plan (701)
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration.
Extension to Lease Agreement with Verizon Wireless Associated with the
Monopole at City Hall (1601)
1) Approved the Third Amendment to the Lease Agreement with Verizon Wireless to
extend the term of the agreement to June 30, 2009; and, 2) Directed staff to bring back
an amendment to the Lease Agreement with AT&T Wireless prior to August 31, 2008 to
extend the term of the agreement to June 30, 2009.
Register of Demands
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2008-12, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND
DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.
# # # # # #
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
None.
PAUSE TO CONSIDER THE REMAINDER OF THE AGENDA:
REGULAR NEW BUSINESS:
City Council Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 26 of 29
Letter in Support of Senate Bill S.1499 (310)
Mayor Pro Tern Clark moved to waive the staff report.
Council discussion of the item included the following issues: health consequences
related to the Marine Vessel Emissions Reduction Act; the assertion that the pollution
problem has increased to a national and international level with the Mexican port in Baja
California being a major concern; and, the assertion that the problem was difficult to
address as the ocean-going vessels that were the main polluters were governed by
international treaties.
Mayor Pro Tern Clark moved, seconded by Mayor Stern, to approve the letter to
Senators Boxer and Feinstein supporting the Marine Vessel Emissions Reduction Act.
The motion carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Clark, Gardiner, Long, Wolowicz, and Mayor Stern
NOES: None
Reprogramming Engineering Storm Drain Plan Funds (602 x 604)
Councilman Long moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Clark, to waive the staff report
and adopt the staff recommendation to replace the 2007 Tactical Goal Milestone #4 for
the Water Quality and Flood Protection Program (WQFP) to read: 1) "Advance the
City's four high priority storm drain projects including McCarrell Canyon, Storm Drain
Lining, Sunnyside Ridge, and the Tarapaca/25th Street Drainage projects by engaging
engineering design, through construction phase for McCarrell Canyon, Sunnyside Ridge
and Storm Drain Lining projects by December 2008" and, 2) Authorize funds previously
programmed for consultant funding associated with milestone number four to be
redirected to advance City Council priority drainage projects including: McCarrell
Canyon, Storm Drain Lining projects, Sunnyside Ridge, and the Tarapaca/25th Street
Drainage Projects.
The motion carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Clark, Gardiner, Long, Wolowicz, and Mayor Stern
NOES: None
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR:
2006-2007 Annual Report on the Implementation of the Rancho Palos Verdes
General Plan (701)
Councilman Wolowicz received clarification on the staff recommendation.
City Council Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 27 of 29
Councilman Wolowicz moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Clark, to direct Staff to
forward the City's Annual Progress Report on the implementation of the Rancho Palos
Verdes General Plan to the State Governor's Office of Planning and Research and to
the Department of Housing and Community Development regarding the status of the
General Plan and the progress on its implementation between July 1, 2006 and
December 31, 2007.
Without objection, Mayor Stern so ordered.
CITY COUNCIL ORAL REPORTS:
Councilman Wolowicz moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Clark, that Council Oral
Reports be continued to the next meeting.
Without objection, Mayor Stern so ordered.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION & SUGGESTION OF FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
Mayor Pro Tem Clark asked that a naming opportunity be brought back in the near
future for Officer Randall Simmons.
Councilman Wolowicz asked staff if the Southern California Edison power outage topic
would be included on the March 18, 2008 agenda as had been stated by a public
speaker, noting that he wanted an update regarding the matter if all blackout problems
were not fully resolved.
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION:
Mayor Stern recessed the meeting into Closed Session at 12:05 A.M.
City Attorney Lynch announced that Council was recessing into Closed Session to
discuss the City Manager's Performance Evaluation; a potential threat of litigation that
the City recently learned of that occurred in December 2006; and, a potential threat of
litigation regarding a public records request submitted by Brian Hildreth.
RECONVENED TO OPEN SESSION:
Mayor Stern reconvened the meeting from Closed Session into Open Session at 12:52
A.M.
CLOSED SESSION REPORT:
City Attorney Lynch reported that: 1) Regarding the email dated December 15, 2006, no
action was taken, with Councilman Gardiner absent; 2) Regarding the Hildreth letter
dated February 11, 2008, no action was taken, but direction was given to the City
Attorney regarding certain records, with Councilman Wolowicz abstaining and
City Council Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 28 of 29
Councilman Gardiner absent; 3) No action taken on the City Manager's Performance
Evaluation, with Councilman Gardiner absent.
ADJOURNMENT:
Adjourned at 12:54 A.M. to Saturday, February 23, 2008 at 9:30 A.M. at the Pt. Vicente
Interpretive Center for the Public Use Master Plan (PU orksho)
■
. I p.
Mayor
Attest:
&if& .. 4,.. /i
City Clerk
W:\City Council Minutes\2008\20080219 CC MINS MTG.doc
City Council Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 29 of 29