Thursday, December 24, 2009

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL, AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT!

ABSTRACT: Photos of Aaron’s 2009 “Merry Christmas” Canine Tree, Mission Trail Nature Preserve, are presented. Users of Mission Trail Nature Preserve wrote the names of their canine companions on ornaments and hung them on Aaron’s “Merry Christmas” Canine Tree. Names of canine companions on the ornaments include, but not limited to, the following names:
Abby & Otis, Allie, Amy, Angel, Bailey, Bear, Berkeley, Bee, Blaise, Blue, Brandy, Brindle, Buffy, Calypso, Casey, Charlie, Chico, Cibo, Cinder, Clancy, Cobblestone, Coda, Conner & Sadie, Daisy, Davy, Duke & Moses, Emily, Fletch, Gabi, George, Ginger, Gracie, Gus, Harvey, Heidi, Herman, Hilby, Hunter, Jake, Joey, Jordan, Karley, Katie, Kodi, Koda, Lili & Rose, Lily Walthour, Lexie & Sierra, Lola, Lotus, Lucy, Mariah, May, Megan, Micki, Mimi, Misty, Murphy, Nikki, Peanut, Peluche, Prissy, Pumper, Punkin, Rascal, Raven, Riley, Roxy, Sam, Sandy, Snowbear, Solo, Stoney, Tess, Tiger, Tillie, Tippy, Toby, Tucker, Waldo, Willy and Zeke.

Aaron’s “Merry Christmas” Canine Tree
In memory of Aaron
Mission Trail Nature Preserve, Serra Trail
View of Ornaments
Aaron’s “Merry Christmas” Canine Tree
View of Lid of Bucket containing Ornaments
Next to Aaron’s “Merry Christmas” Canine Tree

Monday, December 21, 2009

COMMENTARY Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Soft Tyranny: ‘Team’ Dictatorship, Illegal Actions & Gross Mishandling of Complaints

FACT: If incumbents Mayor Sue McCloud, Council Member Paula Hazdovac and Council Member Gerard Rose are re-elected and serve their terms, they will have served for twelve years, twenty years and fourteen years, respectively.

In a village with a populace of diverse experiences and knowledge bases, for three elected representatives to a city council to have collectively served for forty-six years as a “team” is an unnecessary form of dictatorship. Moreover, the incumbent council members, principally the incumbent mayor, have injected into the DNA of the populace the idea that only they, as a “team,” can govern the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. This “team” concept has had the effect of discouraging and intimidating more worthy potential candidates from seeking office in Carmel-by-the-Sea.

Mayor Sue McCloud recently reiterated her campaign slogan of past election campaigns, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Unfortunately, the slogan does not comport with reality. Consider the following:

FACT: As our elected representatives, Mayor Sue McCloud, Council Member Paula Hazdovac and Council Member Gerard Rose violated state and municipal laws involving the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property in 2005.

Moreover, a pending lawsuit against the City raises credible arguments and issues involving the City Council’s actions in the most recent sale process of the Flanders Mansion Property.

FACT: Council Members Paula Hazdovac and Gerard Rose have known for years about then Planning Commissioner Sue McCloud’s violation of the Brown Act, the resultant consequence of her not being reappointed to the Planning Commission; and the fact that Sue McCloud's resultant animus towards John Mandurrago are the crux of developer and designer John Mandurrago’s assertions of violations of his constitutional rights.

Furthermore, credible evidence from two pending lawsuits against the City suggests that Sue McCloud misused her mayoral office to violate laws with regard to John Mandurrago’s Plaza del Mar project.

FACT: At the 7 October 2008 City Council meeting, Mayor Sue McCloud, Council Member Paula Hazdovac and Council Member Gerard Rose, voted to approve a Resolution adopting the employment agreement between the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Richard I. Guillen, City Administrator, which retroactively increased City Administrator Rich Guillen’s salary and benefits. This action was done with the full and complete knowledge of Human Resources Manager Jane Miller’s complaints involving sex-based and age-based employment discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation by the City and specifically City Administrator Rich Guillen.

Furthermore, not only was City Administrator Rich Guillen not placed on administrative leave pending resolution of Jane Miller’s legal complaint, but the mayor demeaned a 10-year city employee with her dismissive public comments. Finally, Carmel-by-the-Sea taxpayers can realistically anticipate a large settlement or monetary verdict to on-leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller.

In short, with each passing year, the current “team” of entrenched incumbents has acted in ways which demonstrate that they have lost sight of the fact that they, our public servants, are obligated to abide by the law and behave in an ethical manner. Their long record of placing the interests and agenda of the “team” above the law and ethics is reason for Carmelites to recognize that the “team” is a soft form of tyranny where criticisms of performance are purposely and willfully mischaracterized as hostile and disrespectful personal attacks and dissent is not respected, encouraged or viewed as critical to making Carmel-by-the-Sea a dynamic and vital community.

Friday, December 18, 2009

DENIED: City’s Motion to Disqualify Attorney Michael Stamp from Representing On-Leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller

Today, after hearing oral arguments from Suzanne Solomon, attorney for Defendant/Respondent City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Michael Stamp, attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner on-leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller, Judge Larry E. Hayes denied the City’s motion to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from representing Jane Miller in her lawsuit against the city alleging age-based and sex-based employment discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation. Highlights include, as follows:

Judge Larry Hayes found “extreme delay causing extreme prejudice.”

Judge Larry Hayes characterized the claims of City Administrator Rich Guillen, and especially the claims of City Attorney Don Freeman, regarding attorney Michael Stamp's representation of city employees, “disingenuous.”

Between 2003 and 2008, when attorney Michael Stamp represented four senior management employees, the City never even suggested to him a “conflict.”

Attorney Michael Stamp’s legal advice to the City regarding the City’s sexual harassment policy was limited to making comments on the policy about 15 years ago. Moreover, that sexual harassment policy has since been superseded by another sexual harassment policy written by another attorney.

The destruction of certain records by the City was with the knowledge and approval of City Attorney Don Freeman.

Judge Larry Hayes underscored the disparate financial resources of the City compared to one, lone petitioner.

Lastly, Judge Larry Hayes scheduled the Case Management Conference for April 2, 2010 @ 8:45 A.M., Department 4.

NOTE: Official Court Minutes as soon as available.

COMMENT:
In filing its motion to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from representing Jane Miller, the City succeeded in delaying the legal process by three months thereby ensuring a hearing date post-Municipal Election 2010.

ADDENDUM:
Judge rejects Carmel's motion to disqualify attorney in Jane Miller case. Dec. 18, 2009 / Kera Abraham

Judge rejects Carmel's motion to disqualify attorney
Calls effort an attempt to derail harassment suit
VIRGINIA HENNESSEY, Herald Salinas Bureau, 12/19/2009

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

‘Further Proceeding’ Minutes: Miller, Jane Kingsley, Plaintiff/Petitioner vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Defendant/Respondent

ABSTRACT: ‘Further Proceeding’ Minutes (October 30, 2009) on the City’s Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff Jane Kingsley Miller’s Counsel Michael Stamp from representing her in Miller, Jane Kingsley, Plaintiff/Petitioner vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Defendant/Respondent (M99513), Superior Court of California, County of Monterey, are reproduced. Judge Larry E. Hayes continued to December 18, 2009 at 8:45 a.m., Courtroom 4, Salinas, for Further Argument on Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff’s Counsel.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY


Miller, Jane Kingsley, Plaintiff/Petitioner vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Defendant/Respondent

Judge: Larry E. Hayes
Clerk: Lisa Cortez
CSR: Jeannette Jessup-Hiura – CSR#8573

Minutes: Further Proceedings
Date: October 30, 2009

Case No. M99513
Courtroom 4

Appearances:
Michael Stamp, Attorney for Plaintiff, Jane Kingsley Miller
Suzanne Solomon, Attorney for Defendant, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea

Case called for Further Arguments on Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff’s Counsel.

It is ordered documents referenced to in Camera on October 28, 2009 shall be made available for review by Michael Stamp and his legal team.

Any further response by Michael Stamp to be filed by November 9, 2009.

Court finds significant delay by the City of Carmel raising Prima Facia showing prejudice.

The City of Carmel to file any further declarations or Points and Authorities by November 17, 2009.

Points and Authorities on Standards of Prejudice to be filed by December 14, 2009.

Continued to December 18, 2009 at 8:45 a.m. in Salinas in Courtroom 4 for Further Argument on Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff’s Counsel.//

Wednesday, December 09, 2009

Attorney Susan Brandt-Hawley vs. Attorney Richard Harray

ABSTRACT: Monterey County Superior Court has continued the hearing for The Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al. (M99437) to Wednesday, February 10, 2010 at 9:00 A.M., Department 14, Judge Kay T. Kingsley presiding. Petitioner’s attorney is Susan Brandt-Hawley and respondent’s attorney is Richard Harray; Susan Brandt-Hawley specializes in “public-interest environmental cases,” whereas Richard Harray specializes in “the fields of business disputes, medical, legal and design malpractice, municipal law and employment issues.” Cases of Susan Brandt-Hawley and Richard Harray are presented with links to the cases; sources for the cases are the Brandt-Hawley Law Group website and the searchable California Appellate Court database.

Susan Lynne Brandt-Hawley - #75907

Susan Lynne Brandt began a general law practice in the Sonoma Valley in March 1979. What became the Brandt-Hawley Law Group now litigates public-interest environmental cases throughout California, with special focus on aesthetics, cultural landscapes, and historic resources.

Cases of Susan Brandt-Hawley of the Brandt-Hawley Law Group:

Supreme Court: 39 cases

1st Appellate: 51 cases

2nd Appellate: 22 cases

3rd Appellate: 16 cases

5th Appellate: 1 case

6th Appellate: 13 cases

Brandt-Hawley Law Group Cases:
California Supreme Court
2001 - Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre, 25 Cal.4th 165

1999 - Sierra Club v. San Joaquin LAFCO, 21 Cal.4th 489

1994 - Public Resources Protection Association v. CDF, 7 Cal.4th 111

California Court of Appeal
2008 - Heritage Fresno and Friends of Old Armenian Town v. City of Fresno, unpublished C055298

2006 - Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose, 141 Cal.App.4th 1336

2006 - 108 Holdings v. City of Rohnert Park, 136 Cal.App.4th 186

2005 - Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz, 131 Cal.App.4th 1170

2004 - Lincoln Place Tenants Association v. City of Los Angeles, 130 Cal.App.4th 1491

2004 - Architectural Heritage Association v. County of Monterey, 122 Cal.App.4th 1095

2000 - Friends and Neighbors of Old Hollywood v. City of Los Angeles, unpublished B131537

1999 - Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose, unpublished H019468

1997 - League for Protection v. City of Oakland , 52 Cal.App.4th 896

1997 - Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water District, 60 Cal.App.4th 1109

1996 - Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus, 48 Cal.App.4th 182

1992 - Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma, 6 Cal.App.4th 1307

Superior Court
2009 - Save Old Stockton v. City of Stockton, San Joaquin County Superior Court

2008 - Whittier Conservancy v. City of Whittier, Los Angeles County Superior Court

2008 - San Buenaventura Conservancy v. City of Ventura, Ventura County Superior Court

2007 - Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Monterey County Superior Court

2007 - Save Tightwad Hill! v. University of California, Alameda County Superior Court

2007 - Friends of Griffin House v. Foothill-DeAnza Community College District, Santa Clara County

2007 - Eureka Heritage Society v. Eureka Unified School District, Humboldt County Superior Court

2006 - Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego, San Diego County Superior Court

2000 - Friends of Carmel Cultural Heritage v. City of Carmel, Monterey County Superior Court

1998 - Pasadena Heritage v. City of Pasadena, Los Angeles County Superior Court

1996 - Preservation Action Council v. San Jose State University, Santa Clara County Superior Court

1994 - Friends of Douglass Hall v. Town of Atherton , San Mateo County Superior Court

1988 - The Bridge Club v. Caltrans, Sonoma County Superior Court

Federal Court
1995 - Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation v. U.S. Navy, Fed. District Court C-95-3702

1992 - North Oakland Voters Alliance v. Oakland, 1992 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 19033, 1992 WL 367096


Richard Keats Harray - #41978

Richard K. Harray
came to the Monterey Peninsula and practiced as a trial lawyer from 1968 to 2003 when he retired. He returned to active practice in December 2008, and is currently engaged in trial work, primarily in business disputes, corporate and partnership dissolutions and other complex litigation matters. He started his own firm in 1977 as Harray & Rosecrans and ultimately merged his firm with Kennedy & Archer in 2001. Mr. Harray litigates in the fields of business disputes, medical, legal and design malpractice, municipal law and employment issues. He is a graduate of Northwestern University (B.A. 1964) and Stanford Law School (LL.B. 1967). After law school he served as law clerk to Justice Roy Gargano, California Court of Appeal, 6th District. He has served as a judge pro tem, arbitrator and mediator. The American Board of Trial Advocates named him as an advocate in 1991. Mr. Harray is a member of the State Bar of California and is admitted to the U.S. District Court, Northern California.

Cases of Richard Harray:
Supreme Court: 1 case

6th Appellate: 20 cases

Monday, December 07, 2009

Case No. M99437: VERIFIED ANSWER OF RESPONDENT CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS & AMENDMENT TO THE ANSWER: THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

ABSTRACT: Highlights of the VERIFIED ANSWER OF RESPONDENT CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, dated August 6, 2009, submitted by City Attorney Donald G. Freeman and A THIRD, SEPARATE DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND PLEA OF RES JUDICATA, dated September 24, 2009, submitted by attorney Richard K. Harray, are presented.


VERIFIED ANSWER OF RESPONDENT CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

PERRY & FREEMAN
By Donald G. Freeman
Attorneys for Respondent
City of Caramel-by-the-Sea

Dated August 6, 2009

To paraphrase, most of the substantive allegations were “denied, each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically...”

WHEREFORE, the City prays for judgment against the Petitioner as hereinafter set forth:

AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, and as a plea of lack of jurisdiction, the City alleges that the Court lacks jurisdiction in that Petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies.

AS AND FOR A SECOND AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, the City further alleges that Petitioner’s actions fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for violation of CEQA, for a writ of mandate of any other relief.


AMENDMENT TO THE ANSWER: THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A THIRD, SEPARATE DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND PLEA OF RES JUDICATA, the Respondent alleges:

The case matter has been previously tried in the Court and a judgment entered in The Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Amended Judgment Granting Petition for Writ of Mandamus, filed August 10, 2007. Except for the findings, “1. Violation of CEQA,” Amended Judgment, p. 2, 11.8. res judicata bars the reopening of this controversy and further litigation of all issues that were or could have been raised in the original suit.

Dated: September 24, 2009


KENNEDY, ARCHER & HARRAY

Richard K. Harray
Attorneys for Respondent
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Case No. M76728: AMENDED JUDGMENT GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

ABSTRACT: For background, the AMENDED JUDGMENT GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, dated August 10, 2007, by Honorable Robert A. O’Farrell, Judge of the Superior Court, is reproduced in its entirety.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY


Case No. M76728


AMENDED JUDGMENT GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

THE FLANDERS FOUNDATION, Petitioner,

v.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA and CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, Respondent


The Petition for Writ of Mandamus raised challenges under the California Environmental Qualify Act (CEQA), the Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code, and the California Government Code, all in connection with the proposed sale of the Flanders Mansion by its owner, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

The hearing on the merits of the Petition was held on January 11, 2007, in Department 14 before the Honorable Robert A. O’Farrell. Susan Brandt-Hawley of the Brandt-Hawley Law Group appeared on behalf of the Flanders Foundation. William B. Conners appeared on behalf of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and its City Council.

Upon considering the briefs, the certified and augmented record, and the oral arguments presented by counsel, the matter was submitted for decision. The Intended Decision, incorporated by reference as Exhibit A, was issued on February 21, 2007.

WHEREFORE, GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the Petition is GRANTED. For the reasons explained in the incorporated Intended Decision and as well-documented in the administrative record and in the briefs filed by the Flanders Foundation:

1. Violations of CEQA. The proposed sale of the historic Flanders Mansion, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, is a discretionary project subject to CEQA. The project EIR certified by the City found that the sale would result in a significant environmental impact relating to the loss of pubic access to property zoned P-2 [Improved Parkland] and would impact the cohesive structure of the Mission Trails Nature Preserve. The City abused its discretion and violated CEQA because it failed to proceed in the manner required by law and approved the sale of Flanders Mansion when the potential lease of the Mansion, Alternative 2 in the EIR, is an alternative to sale and has not been shown to be infeasible. The City could not legally adopt a statement of overriding considerations without making supportable findings regarding the infeasibility of alternatives. Even if Alternative 2 would be more costly to the City, absent substantial evidence in the form of an economic analysis that most project objectives could not feasibly be accomplished via lease of the property, Alternative 2 is not legally infeasible and the project cannot be approved. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1167. 1181; Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1336, 1350, 1353-1357.)

In all other respects, the Petition’s claims for violations of CEQA are denied.

2. Demolition by Neglect. The Court finds that the Petition’s allegations regarding demolition by neglect are adequate and that members of the Flanders Foundation exhausted administrative remedies. The City is in ongoing violation of its mandatory duty to prohibit the demolition of an historic structure by neglect. (Municipal Code 17.32.210.) The Municipal Code requires that historic resources within City limits “shall be preserved against decay and deterioration, kept in a state of good repair and free from structural defects... The purpose of this section is to prevent an owner...from facilitating demolition of a historic resource by neglecting it and by permitting damage to it by weather and/or vandalism.” (Id. at 17.32.210(A)(1).) City-owned property is specifically subject to this provision of the Carmel Municipal Code. (Id. at 17.02.050.)

The Municipal Code delineates the “defects” to historic properties that “shall” be repaired, including “deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing" of building elements (such as broken windows and doors) and “[a]ny fault, defect or deterioration” that renders the building “structurally unsafe or not properly watertight.” (Id. at 17.32.210(A)(2).) The Code also contains provisions relating to “protection of deteriorated, vacant and vandalized resources.” (Id. at 17.32.210(B).)

The administrative record contains unequivocal admissions by City officials, in response to public concerns regarding demolition by neglect, that the City has failed to maintain the Mansion against decay and deterioration or in a state of good repair. Mayor Sue McCloud publicly conceded that “the City is in nonconformance with the Municipal Code because the home is not being maintained...” (AR6:1814.) Following a tour of the Mansion, attorney William B. Conners confirmed at public hearing that to his personal knowledge “...there are bats living in the mansion. There are holes in the roof large enough to see light through. Big light. There are major improvements that need to be made...” (Administrative Record (AR)5:1535.) Conners also noted that the Mansion “...is run down, boards are falling off... Inside, there’s water damage, holes in the walls, and…there’s evidence that kids have broken in and were camping in there...” (AR:5:1536.) City Planning Commissioners decried the fact that the Mansion was “so deteriorated,” that it had fallen “so bad into disrepair,” and that the “amount of damage” was “horrendous.” (AR6:1649.) City Principal Planner Brian Roseth explained in writing to the Mayor and City Council that “[t]he City is not in compliance” with the demolition by neglect provisions of the Municipal Code. (AR6:1701.) The City’s statement of overriding considerations accompanying its approval of sale recited that the Mansion has “fallen into a state of disrepair.” (Request for Judicial Notice, Exhibit C.)

The City’s Municipal Code requires the City’s Director of Community Planning and Building and/or the Building Official to determine what actions the City must take to repair an historic building to comply with the Code. (Municipal Code 17.32.210(A)(3).) The Department of Community Building and Planning and the Building Official must review plans or proposals for work needed to secure a building from vandalism or from becoming a public nuisance, “to ensure that any work done to secure the building will not damage or alter the historic character of the building” (Id. at 17.32.210(B)(1) and (B)(4).) The City is in ongoing violation of the Municipal Code in failing to take mandatory steps to protect and maintain the Mansion in consultation with its Building and Planning staff. The City must act within its discretion to prevent any further deterioration during a reasonable time period in which the ultimate question of ownership of the mansion is pending resolution.

3. Parkland Status. The Flanders Foundation contends that the Mansion is parkland and that any proposed sale is therefore subject to the mandatory provisions of Government Code sections 38440-38462 and 54220-54222. The Court has considered the plain meaning of the relevant statutory language, the history presented in the administrative record, and the reasonable construction of the term parkland. As explained in the Tentative Decision, the Court thereupon finds that the Mansion is parkland as a matter of law. In order to sell the Mansion, the City must comply with Government Code sections 38440-38462 and 54220-54222, including but not limited to subjecting any proposed sale to public vote.

4. Peremptory Writ. A Peremptory Writ of Mandamus shall issue in the form attached as Exhibit B. The Writ shall require the City immediately to set aside its certification of the Flanders Mansion Environmental Impact Report and its approvals of the sale of the Mansion and to refrain from further certification and approvals unless and until it complies with CEQA. The Writ shall require the City immediately to implement repairs necessary to avoid further significant deterioration and to refrain from the sale of the Mansion unless and until it complies with Government Coed sections applicable to the sale of parkland. Nothing in the writ shall limit the discretion legally vested in the City.

A Return of the Writ shall be filed with the Court upon the City’s final action taken to comply, on or before October 1, 2007, or such other date as may be agreed upon by the parties and approved by the Court.

5 Attorney’s Fees and Costs. The Court reserves jurisdiction over the issue of the Flanders Foundation’s claim for an award of reasonable private attorney general fees and costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. Any motion for fees and costs shall be filed and served within 60 days of the filing of the Notice of Entry of this Judgment. Statutory costs are also awarded to the Flanders Foundation.

ORDER
Good cause appearing; IT IS ORDERED that the Judgment be entered.

Date: August 10, 2007

Honorable Robert A. O’Farrell
Judge of the Superior Court

Sunday, December 06, 2009

UPDATE: Legal Complaints against the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea

UPDATE COMMENT:
With regard to Flanders Foundation vs. City of Carmel by the Sea et al. (M99437), the schedule of the filing and serving of briefs was established, as follows:

Attorney Susan Brandt-Hawley, Attorney for Petitioner, was to file and serve Opening Brief on or before October 20, 2009. Accomplished.

Attorney for Respondents was to file and serve Opposition Brief on or before November 19, 2009; not accomplished. The new deadline for filing and serving the Opposition Brief was today, Monday, 7 December 2009.

Reply Brief was to be filed and served on or before November 25, 2009.

ABSTRACT: Information on three legal complaints against the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, namely, Flanders Foundation vs. City of Carmel by the Sea et al. (M99437), Miller, Jane Kingsley vs City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (M99513) and Mandurrago et al. v. City of Carmel-By-The-Sea et al. (H034439), is presented. Specifically, dates and times of hearings for Flanders Foundation vs. City of Carmel by the Sea et al. (M99437) and Miller, Jane Kingsley vs City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (M99513) and the latest court information for Mandurrago et al. v. City of Carmel-By-The-Sea et al. (H034439 and M102802

Case Details of GNM99437; The Flanders Foundation vs. City of Carmel by the Sea et al.
Hearing: Thursday, 12/17/2009 @ 9:00 A.M., Courtroom 14, Judge Kay T. Kingsley, Monterey (Continued)
Rescheduled Hearing: Wednesday, 02/10/2010 @ 9:00 A.M., Department 14, Judge Kay T. Kingsley

Case Details of GNM99513 ; Miller, Jane Kingsley vs City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Motion Hearing: Friday, 12/18/2009 @ 8:45 A.M., Courtroom 4, Judge Larry E. Hayes, Salinas

Case Details of GNM102802 ; Mandurrago, John et al vs. City of Carmel-by-the Sea et al.
Filing Date: 12/4/2009
Case Type: Civil: Monterey
Filing Type: Petition

(Source: Superior Court of California, County of Monterey Public Access)
Search Note: Civil Unlimited, M99437, M99513, M102802

Mandurrago et al. v. City of Carmel-By-The-Sea et al.
Case Number H034439

(Trail Court Case: M99273)

Docket (Register of Actions)
Latest Entry:
Date: 10/30/2009
Description: Case on conference list
Notes: November 5, 2009 Conference List

Future Scheduled Actions
No information found.

Friday, December 04, 2009

In Defense of Victoria McMillan’s Criticisms of the State of Journalism at The Carmel Pine Cone

ABSTRACT: In the November 27, 2009 edition of The Carmel Pine Cone, owner/publisher/editor Paul Miller published a letter to the editor by Victoria McMillan, Carmel Valley. Highlights of McMillan’s letter are presented. A COMMENT is made and an ADDENDUM with links to Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism Principles of Journalism, American Society of Newspaper Editor’s Statement of Principles and Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics is provided. Importantly, as the ASNE’s Statement of Principles states: “These principles are intended to preserve, protect and strengthen the bond of trust and respect between American journalists and the American people, a bond that is essential to sustain the grant of freedom entrusted to both by the nation's founders.”

Highlights of Victoria McMillan’s Letter to the Editor:
I understand newspapers, and I would argue that the Carmel Pine Cone is not a real newspaper but more of a public platform which your editor uses to espouse his own opinions, personal gripes and personal vendettas.”

But it [small town newspaper] doesn’t or can’t tackle real news or real issues. I am guessing you don’t really even want to. You like drama, controversy and intrigue. You don’t sell your paper to the reader, so real reporting probably doesn’t really matter. However, it would be nice to think you had either a decent moral compass or at least a true respect for real journalism. You are mean-spirited and vindictive in your writings, and it doesn’t do a struggling paper any favors.”

The Carmel Pine Cone did little to no true investigative or thorough research, and it showed.”

No one knows what your beef really is...Do your sales reps a favor and build a newspaper that can earn some respect or at least have a reputation for balanced reporting.”

(Source: Pine Cone is really, really bad, Victoria McMillan, Carmel Valley, Letters to the Editor, The Carmel Pine Cone, November 27, 2009, 36A)

COMMENT:
Under owner/publisher/editor Paul Miller, news articles in The Carmel Pine Cone read more like editorials and less like objective, fact-based news reporting and editorials are too often inflammatory, not informative. Moreover, The Carmel Pine Cone has a record of not being an “independent monitor of power” of our local government; in fact, The Carmel Pine Cone has a record of being a propaganda purveyor for Mayor Sue McCloud, City Council, et al. Unless and until readers demand Paul Miller and writers at The Carmel Pine Cone adhere to the principles of journalism, readers will continue to read biased and misleading news articles and inflammatory and unsubstantiated editorial commentaries.

ADDENDUM:
Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism
Principles of Journalism

1. JOURNALISM'S FIRST OBLIGATION IS TO THE TRUTH

2. ITS FIRST LOYALTY IS TO CITIZENS

3. ITS ESSENCE IS A DISCIPLINE OF VERIFICATION

4. ITS PRACTITIONERS MUST MAINTAIN AN INDEPENDENCE FROM THOSE THEY COVER

5. IT MUST SERVE AS AN INDEPENDENT MONITOR OF POWER

6. IT MUST PROVIDE A FORUM FOR PUBLIC CRITICISM AND COMPROMISE

7. IT MUST STRIVE TO MAKE THE SIGNIFICANT INTERESTING AND RELEVANT

8. IT MUST KEEP THE NEWS COMPREHENSIVE AND PROPORTIONAL

9. ITS PRACTITIONERS MUST BE ALLOWED TO EXERCISE THEIR PERSONAL CONSCIENCE

ASNE's Statement of Principles
ARTICLE I - Responsibility.
ARTICLE II - Freedom of the Press.
ARTICLE III - Independence.
ARTICLE IV - Truth and Accuracy.
ARTICLE V - Impartiality.
ARTICLE VI - Fair Play.

Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics
Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Minimize Harm
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

Act Independently
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

Be Accountable
Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

Thursday, December 03, 2009

Carmel Art Association Presents ALL-MEMBER SHOW: THE ANNUAL MINIATURE & SMALL PAINTING SHOW

Carmel Art Association
“Celebrating 81 years of local art”
Voted “Art Gallery of the Year” by the Carmel Business Association three consecutive years.
W/s Dolores St. between 5th Av. & 6th Av.
10:00 A.M. – 5:00 P.M., Daily, except major Holidays.
Open to the Public at No Charge

Founded in 1927, Carmel's oldest gallery features the work of more than 120 professional local artists, and is dedicated to presenting only the finest work for sale by artists living on the Monterey Peninsula.”

For more information, Online or (831) 624-6176.

Carmel Art Association Presents ALL-MEMBER SHOW: THE ANNUAL MINIATRUE & SMALL PAINTING SHOW
Thursday, December 3 – Tuesday, January 5, 2009

ALL-MEMBER SHOW: THE ANNUAL MINIATURE & SMALL PAINTING SHOW (Center Room and Segal Room):
Carmel Art Association Artist Members exhibit dozens of miniature and small paintings in an array of mediums, styles and subject matter. View Artist Members representative artworks and brief biographies, et cetera.

Holiday Open House - Saturday, December 5, from 6:00 to 8:00 P.M.
Join in the festivities and please bring an unwrapped toy for a child for the Salvation Army’s Toy Drive; toy donations will be accepted for the drive from Thursday, December 3 through Thursday, December 17, 2009. And non-perishable food items will also be accepted for the Salvation Army Food Baskets.

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

‘MINUTES’ for Two Noteworthy 1 December 2009 City Council Agenda Items

“MINUTES”
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
November 3, 2009


V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and the City Administrator.

C. Announcements from City Administrator
1. Present FY 2008-09 Draft Audited Financial Statements by Ralph Marcello, Marcello & Company CPAs.


Ralph Marcello, MARCELLO & COMPANY, Certified Public Accountants, presented the highlights of the FY 2008-09 Draft Audited Financial Statements. With regard to the big three revenue sources (transient occupancy tax, property tax and sales tax), revenues increased by 4% in 2005, 9%, in 2006, 7% in 2007, 5% in 2008 and decreased 6% in 2009. General Revenues, which the city has total discretion over, and are contingent on general economic conditions, was +12% in 2008 and -9% in 2009.

During these economic times, other cities have engaged in hiring contract employees for one year without benefits, cross-train employees for vacant position responsibilities, reduce public safety workers, review pension system and furloughs.

Ralph Marcello’s presented his company’s Audit Opinion, an “unqualified opinion,” the highest type of opinion. And compared to other cities Carmel-by-the-Sea is in “very good economic health” mainly because of its policy to set aside reserves in good economic times.

X. Resolutions
A. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing participation in an Initial Exploration and Analysis of Joint Fire Service Options.


City Administrator Rich Guillen presented the Staff Report.

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.

Carolyn Hardy requested the City include the three special fire districts and Cal Fire for consideration as to fire protection services for Carmel-by-the-Sea.

Mayor McCloud interjected and stated that the Mayor of Monterey would recommend the City of Monterey extend the interim fire services contract with Carmel-by-the-Sea through June 2010.

Barbara Livingston (remarks read by Kathy Frederickson) requested the City consider all options, including stand alone and Cal Fire. George Haines, Fire Chief of Cypress, Carmel Highlands and Pebble Beach Fire Department spoke in support of the resolution.

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.

Council Member TALMAGE moved adoption of the Resolution with the addition that the Staff bring back to Council current information on all viable options, including JPA, shared services and stand alone fire department, seconded by Council Member ROSE, and carried unanimously.


NOTE: During Appearances, Carolyn Hardy applauded the City for approaching Cal Fire for the purpose of requesting a proposal for Fire Services from Cal Fire (Information gleaned from the September 2009 Minutes of the Pebble Beach Community Service District Board Meeting) and requested the City share the proposal with the public.

REFERENCE:
PEBBLE BEACH COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Regular Meeting of September 25, 2009
MINUTES


Chief Haines stated that the City of Carmel would be sending CAL FIRE a formal request for proposal for fire protection services. Charlotte Townsend indicated she was a Director of the Carmel Residents Association which supports the City of Carmel in its consideration of CAL FIRE.

COMMENT:
While Mayor Sue McCloud recently stated that the City is interested in looking at the concept of a regional fire department, and “would probably be derelict if we didn’t,” in the context of the Final Report of The Fire Department Consolidation Feasibility Analysis for the Cities of Monterey, Pacific Grove and Carmel completed by Citygate Associates, LLC in June 2007 and Carmel-by-the-Sea’s formal withdrawl from negotiations with Monterey and Pacific Grove in January 2008, it is derelict of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea to not have studied and reviewed all viable fire protection service options and implemented a permanent fire protection service solution for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea long before now.