School District Rejects Claims From Stadium Lights Group

Members of the Palos Verdes Peninsula school board on Monday voted to reject claims made by a group that pushed for permanent stadium lights at even as the group threatens to sue the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District if a resolution is not reached soon.

Board members rejected claims from the Peninsula Stadium Lights Steering Committee during a special meeting on Monday.

The board in July voted to discontinue the capital campaign project to install stadium lights at Peninsula High School.

The group's claims alleged that in terminating the lights project district leaders misled committee members and violated district policies, including the Ralph M. Brown Act, which is an open meeting law, according to a statement released Monday from Superintendent Walker Williams' office.

"The district rejects these claims as unmeritorious," the release stated. "The district has complied with its policies and practices and the laws related to conducting board of education meetings."

The project's "detriments outweighed the potential benefits," the release stated.

"Unfortunately, the Stadium Lights Capital Campaign was dividing the community and taking time and attention away from the district’s primary purpose of educating students," according to the release. "Ultimately, the board of education concluded that the detriments outweighed the potential benefits, and that the project was not viable.  It is unfortunate that attempts are being made to pressure district leaders to change that position."

The steering committee had raised about $250,000 from public donations for the project, according to a five-page letter from the group's attorney, Martha Doty. The committee also spent about $150,000, which includes actual expenditures and time donated by volunteers, according to the letter.

According to the Sept. 1 letter, a lawsuit will be filed in 30 days if a resolution is not reached (see the letter in this article's photo gallery).

"The steering committee has several ideas for resolution short of litigation," the letter stated.

The Sept. 6 claim made by the steering committee includes more than $40,000 in architect services and undefined amounts for fundraising expenditures and the value of other professional services (see the claim in this article's photo gallery).

In the Sept. 1 letter, Doty said the board did not follow its own rules with respect to the project, that the district and board "misled the steering committee and the donating public about their intentions," and that the board accepted money from the public for nearly one year despite knowing about opposition to the project on which the board based its decision to end the project.

"In sum, the board and the district knew of the opposition from the outset but nevertheless authorized and allowed the taking of money from hundreds of members of the public for the project in sums exceeding several hundred thousand dollars only to rely upon that same opposition a year later as a basis to deny the project," Doty wrote.

In response to a previous request from Williams that the steering committee "return funds less expenditures," Doty suggests in the letter that the board reimburse the steering committee for money spent "in reliance on the district's and board's promises" so that it can provide full refunds.