RICHARD NAVA
News Assistant
The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy is being sued for what some say are mismanaged bond funds delegated to them under Proposition 50. A group of unidentified “taxpayers” claim in a lawsuit that funds have been used by the SMMC to aid in the restoration of three parks in the Malibu area, instead of being spent to clean up and preserve local watersheds as the proposition specifies.
The SMMC is further accused of using more money to cover their legal costs resulting from the lawsuit, for a total of $385,000.
A court date has been set for Dec. 4 of this year, at which time further distinction of the proper use of bond money will be defined.
According to the SMMC, however, the funds they have used have all been approved by the California Coastal Commission, and were used in the best interest of California residents while still complying within the stipulations of the law.
Prop 50 granted the SMMC a total of $20 million to use for clean water measures in 2002, and Supervising Deputy Attorney General John A. Saurenman said he agrees with the SMMC that no bond money has been ill-spent.
In a letter written by Saurenman and released to the public, he states that the proposition allows money to be spent for planning activities, and furthermore that California law provides that bond money may be used to reimburse legal expenses.
However, in a separate letter released by Allison Burns, attorney for the group of taxpayers suing the conservancy, she lists several codes which, according to her. have been violated by the SMMC.
By granting funds to the parks in question, Burns says the SMMC has made “significant and continuing violations of California law.”
Ramirez Canyon Preservation Fund attorney Steven A. Amerikaner agrees. Amerikaner argue that these funds should not be used for legal costs, and that the SMMC is continuing to use money for purposes completely unrelated to clean water.
“Based on the evidence I’ve researched, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy has spent a good deal of money improperly,” said Jere Robings, Ventura County resident and taxpayer’s advocate. “Prop 50 is supposed to be used for specific purposes and they seem to have used it for other things.”
SMMC Executive Director, Joseph T. Edmiston said that the lawsuit is merely an attempt to intimidate the Conservancy to use money in a different way.
The SMMC argues the legitimacy of their spending, but it will ultimately be up for a judge to decide who is right, Robings said.
In a statement released by Dash Stolarz of the SMMC, Stolarz combats Robing’s accusations. “The lawsuit is a thinly veiled attempt by a group of residents trying to deny the legitimate use of authorized funds and prevent public access to public parkland,” Stolarz said.
The specific park lands under scrutiny of questionable renovation are in Ramirez Canyon, Corral Canyon and Escondido Canyon.
“As long as the money is being used to better the environment, I don’t see what the problem is,” said junior Camille Gamboa “Whether it’s clean water or clean parks it’s all for the better good.”
Though the $385,000 has been accounted for this time, according to a 2004 state audit the Conservancy mismanaged $7 million of voter-approved bond money. The report also documented that the SMMC used money to cover sick-pay, cars, travel, office costs and other expenses.
But SMMC officials continue to stand by their decisions and budget.
“We will not be intimidated by baseless lawsuits trying to draw attention away from the real issue—public access in Malibu,” Edmiston said.
11-02-2006
