For nearly two years, Laguna Beach has been told that governance matters.
Our policies and bylaws matter.
Transparency and process matters.
At least, that was the pitch to help elect Sheri Morgan and Howard Hills. It justified all of their governance committees, policy reviews, legal questions, public criticism of district leadership, and hours of board meetings spent debating how LBUSD should operate.
The promise was simple enough: institutions are stronger when decisions are made through transparent, established processes instead of the preferences of a few people in power.
Then came May 14, 2026, when a new superintendent was appointed. Suddenly, the process has become negotiable.
This is not a story about whether Dr. Don Austin is qualified, and it’s not even really a story about whether the board had the legal authority to appoint him. School boards have broad authority to hire superintendents, and no one needs to pretend otherwise.
The question is not whether the board had power, but how they used it.
For Howard Hills, his governance obsession did not begin when he was sworn in. For more than a decade, he has shown up around LBUSD with questions about leadership, process, board authority, and whether the district was following the rules closely enough. Howard built a public identity around governance language.
Sheri Morgan’s record fits inside the same frame. Her political brand has been transparency, access, and community voice. She has presented herself as someone trying to pull LBUSD out of a closed-door culture and into a more responsive, public-facing one. Whether you agreed with her or not, the pitch was clear: the old way was too insulated, too controlled, too dismissive of the community.
In 2026, that governance language became formal board work. LBUSD approved an Ad Hoc Governance Committee to review the district’s governance processes, including the clarity, organization, and alignment of board bylaws and policies with CSBA models, statutes, and board-adopted norms. Howard led the charge to create this committee because he insisted that governance structure mattered.
LBUSD’s own Board Bylaw 9310 says board policies are adopted to set clear procedural expectations for district governance. It says policies are binding unless they conflict with law or collective bargaining agreements. The district’s policy manual is supposed to be the framework for how the board governs.
But then Board Policy 2120 became inconvenient.
On June 4, 2026, Sheri Morgan defended the superintendent appointment by arguing that the prior superintendent search had not expired. According to her, the district had already conducted an extensive search less than a year earlier, Dr. Austin had stated he was part of that process, and restarting the work would be unnecessary, expensive, and fiscally irresponsible.
“There is no statute of limitations,” Sheri said. “There is no expiration date on that search process from less than one year ago. Restarting that process and redoing that work is not required by law or policy.”
She also said repeating a search that cost more than $50,000 and took four months would be “fiscally irresponsible.”
That is one argument. However, Howard Hills made another.
He did not simply argue that the policy had been satisfied. He actually argued that the policy was not mandatory.
“The bylaw is not mandatory and it’s not compulsive,” Hills said. Then he went further, saying the board could appoint a superintendent “any way the board wants to do it and any time.”
After all the speeches, all the policy debates, all the governance lectures, all the concern about procedure and institutional standards, Howard suddenly announced that the superintendent-search policy was not compulsory and that the board could, essentially, however it wanted, appoint a superintendent.
Funny how flexible governance becomes when it finally applies to them.
If Howard had never spent years questioning governance, if Sheri had never built her case around transparency, if the board had not created a committee around policy alignment and board-adopted norms, this might read like an ordinary disagreement over how much process is enough.
But that is not the record.
The record is a board majority that used process as both sword and shield until the moment process pointed back at them.
Dr. Joan Malczewski put the concern plainly during the June 4, 2026 board meeting. Search processes exist so institutions can protect themselves from the weaknesses of individual decision-making. They protect against bias, generate better information, create buy-in, and, most importantly, protect the institution and the person being hired.
A superintendent search process is not only about finding a good person. It is about creating legitimacy around the choice.
Joan was not informed that Don Austin was a candidate until the May 14, 2026 closed session, when she was met with a motion to hire him. She said she had no prior information that conversations were happening, no knowledge that negotiations were underway, and no role in determining a start date.
This was not a board-led process; it was a majority-led outcome.
There is a difference.
And that brings us to Dee Perry. Most conversations about the current board majority focus on Howard and Sheri, which makes sense. They speak the most, drive the arguments, and attract the heat.
But they cannot govern alone.
The majority is three votes, and their third vote is Dee Perry.
Dee’s role is quieter, but it is not smaller. She often appears surprised, uncomfortable, or only partially informed. She can seem adjacent to the controversy rather than central to it. But when the vote matters, Dee Perry is not a spectator; she seals everyone’s fate.
Howard and Sheri can argue, posture, explain, defend, and accuse. This allows Dee to remain aloof and pretend to be just a passenger along for the ride. And when she says she was “a little bit in the dark,” that does not make the vote easier for us to swallow. It should make it more concerning. If a trustee is unsure, uninformed, or surprised by how a major decision reached the board, that is the moment to slow the process down, not hand it the final vote it needs.
Dee may not be driving the car, but she keeps handing the keys to Howard and Sheri.
The board majority can keep saying this was about stability. They can say it was about saving money and avoiding another long search. They can say Dr. Austin was already vetted, so the policy was not mandatory. They can say the law allowed it.
Maybe some of that is true, but none of it answers the larger questions.
If governance mattered enough to build a political brand around it, why did it stop mattering here?
If policies matter when Howard and Sheri are criticizing district staff, former board members, or prior decisions, why do they become advisory when Howard already has the votes?
If transparency is the standard, why was the public asked to accept the explanation after the decision rather than being included beforehand?
And if Dee really was “a little bit in the dark,” why was she still comfortable becoming the light that turned the whole thing green?
This is about whether the board majority is willing to hold itself to the same governance standard it spent the last two years demanding from everyone else.
In LBUSD’s proposed 2026–27 budget materials, one line immediately stood out to me.
The Budget Overview shows planned spending dropping from about $93.49 million to $90.15 million. Certificated salaries increase from about $35.57 million to $36.10 million, classified salaries increase from about $13.22 million to $13.58 million, and combined, salaries increase by about $892,000.
Employee benefits go down.
They decrease from about $21.60 million to $21.45 million, a drop of roughly $145,000. The budget shows certificated salaries up 2.1%, classified salaries up 2.7%, and employee benefits down 0.7%.
That is what sent me down the rabbit hole.
I know school district budgets are mostly people, as they should be. Public education runs on teachers, aides, counselors, office staff, custodians, specialists, nurses, administrators, and the people who keep the system functioning every day.
In California, roughly 80% of current school spending goes toward staffing and LBUSD is right in that range. The district’s 2025–26 budget stated that compensation accounted for 77% of the general fund. For 2026–27, LBUSD lists about $71.14 million in personnel and staffing costs against a $90.15 million spending plan. That is about 79%, with the caveat that overall planned spending is lower, which makes compensation a larger share of the budget.
So the issue is not that Laguna spends too much on employees, but what happens when a small raise meets rising healthcare costs.
LBUSD’s benefits line is not just health insurance. It includes STRS, PERS, Medicare, unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, retiree benefits, OPEB, and health and welfare benefits. In the proposed 2026–27 budget, total employee benefits are about $21.45 million. Health and welfare benefits are about $5.50 million of that total, or roughly 6.1% of the district’s entire spending plan.
Healthcare costs themselves are moving fast. Nationally, the average employer-sponsored family premium rose 6% in one year, and single coverage rose 5%. California is even higher, with family premiums increasing 24% since 2022, outpacing both inflation and wages.
So when LBUSD shows a small salary increase and a decrease in benefits, the public should ask what employees are actually gaining.
A 2% raise can disappear very quickly when healthcare premiums increase. A raise on paper can become a wash in real life. For some employees, especially those covering a spouse or family, it can become a loss.
The Michael Bishop healthcare review helped me understand why this is so complicated.
LBUSD’s health plan year begins October 1, and the district’s fiscal year begins July 1. That means the district builds and adopts its budget before final healthcare renewal rates are fully known. The district is budgeting on one calendar while healthcare costs move on another.
Then there are the plans: PPO, HMO, individual, spouse, children, family. Employees get married, divorced, have babies, retire, change jobs, add dependents, lose dependents, and move between eligibility categories. Those changes do not always happen neatly at the start of a fiscal year.
I am not pretending to be a healthcare expert. I am learning this as I go because the budget number did not sit right with me. But the more I learn, the clearer it becomes that this system is easy to get wrong without serious guardrails.
The review found that from 2022–23 through 2025–26, employee contributions were not set in accordance with the collective bargaining agreements. The district covered a larger share of the total annual healthcare costs than it should have under the contract.
The review also points to a systems problem: timing issues, multiple plans, multiple tiers, changing employee census data, contribution caps, and the need for better coordination between Human Resources and Business Services. The recommendations focus on controls, communication, budget comparisons, review of the cap structure, review of plan design, and possible alignment of the plan year with the fiscal year.
But this should not become a quiet excuse to reduce benefit support.
Under the contract, the district pays up to a negotiated cap, and employees pay what is above it. For example, certificated PPO family coverage, the annual district cap is about $25k. The 2025–26 PPO family premium is about $39k, leaving the employee responsible for about $14k, or $1.4k per contribution period.
For Kaiser HMO family coverage example, the annual district cap is about $21k. The 2025–26 premium example is about $28k. That leaves the employee responsible for about $7k, or about $700 per contribution period.
Those are not small numbers, and that is why salary and benefits have to be discussed together. A district can offer a modest raise, hold to the cap, reduce its benefit costs, and still leave employees carrying a larger share of the burden.
That may be legal under the contract or clean on a spreadsheet, but it still deserves public scrutiny.
The 2021 MOU shows that the district has used bargaining to address healthcare pressure before. LBUSD and LaBUFA agreed to cover increased health and welfare benefits of about $350,000. To me, that says the pressure on healthcare costs was already obvious. The district and union saw the strain and reached an agreement to address it.
Now we are back in a similar moment, only with active negotiations.
I know the public is not privy to what either side is proposing and I understand bargaining has rules, which exist for a reason.
But the budget, review, caps, and board’s financial choices are public. So the community should come to the board with direct questions at June 8th’s meeting.
What is the board’s plan to protect employees from rising healthcare costs?
Is the district budgeting for a real compensation increase, or only a raise that gets eaten by premiums?
Will the board consider additional benefit support, a different cap structure, or better plan design?
How will the district address administrative failures without turning the correction into a cost shift?
What solution is the board willing to own?
LBUSD is not a district scraping by. Our proposed 2026–27 budget describes strong financials, full funding of LCAP goals, healthy reserves in other funds, and a AAA stable rating. Money is never unlimited, but choices exist.
This district prides itself on excellence. But excellence is expensive because good teachers, classified staff, counselors, specialists, and support employees do not stay because a district says nice things about them at board meetings. These people stay when compensation reflects the cost of living, healthcare costs, and the value of the work.
I started with one line in the budget and ended up with a much bigger concern.
Healthcare benefits are complicated, and the review proves that. Rising healthcare costs are real, and the state and national numbers prove that too.
Now the board needs to prove that fixing an administrative problem does not mean lowering support for employees and that a small raise will not be allowed to disappear into healthcare costs.
They need to prove that Laguna Beach Unified is still willing to invest in the people who make the district worth bragging about.
On June 2, 2026, William Breit and Kathleen Christoff filed a civil-rights complaint against the Laguna Beach Unified School District in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Southern Division) as Case No. 8:26-cv-01418.
The complaint pleads three claims arising from the February 26, 2026 board vote that relocated the 2026 Laguna Beach High School graduation from Guyer Field to the Irvine Bowl: violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §12132), violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. §794), and violation of California Government Code §11135.
The plaintiffs are described as mobility-disabled invitees of graduating students. The complaint alleges the Irvine Bowl (maximum capacity ~2,600) provides only 11 wheelchair-accessible spaces and 12 companion seats, clustered in three non-dispersed areas, with steep approach and interior circulation, and that the district relocated the ceremony without a pre-vote ADA accessibility evaluation.
It seeks declaratory relief and a temporary restraining order plus preliminary and permanent injunction barring graduation at the Irvine Bowl, and attorneys’ fees, and states a separate U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights complaint had already been filed. Counsel is Dykema Gossett LLP (James S. Azadian, Christine Mardikian, David Ter-Petrosyan).
Laguna Beach businessman Mohammad “Mo” Honarkar won a landmark $1.34 billion arbitration award against financier Mahender Makhijani, Continuum Analytics, and affiliated entities. The award includes $652 million in punitive damages and $326 million in compensatory damages following a fraudulent takeover of his Southern California commercial real estate portfolio.
The dispute centered on the MOM CA Investco joint venture, which took control of Honarkar’s assets, including the historic Hotel Laguna. The arbitrator found the opposing parties liable for fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, and unlawful business practices. Makhijani’s group allegedly forced Honarkar out of his properties, which later led to Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings and receivership.
Following the arbitration victory, Honarkar’s entities successfully moved to dismiss the bankruptcy cases, clearing the path to return to state court and enforce the massive financial settlement.
1) Alex Rounaghi – EMAIL XXX – Campaign Website XXX. Turned in nomination papers: XXX (Candidate Statement & Signatures verified by the ROV) Check out Candidate Community Related Articles and Opinions: Alex Rounaghi
1) Ann Marie McKay – http://mckay4cityclerk.com. Turned in nomination papers: July 30, 2020 (Candidate Statement & Signatures verified by the ROV) Check out Candidate Community Related Articles and Opinions:Ann Marie McKay
2) Mariann Tracy – https://marianntracy.com. Turned in nomination papers: AUGUST 5, 2020 (Candidate Statement & Signatures verified by the ROV) Check out Candidate Community Related Articles and Opinions:Mariann Tracy
Media and General Public Candidate Related Articles and Opinions for the November 3, 2020 Election Below: As Available…
Our elected officials represent US.They represent our values, our lifestyle, our space and place within our city, county, state and country. They become our face and our voice.
A council position is the most important, influential and powerful position in our City. It is critical that we understand the broad range of experience and expertise needed for this position and that we select the right individuals to work together to lead.
As we consider the candidate choices in this 2020 election, it is important that we take the time to learn all we can about each candidate before considering them as a top-level public office representative for our City.
Elected Officials Roles and Responsibilities
The responsibilities of our local elected officials include dictating local laws, policies and budgets. This person(s) will make decisions about our money, ocean, properties, roads, trees, traffic, businesses, safety, and quality of life in everything that we see, live and breathe every day.
As important as this responsibility is, local individuals are often elected by voters who know very little about their personal lives, professional occupation experience, successes or failures, interpersonal skills, visionary and leadership skills, and most important their ability to oversee a complicated city government’s operations, assets, multimillion dollar annual budget and other financial and legal activities.
The folks we elect are game-changers. It is up to us to determine if they are the right fit by evaluating their ability to meet our needs. We must explore their qualifications and history with every bit of scrutiny we would give to anyone holding our destiny in their hands because the consequences are great. Their education, experience and success will move us forward, or quite possible risk us becoming stagnant or going backwards.
We must keep in mind that this isn’t a volunteer position or a social membership. It is a paid position with benefits and the person hired to fill it will be in a decision making capacity that will impact our futures.
Like many of us, individuals who run for CC will be our friends and/or acquaintances. For some, this poses a loyalty issue. We encourage you dig deep this election and ask yourself objective questions such as;
Do I continue the status quo in every election?
Do I take the time to find representatives that have proven their value to the community?
Do I elect individuals that have proven they can make sound and logical decisions on my behalf?
Am I pleased with the position and direction my City is going in?
Have I reviewed the incumbents voting records? Do I agree with them a reasonable percentage of time?
Have the incumbents listened to the majority of constituents?
Do the incumbents lean towards special interest groups?
Do I elect an individual based upon professional eligibility and proven performance ad success or do I elect only friends I know?
Sounds so simple, right? It’s not. It’s time consuming and often confusing.
Sadly, local voter numbers are in decline. This is hard to understand since local elections give voters the greatest voice and opportunity to be heard. Our local officials are elected to represent the majority, and when a large fraction chooses not to vote, small groups rule and thus bias is prevalent. This hurts us all.
Get Involved. Local elections take place every year and they have long lasting implications.
By choosing the most experienced, trustworthy and transparent representatives, voters can help create and pass laws reflective of how we feel. Local politicians play a major role in all of the decisions that have a direct influence on our day-to-day lives. Our laws, streets, safety, education, thriving and healthy communities are influenced by their ability to leverage our tax dollars and make good financial decisions for us.
Our local elected officials decide how our public safety is managed. They have input as to how our police officers are trained and ensure that self-policing is in place and monitored. Sometimes local citizens take action to make their voices heard as well as keeping the check and balances needed so the majority of interests do not take over.
Our local politics can shape federal policy. When you elect officials who support the causes you believe in, you become part of making a change at a state level. As states address issues and revise their laws some eventually are adopted at the federal level. The Federal government often waits to see how the new law evolves at the state level to determine its value. They may also nullify state laws if they choose. Our elected officials become our voice at all levels of government.
This election year, we have 5 City Council candidates – 2 are incumbents. LBCHAT has included individual candidate information and any/all public information documents the may provide you with more insight into each candidate.
Candidate Public Forums:
City Council Candidates:
Alex Rounaghi / Incumbent* SOQ and Disclosure Forms
Political Action Committees (PAC): Disclosure Forms
Laguna Residents First (LRF) PAC
Liberate Laguna (LL) PAC
Village Laguna (VL) PAC
LB FIrefighter’s Association PAC
LB Police Employee Association PAC
Laguna Public Recreational Facilities Conservancy (LPRFC)(PAC)
CC Candidate Public Background Records – ELECTION 2026
LBChat provides candidate personal and professional information to assist voters in
vetting individuals seeking public office in Laguna Beach.
LBCHAT will publish all public documents related to public office campaigning including:
candidate qualification statements, campaign finance disclosure forms and related
financial information, websites/podcasts, candidate forums, news articles and personal
and professional public information obtained from candidates and through public
information sources. In addition, a Laguna Beach Police contact report listing: arrests,
restraining orders, repossessions and other violations will be obtained in accordance
with the California Public Record Act. Code# 6253 (CPRA)
LAGUNABEACHCHAT.COM
CHAT stands for City Hall Accountability and Transparency. Our Mission: Laguna Beach
CHAT desires to advance accountability and transparency. We serve residents by
providing them with an open and honest platform to gain knowledge about City officials,
functions and decisions that impact our quality of life and our local community.
We welcome resident/voters opinions and feedback. Please share them with us.
Send to: contact@lagunabeachchat.com.
Thank You. Was this helpful? Please send us your feedback (click here)
With 82 percent of Orange County cities having term limits for their council members It’s time for Laguna Beach to adopt Term Limits.
Let’s continue the Term Limits dialogue here in Laguna Beach. NimbleGov.org is a group of local volunteers who have successfully brought this issue to the 2026 General Election ballot. This November, we will all get to vote on this important issue.
As you can see from the official summary issued by the City Clerk (See Below) this is exclusively about Laguna Beach, and exclusively about term limits for our city council. This action is local to Laguna Beach. It is independent of any group or party.
This is a simple process:
In the November 3, 2026 election, registered Laguna Beach voters will cast their ballots either for or against term limits.
If the majority votes for term limits, then the term limit clock starts from zero with the election. (terms served before the 2026 elections do not count toward term limits).
There are term limits for the President, term limits for the Governor, term limits for the Orange County Board of Supervisors, and term limits for the vast majority of cities in Orange County. Those who want to stay in power longer often spend money to convince you otherwise, but this is a question that you get to answer for yourself.
Laguna Beach City Council Majority: Out-Of-Control & Needlessly Expensive Acquisitions
The unicumber, like 4 of our LBCC members, is spineless and has no central nervous system with a clearly visible brain either.
So too the unicumber apparently survives having only a digestive tract. In other words, our Council intakes, digests and processes money and power instead of micro-organisms, excretes the waste unnecessary for its survival—in the cases of the 133, Highway 1 & parking structures, our Council “waste discharges” our precious money into an infinite, alarming future.
These acquisitions (identified as “Projects” herein) constitute fiscal suicide. The funding and goals, the objectives expressed for the 133 and Highway 1/PCH Projects never needed to be pursued in the way they are presently, basically gambling that eventually we’d get what we want.
Investing shouldn’t carry the mark of the economic devil beast: Speculative wagers.
Michele Monda (in the LB Independent) has noted and been clarion-calling, pounding the warning drum out about this in recent columns: Between acquisition sticker prices added to specific alterations/improvements added to ongoing O&M costs, these 2 road movies involve hundreds of millions of $$$ in commitments today, into tomorrow and the next day and day after that.
Betting with house money (ours) that we can assume ownership and then it’s “X-mas Wish List City,” free presents under the tree. Ah yes, Laguna Beach City Council, where gross sum debt service is a way of life!
Bob (What, Me Worry?) Whalen going to a PUC hearing recently, kow-towing, begging for utility under-grounding in the Canyon (public safety and open space hazard issues) or Alex (Frat Boy Wonder) Rounaghi unethically cutting deals behind closed doors with politicians of questionable character and integrity aren’t the most efficient or least expensive path forward.
Rogue Council members, renowned for their myopia and invertebrate leanings, aren’t the funding ambassadors we should be using. As a regional, state and international destination, these Barney Fife’s aren’t capable of entering into high digit, underwriting procurement negotiations.
In Rounaghi’s case, as outed by Michele Monda, who asked him to do this in ex parte chats before his anointment as our representative was discussed at a public hearing? No, not at end of a LBCC meeting when everyone’s left or is half-asleep. At the beginning, and an action item: See who votes to delegate such a negotiation role broaching the transfer of ownership.
The French politician Georges Clemenceau said that “War is too important to be left to the generals.” PCH and the 133 are too important to have Whalen and Rounaghi, diplomatic rubes, grovel, ramble about on bended knee.
Hiring a very good lobbyist firm who is ensconced in Sacramento, has experience in infrastructure, socializes continuously with key committee members in DC, in our legislature and Governor’s Offices could, for a fraction of those millions, get us what we want.
That’s how and why they stay in business, by succeeding. And their competitive portfolio successes can be readily accessed and appraised. If failures, they disappear, capitalistic survival of the fittest.
They often work behind the scenes, including connections with elected aides and other staff. They get the eyes and ears of officials that our Councilmembers might not ever reach let alone even be aware of. The corridors and back alleys of power are their “native habitat” as it were.
If that disturbs anyone, then grow up: Pragmatically, this is where the political system is, and as we’re no longer a village or funky town but an increasingly urbanized city, we need to (as native Californian Joan Didion put it) “Play it as it lays.” Wake up and smell today’s reality coffee.
Co-authored grants and earmarked funds in partnership with Caltrans/DOT, plus US Department of Transportation/Commerce could provide supplemental money needed to make both arteries achieve our community’s targets, the outcomes we’d all like to see.
So spending a few million instead seems intelligent—except our Big 4, like the unicumber, appear to lack any higher cerebral organs between them: Like the Scarecrow in Oz said to Dorothy, if they only had a brain.
Under the National Highway System mandates, states are encouraged to focus federal funds on improving the efficiency and safety of this network. The 133 is on this list.
And why didn’t we get the 133 (Laguna Canyon Road) also listed as a State Scenic Route, like Highway 1 (PCH) long ago? Or is this Council poised to permit yet more blight, more fiascos like Louis Longi’s Work/Live Folly which a SSR listing could preclude?
Considering these 2 major arteries facilitate both county and state transportation, i.e., transiting critical top commerce turf needs along our So Cal coast and especially assist tourism (of which the state gets a piece of the industry action), why do we need to purchase them?
They’re assets and big ticket liabilities that we can do without. We can get the improvements, the cosmetic and infrastructural alterations we seek without buying them…..thus uncomplicated solutions.
We’ve already financially sacrificed by our open space acquisitions that benefit everyone, by our community’s protective vigilance.
We just need to hire the right lobbyists to work their “candidate funding” magic behind the Sacramento and Washington D.C. curtains. In my field (the water utility industry), this is SOP, yet here our country bumpkin, just-fell-off-the-turnip truck Council history thrives and proliferates.
The utilities I work around keep their lobbyists on retainer, and “job out” grant writing. Who writes our grants and what expertise do they really have, especially in the transportation funding area?
Hiring lobbyists for a fraction of the costs of ownership could, within a few years, get BOTH of our main arteries listed, certified in BOTH categories, hence qualify ASAP for the ducats.
CalTrans can’t very well complain if we help find the money, make it part of the decision tree equation, can they? They’ll be happy to hear us stop whining and griping.
Contemporaneously, lobbyists could petition for funds to underwrite the changes we wish to see from other “buckets” like beautification, without massive $$$ encumbrances or post-ownership acquisition O&M costs.
Certainly Les Miklosy’s mobility concept elements can be integrated, “efficiency and safety” implemented, can’t they?
Laguna can achieve its reasonable goals and objectives regarding PCH and the 133 without a veritable tsunami of red ink.
“There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: The bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.” Frederick Bastiat 1850
One can’t help but assume those parking structure Projects are like the pyramids of Egypt, meant to glorify the hubris of leadership yet fly in the face of fiscal prudence, hundreds of millions wasted on visible yet seldom used urbanization homages.
Laguna isn’t just an ideal, dream destination for over 7 million visitors each year: We bring in a lot of money, dispersed across County, State and even national coffer lines. Some here have embraced what a few internationally famous places do: Entrance fees!
We don’t need to do instigate or initiate that “tolling” tactic. And we don’t need to buy the infrastructure that assists those visitations and makes radiated commuting a more modern, pleasant and efficient endeavor (presently more like a Disney adventure ride).
Well, shouldn’t these same beneficiaries I’ve mentioned help us modernize, preserve and protect Laguna as THEIR asset, worthy of diverted, earmarked funding? Not in speculation but in the form of an investment in its viable future?
Seems to me what’s missing is any open, transparent discussion of alternatives like lobbyists, but we’re stuck like a fly in amber with archaic, old school methodologies: Sic transit gloria mundi Laguna Beach City Council.
The Rude Ambushed The Civil, Meek and Mild-Mannered
The Promenade is only the first exploitative step in the “Uber-commodification” of Laguna: It’s all about the Benjamin’s under the present CC, the dismantling and reassemblage of this quintessentially eclectic, funky surf So Cal gem formerly know as Laguna openly in the name of more affluent visitors, a CC seated and fiscally driven by “crony capitalism.”
As a veteran of numerous confrontations with city, county and water district officials back in my eco-NGOs prime (1998—2004), the “Review & File” item on the 4/28/2026 CC agenda held several “tells” for me.
Wasteland Aerial View Facing South Post-Op Terminus of Forest Upper Center; Is Only 2m Above Mean Sea Level (Jeff Gretchen OCR)
The City’s 2 main pilot fish were front and center for support—and to chastise those whom they didn’t agree with, came to neutralize after applying liberal gobs of chapstick, getting petted and stroked as lapdogs with a “Whose a good boy, huh?” from their masters.
Review & File means: It won’t have any action elements, nothing’s really gonna happen, no parts or whole voted upon. Once opened up for public comments after a brief Power Point and statement by the City Manager, it was as I thought, away we go to the City’s Wonderland reality.
It was difficult to ignore the repeated allegations of vitriolic language and unprecedented rudeness (“J’accuse”), the lies aimed at the SOTS (Save Our Trees) cabal that kept spewing from the mouths of these egotistical self-appointed community leaders. 2 in particular as obnoxious, bellicose and insulting as I’ve ever heard them. Recruited City Hall smack-asses talking smack! They reset the bar, next stop? The sludgy bottom after the worship, the ring-kissing and groveling.
The accusations they rained down were ironic: They comported themselves in the compost-like manner that they accused their perceived opponents of—You spot it? You got it! You smelt it, you dealt it, you old homers.
Wasteland Post-Op Surgery (Jeff Gritchen OCR)
I think the justified language and vehemence used by righteously outraged, gut-punched residents at the confrontation the night of the slaughter (aka Midnight Massacre) was being conflated with this CC meeting on purpose. This MM attendance was being held to the actions of others. These 2 senior citizens seemed to have confused the venues and attendees, twisting real events with their paranoia for their masters, lapdogs that these 2 are.
What others said several weeks previously at an entirely different venue and under different traumatic circumstances was, twisted, distorted, misdirected and rife with alternative facts. IOW, seemed like these septuagenarians just made crap up…..Needed their late nighty-night meddies, tucked in at an assisted care facility? Were you never young, passionate and motivated to mobilization. Boring, no wonder you’re still boring.
And the lead off tear jerker from the City Manager was hysterical. The same man who had informed many of the officials in City in the know in advance of the butchery and performed a blatant lie of omission. A lot of faith and trust with the public, if there ever was much, evaporated.
He didn’t tell them that within a hour of the MM Zoom meeting, the klieg lights, chain saws and chippers would come out down at the Promenade, the 8 trees cut off at their stumps, the trunks and branches chopped up and hauled away. One eucalyptus had already toppled at the roots a month before.
Always after the fact, the City vivisectionists eventually admitted that they anticipated the turmoil, alerted the PD, prepared for a tide of emotional community-wide response.
Obviously the CM’s “adorbs” little speech was covert emotional manipulation, meant to not only deflect some of his responsibility and the CC’s but make it more difficult to criticize a seemingly humbled man, upset on par with the community.Yeah, sure.
For newbies especially, an inherent suspicion of deceptive behavior for advantage by their own officials is foreign. So congrats on losing your virginity. You’ll remember such a peak experience, especially don’t forget the Judas-like betrayal.
Buffering is what happened that night of the CC update meeting, immediately raising an emotional barrier, a redirection or deflection, an attentuation of anger or rage worked. Just as a mother dove fakes a broken wing in the wilderness to draw a predator away from her chicks, so too the CM fell on his sword, took the blame to distract those present.
Here was a “mea culpa, mea maxima culpa” from on high. I was watching on cable tv, his face wasn’t shown but I swear I heard faint sobbing or sniveling (how adores), to emphasize that he’s suffering too (I feel you) after seeing those trees from our collective history disappear.
By the end of the topic’s discussion, everybody seemed remorseful and contritious, almost weepy, Kumbaya, Guantanamera, whatevs. So the City strategy seemed a sublimely coercive one, by the CM and CC getting the room to feel sorry for and forgive themselves, recruit organized public commenters; overly-forceful ones and punitive at that.
The activists were relatively few, pell-mell, gentle and sincere. I saw measured frustration and anger, patience that my edgy NGO CLEAN WATER NOW would have never shown. I saw/heard neither incivility or contrived disruption.
As for those responsible and supportive of the City’s blindside sneak attack on the trees, who for one minute believed their own propaganda, enobled a CC and praised them as if brave decisive heroes, you must go through a lot of chapstick.
Denigrating and demeaning people exercising their rights (many for the first time from accounts), it felt as though the most venomous were clearly rehearsed. Brownie points were being scored and archived, banked for future leveraging (political graft and influence) right there in Chambers.
And puh-leeze. Declaring this THE best CC ever is absurd. If they were, they would’ve created a path with options (off ramps) in 2024 that supported a let Laguna vote initiative and then abided by that will. They’re deep into crony capitalism and wiping the City we’ve all loved off the map. Bring in the affluent.
They even took a lot of Promenade oversight out of regulatory domain via exemptions. That the majority of residents didn’t want it, were willing to take it to the streets, intimidated them.
The dominant body of the SAVE PLANET LAGUNA tree huggers didn’t show up in great numbers, the more hard core seemed MIA–but maybe they read the tea leaves. Done deal. Perhaps a younger, not yet coalesced crowd, a new constellation with a different style will emerge “NEXT GEN 3.0?”
Watching from home, unfortunately, was painful, like watching a car wreck in slo-mo, but deja vu as well. Being reminded of how totally bogus and phony government is from my early years (late 90s), the “tells” added up, so I don’t blame the more committed, the more hard core to sit that one out in anticipation of more irresponsible acts to follow (and more WILL follow), watch their own officials wiggle their way out of further accountability fallout.
I think the tree slaughter triggered some of the same intrinsic, visceral responses I remembered from my water quality actionist history. Power doesn’t necessarily corrupt but it does attract the corruptible. I would comment that those in the room who only paid lip service (recruited by CC as suck-up shills) but didn’t experience the inner trauma in horror, you probably never have nor will.
One thing seemed unavoidable: The City had totally screwed up regarding that PR and communications aspect. The CM said the buck stopped with him? Then he needs to begin looking for another job elsewhere.
Moreover, it might have been a Brown Act violation (or multiple), the City having intentionally withheld information that the public had every legal right to be aware of along the dispositive route, plus the way that the CM and CC had communicated in irregular manners.
Gotta wonder what else has been withheld: What else don’t we know and when won’t we know it?
“The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.” Brown Act
The schism this deflective shielding created ( a Klingon type cloaking device), the division it unleashed or at least antagonized, and yes the hostility as a function of fatal lapses of human appreciation of Nature and community sensitivity, was one of the CM’d first stress tests: And he failed. We’re all advised, never start out a relationship with a lie.
You’d have to be extremely naive to believe that part of his duties isn’t to be a fall guy like Tuesday night, the scape goat when required. It’s not spelled out in a CM’s contract, but it’s a known element by those in the know. He buffers, takes the spotlight and heat off the CC.
And BTW, his job entails thespian services, act as if he serves you, he feels your distress, is empathetic to your plight when interfacing—-Pathetic posing is more like it, he doesn’t see himself as working for you, he works for who signs his hefty paycheck, a 3 member majority of the CC. So he only needs to be able to count to 3. He’s just not that into you.
For my part, I hope to not only educate in these columns, drawing upon my 30 years of what I call “actionism,” my professional portfolio, but my eco-consultant/analyst skills and experiences acquired, plus my NGOs “institutional knowledge.”
Here’s one stop shopping for all things great and small, Sea Level Rise in Laguna Cali. A heavy protein meal, might want to chew and digest it slowly: coastal.ca.gov/climate/slr/
I’ve tasked myself, as my last rodeo, my final enviro-campaign, with turning this into a “wedge issue” for the 2026 LBCC race. If only 1 candidate figures out the can of worms potential, makes it their own, it opens a Pandora’s box the CC and their friendlies will have trouble closing.
Wresting control away from these greedy wolves in sheep’s clothing (Commerce First, Resident’s Last) can be done. And at the end of the day, command and control is the bottom line. That’s what happened, what disturbed City Hall earlier this week. They lost control and that frightens, that threatens them.
“Some people will rob you with a 6-gun, some with a fountain pen.” Woody Guthrie
They’re the fountain pen type, a “Take Back Laguna” movement needs kick-starting. Eradicate the now prevalent “crony capitalism.”en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism
Flip the flipping CC as flipping fast as flipping possible, seize the next few years and begin unraveling, dismantling as much of the damage already done or in planning as possible.
Ex.: The vendor analyst who presented at the Scoping SessionWorkshop for the Downtown Phase II EIR lied. He said that his firm was told to “model” for 450-675 units, but that upper # was capped, wouldn’t be built out beyond 450.
Maybe the lower #, enough to fulfill the State minimum of394. Liar liar pants of fire, once again he does his master’s bidding, whomever signs his corporation’s check is his boss, not us. That too was like many presentations, we call them “dog ‘n pony shows” to dupe the interested parties
Once the EIR is certified and officially filed with the State, it’ll be a gold rush in the holler. Nellie bar the door, the back door and counter at Community Development and Building Dept., kept from the public negotiations to the maximum extent possible will start. Not transparent, those cronies will get the inside rail. As will FORMER CC members.
I come from the enviro-review industry, believe me via an addendum or amendment to the certified, Final EIR, it’s EZ PZ to jack it up to that upper modeling #. That’s the entire idea, that’s this CC’s goal.
Translation: Offer the incentive of building all units in one centralized area, and then Mayor Mark Orgill along with the CM declared to the room, sadly, there was no alternative. BS.
He might run for re-election 1 time, having the advantage of incumbency. That’s because he needs to complete HIS check list, what HE will need in place when he steps down and puts his developer hat back on. Turning Downtown gold into his retirement platinum, heritage wealth.
All of our mitigation bucks on one path: The over-development, the inappropriate and catastrophic Downtown nightmare. Like major cosmetic surgery, an extreme makeover, take that old familiar friend we knew and loved, make her a Kardasian, the trendoid pneumatic botox and silicon type to bring the affluent into an area so horrendously under-parked as to boggle the mind.
The vibe of Laguna most of us have enjoyed over the years (visitors too) kind of a kicked back, casual Mexico-meets-Hawaii deal will be eradicated. Those aren’t the market they seek—They’ve openly stated that it’s the affluent they’re rebuilding for.
When MO ran for CC he alleged that he was no longer a developer, a real estate entrepreneur, that puts a lie to that claim. Enter-The-Manure. All of the affected “paternal ‘tude,” like the CM’s “I feel you” is a scam, a con, while they and their developer BFFs carve up Downtown on planning boards and spreadsheets.
Sound familiar, it’s like the trees, sorry to break it to you, noalternative. Really? Notice how little choice they offer? It’s our Canyon Creek’s flood plain, the first place in town after the Promenade as a crash test dummy, the first to likely exhibit the deleterious effects, the symptoms of sea level rise.
Failing to plan is planning to fail.
Heard anyone in City Hall broach the subject of a Sea Level Rising Adaptation Plan in reference to CIPs planned, yet more pimping of Laguna? So all of these Downtown development plans but no mention or acknowledgement of the calamitous sword of Damocles hovering, how will the City protect Downtown from the rising tide? Are they gonna wait until surf is rolling into The Rivian during a King High Tide, ’cause that’s ground zero?
Fact: from the foot of Forest down to Broadway, PCH is between 6-9 feet above Mean Seal Level (MSL). The ocean’s rising about 1″/year, many university study groups are recalibrating, scientists now feel it’s been rising faster these past few years, intruding further inland horizontally but also filtering into our groundwater, accelerating.
It’s going to take a lot of brain time and beaucoup $$$ to develop a cure or remedy protection plan. Yet they keep writing blank checks for frivolous, luxury CIPs in both Downtown and at Aliso, the 2 lowest, most vulnerable points.
And judging by this CC, who is rapidly painting us into a corner as every day that passes leaves us short of dealing head on with tactics or budget allowances, don’t bet on them letting us have a proactive or preemptive choice, just like The Promenade.
Barring a miracle our next 1-2 gens of taxpayers’ll be paying their dues. They’ll leave with the tab running and responsibility in your children’s laps. And a slew of new brushed concrete 2 and 3 story buildings Downtown that will convert a formerly funky So Cal coastal surf village icon into a totally boojie leggos dump.
Them? They’ll be dead or retired elsewhere, leaving their messes behind. Their crony capitalist pals fatter, richer, including MO after he leaves CC. And a city now on the precipice of BK, will be under water both literally and fiscally. “Lively up yourself.”
Once again, browse this link, look at the HUGE expenditures that’ll be needed to protect Downtown. These political hacks, every election cycle, declare that public safety is the top priority.coastal.ca.gov/climate/slr/
Shouldn’t we begin developing our Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan now instead of securing massive development building block entitlements.
Wouldn’t it be supremely stupid to start building/rebuilding first, then plan? That’s the present CC: “Dare To Be Stupid.”
NEXTCHAPTER: What the grotty future Downtown skyline and streets might resemble, what the demanding and unique construction dynamics for urban renewal might be, plus the mass indemnification intrigue.
I’ll also reveal how the City can increase the additional 450units up to that 650 inventory (by Addendum or Amendment), pimping Laguna….Addenda without a public hearing or public review, amendment via a Revised/Subsequent EIR or or separate Mitigated Neg Declaration.
It’s Mourning In Laguna: No mas aloha. Hola, Bienvenidos Gordon “Greed Is Good” Gekko.
The Truth Behind the “Financial Emergency”
Coutesy of The Weiss Report
City Manager Dave Kiff’s recent column, “2026: A Big Year Begins,” appeared in Stu News and Friday’s Laguna Beach Independent. Readers should view this column as a “soft launch” of significant policy shifts coming to Laguna Beach.
The column is also a strategic communication piece designed to frame the narrative before the formal legislative process begins. The City Council is the legislative body responsible for making policy decisions. Why then isn’t the Mayor the one speaking to the public about new taxes and major issues for voters?
There is a reason for the City Manager to lead the charge instead of our elected officials:
· Pre-emptive Framing: Mr. Kiff is framing the tax not as “more spending”—which it is—but as a necessity to prevent the decay of “must-have” services like fire protection and fuel modification.
· Agenda Setting: The primary intent here is agenda-setting. By bundling a sales tax increase with popular or “emergency” needs—such as wildfire safety, seismic upgrades for fire stations, and “home rule”—the City Manager is attempting to create a “package deal” that is difficult for the public to oppose.
· Political Shielding. It’s An Election Year: By taking the lead on the proposal, the City Manager provides a layer of political cover for the City Council, especially those running for re-election. If the public reacts poorly, “city staff” takes the heat. If the proposal is well received, the Council can simply “respond to staff recommendations.”
Crossing the Financial Rubicon: At the recent City Council Strategic Planning meeting, we discovered that the city’s expenses have exceeded revenues for the last two years. The city is in financial hot water and claims it needs more revenue.
This is happening despite General Fund revenues climbing from $61.7 million in 2015-16 to $95.6 million in 2025-26. That represents a 55% increase in revenue over the last ten years, and yet we are still running deficits.
Why can’t the city live within its means? Why has city staff size increased by 35% over the last decade, (a major cause of increased spending) even though the population of Laguna has declined?
City Managers execute policies established by the elected officials of the City Council and runs the day-to-day operations of the city; City Managers do not initiate or sell policy ideas to the public. If you get the chance, please read Mr. Kiff’s column and feel free to email him as he invites.
The Engineered Collapse of Laguna Beach Healthcare
Courtesy of Laguna Unmasked
In January 2026, Providence Mission Hospital CEO Seth Teigen stood before the Laguna Beach City Council and delivered a grim prognosis: the local hospital’s emergency room and acute care services were “not part of the long-term plan”. The culprit, according to Providence? The state’s 2030 seismic safety deadline. Teigen framed the closure as a financial inevitability, citing a $350 million price tag to retrofit the 1959 facility.
But a forensic analysis of capital investments, service logs, and regulatory filings reveals a different reality. The facility is not closing because it failed; it is closing because it was starved.
The evidence suggests Providence did not stumble into an unsustainable facility—they engineered one. Through a decade of systematic service extraction and a refusal to invest institutional capital, the healthcare giant created the very “vacancy” it now uses to justify abandonment.
The Smoking Gun: A 57-to-1 Disparity
The most damning evidence of Providence’s intent lies in the investment ledger. Since 2016, the flow of capital into South Orange County reveals a stark strategic choice:
• Mission Viejo Campus:$762 Million
Includes a $712 million expansion (2022-2030), a new patient care tower, 100 private rooms, and state-of-the-art cardiac and neuroscience wings.
• Laguna Beach Campus:$12.5 Million
Includes an emergency department expansion (2019) funded entirely by community donations, not Providence’s capital budget.
The Ratio: 57 to 1.
For every dollar Providence spent maintaining Laguna Beach, they poured fifty-seven into Mission Viejo. When a health system invests three-quarters of a billion dollars in one site while pleading poverty regarding a satellite campus eight miles away, the message is unambiguous: the “financial constraint” is a myth. The neglect was a choice.
The Roadmap to Irrelevance
Providence argues that the Laguna Beach hospital runs with “huge vacancy”. This is technically true, but misleading. The vacancy is the result of a deliberate “hollowing out” strategy.
Since acquiring the facility, and accelerating after the 2016 merger, Providence has stripped the hospital of its vital organs. The most aggressive dismantling occurred over a mere nine-month period between late 2022 and spring 2023:
1. The Behavioral Health Purge (Sept 2022)
Providence eliminated the 38-bed Chemical Dependency Program—the hospital’s largest single unit. Unlike other services, this wasn’t moved; it was erased. Thirty-three staff members faced layoffs, and patients were redirected to facilities as far away as Torrance.
2. The “Spring Cleaning” (April–May 2023)
In a span of just 27 days, Providence relocated three core services to Mission Viejo, using corporate euphemisms like “centralization” and “optimization” to describe the cuts:
• April 27: Outpatient Physical Therapy transferred.
• May 10: Inpatient and Outpatient GI services transferred.
• May 24: Outpatient Laboratory closed.
By stripping the hospital of labs, specialists, and rehab clinics, Providence ensured that local physicians could no longer effectively admit patients to Laguna Beach. The resulting drop in patient census—the “vacancy”—was the mathematical inevitability of these decisions.
The Seismic Scapegoat
Providence points to California’s 2030 seismic compliance mandate as the primary driver for closure. However, the timeline of their decision-making contradicts this claim.
Every hospital administrator in California has known about the 2030 deadline for decades. Yet, in 2019, Providence accepted $12.5 million in donor funds to expand the Laguna Beach Emergency Department. Why expand a facility you know you cannot afford to retrofit?
Furthermore, the $712 million expansion of Mission Viejo was announced in September 2022—the exact same month they closed the Chemical Dependency unit in Laguna. This suggests the capital to fix Laguna Beach existed; it was simply allocated elsewhere. The seismic deadline is not a surprise event; it is a convenient regulatory shield for a consolidation strategy drafted years ago.
The Human Cost of “Efficiency”
CEO Teigen has promised “non-traditional healthcare models” to replace the hospital, likely referring to urgent care clinics. But urgent care cannot replace a trauma-ready Emergency Department.
The geography of Laguna Beach—a coastal enclave accessible primarily via the heavily congested Highway 133 or the Toll Road—makes the eight-mile trek to Mission Viejo dangerous in critical emergencies.
• Response Times: Fire officials warn that with only two dedicated ambulances in the city, transport times of 30+ minutes to Mission Viejo will leave Laguna Beach without local EMS coverage for hours at a time.
• Patient Safety: One resident recently reported a five-hour wait for a tendon repair, while another was left bleeding for an hour due to staffing shortages.
The Path to Survival: A Playbook for Resistance
While Providence has declared the hospital’s end, the community has identified four distinct avenues to challenge the closure and preserve critical care:
1. Regulatory Enforcement (The “2009 Agreement” Strategy)
When Mission Hospital acquired the facility in 2009, the sale required approval from the California Attorney General, conditioned on maintaining community benefits. The systematic dismantling of services—86 beds removed across four programs—may constitute a material violation of those commitments. A formal investigation by the Attorney General could force Providence to pause the closure or restore specific service levels as a condition of their nonprofit tax status.
2. The Standalone ER Battle
Providence claims California regulations make a standalone Emergency Department “infeasible” without inpatient beds. This is a policy choice, not a law of physics. Rural and remote communities often operate satellite EDs. The city can advocate for a regulatory waiver or specific legislative approval to maintain a licensed, 911-receiving ER with trauma stabilization capabilities, independent of the inpatient tower.
3. Legislative Triage
State representatives can be lobbied for immediate legislation requiring transparency before services are cut. New laws could mandate that healthcare systems disclose consolidation plans years in advance, or provide targeted seismic funding for “critical access” facilities like Laguna Beach that are geographically isolated by traffic and topography.
4. Forced Divestiture
If Providence is unwilling to invest the necessary capital, the final option is alternative ownership. The facility could be transferred to a public hospital district or a different healthcare system willing to undertake the seismic retrofits. While the $350 million cost remains a barrier, a new operator focused solely on Laguna Beach—rather than prioritizing a massive campus in Mission Viejo—might find a path to sustainability that Providence refuses to see.
Conclusion: A Manufactured Crisis
Providence Mission Hospital’s narrative is that they are reacting to market forces and regulatory burdens. The data tells a story of proactive dismantling.
They eliminated 86 beds across four major programs. They moved the profit centers (GI, Lab, Therapy) to Mission Viejo while leaving the cost centers (ER) to wither. They invested nothing from their own coffers while spending nearly a billion dollars down the road.
When the doors finally close, Providence will call it a tragedy of economics. The community should call it what it is: a successful execution of a long-term liquidation plan.
By George Weiss
I was shocked during last Friday’s six-hour Strategic Planning Meeting to discover an agenda item discussing the potential repurposing of the historic Laguna Beach County Water District (LBCWD) headquarters on Forest Avenue. Even more concerning, the City failed to inform Water District officials that this discussion would take place, nor did they provide notice when the topic was briefly raised at the January 27th City Council meeting. Does that bother anyone?
Historical Context & Governance For context, the LBCWD serves 80% of Laguna residents and became a city subsidiary roughly 20 years ago, with the City Council acting as its Board of Directors. The Water District is a pillar of our history, having celebrated its 100th Anniversary in 2025. It supplied water prior to the city’s 1927 incorporation—a crucial resource that allowed Laguna Beach to develop where Spanish explorers had previously avoided settling.
Why a New Compensation Study Misses the Mark City Expenses are Outpacing Revenues
Courtesy of George Weiss’ Substack, a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support George’s work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
On January 13th, the City Council held a study session with an HR consultant to review findings on staff compensation and job classifications. Although the City has not conducted such a study in twenty years, the findings were surprisingly positive. The consultant confirmed that Laguna Beach is well-positioned: midpoint salaries are at 100% of the market average, and maximums are at 104%.
As a result of increasing staff size from 2015-25 by 35% and increasing staff compensation the city budget is approaching a financial tipping point. For the second year in a row, expenses will outstrip funding, largely driven by increases in staff wages and compensation. Furthermore, our unfunded pension liabilities currently sit at over $88 million, and if current trends hold rise to $114 million by 2031 or higher if no remedial action is taken.
Given these financial realities, we must ask: Does a well-compensated workforce translate to superior service? In my humble opinion, it has not.
The Risk of “Market Adjustments”
History suggests that adopting compensation studies overwhelmingly results in significant, multi-million dollar increases to budgets. Realigning positions to market rates often necessitates an overall increase in personnel costs, even when the goal is simply “internal equity”. Since the City is already at 100% of the market average, we can only hope that further compensation hikes will not be the outcome when the recommendations return for a vote in late February or March. Attend if you can.
How Employees are Paid Now: (from the staff report)
It is important to understand that City employees already obtain higher pay and enhanced benefits through several robust processes:
● Collective Bargaining: Legally binding MOUs set specific terms for wages and benefits.
● Merit-Based & Promotional Increases: Employees typically receive annual step increases, with potential for faster advancement or a 5% raise upon promotion.
● Performance Pay: Management can award up to 5% of gross salary for exceptional performance.
● Add-ons & Stipends: Public safety roles earn extra for certifications, and employees receive stipends for cell phones ($80), internet ($50), and tuition reimbursement.
● Market Adjustments: Periodic studies ensure salaries remain competitive, such as the Council’s determination that Police officers be in the top quartile of Orange County.
The Debate at the Study Session:
During the session, at the request of Councilman Alex Rounaghi, the consultant suggested a “Hybrid Model”. Under this system, employees would advance via steps to the midpoint of their job pay scale, (market rate) based on time and competency, but any increases beyond the midpoint would be strictly performance-based.
While Rounaghi favored this model, Councilmember Sue Kempf pushed back. She warned that merit pay often devolves because “management just wants everybody to get something,” arguing instead that ambitious standards and culture drive performance more than complex pay schemes.
Councilmember Kempf is right. Research shows that without proper leadership and training, complex performance systems are risky and prone to failure. Currently, our HR Department and City management have not demonstrated the professional rigor required to manage such a system effectively.
The Unaddressed Problem is Leadership:
We have a clear example of how high pay fails to solve workplace issues. Irvine has the highest compensation plan for police officers in OC, with Laguna Beach second. Despite high compensation, LBPD has struggled to recruit from other Orange County cities for over 30 years. This recruitment challenge is not about money; it is due to a substandard workplace culture. Securing two horses for police service will not fix it.
We have not often enough attracted the “best and brightest” because the City’s work environment is substandard and suffers from poor leadership at City Council and Sr. Management at City Hall. As Councilmember Kempf argued persuasively, high standards and culture drive performance, not just compensation.
Conclusion:
“Cultural change precedes political and social change. You need a shift in thinking before you can have a shift in direction. You need a different spiritual climate, one grounded in humility, institutional wisdom and energy.” David Brooks, NY Times
If we focus on leadership and creating a healthy workplace culture, performance will improve, attrition will slow, and efficiency will rise. City Hall must become a better m place to work if it is to retain and attract talented employees that believe in public service. This must be the priority before we spend more money on consulting studies or risk adopting complex pay models, we are ill-equipped to manage.
The City’s financial situation is not healthy and action must be taken to forestall a financial crisis. New taxes were discussed at the City Council’s Strategic Planning session too. That won’t be accepted by voters considering that city’s general fund (local taxes) increased incrementally from by 36.5 million from 2015 to 2025. Every year the City Council finds ways to spend all the money and additional staffing accounts for a significant share. This is an election year and the members of the city council got us into financial difficulties need to be held accountable.
A recent opinion piece published Sept. 6 titled Concerning City Council raised important concerns about the current state of governance in our city. It highlighted troubling examples of power concentration, such as Councilman Bob Whalen’s lengthy tenure and repeated leadership roles, as well as School Board President Jan Vickers’ decades-long service without rotation. The piece makes a strong case for why term limits are essential to preventing entrenched authority and ensuring more democratic representation.
As someone whose family has been part of Laguna Beach for over 100 years, I agree wholeheartedly. My grandkids now attend Laguna Beach schools, and I feel a growing responsibility to ensure that the governance we pass down to the next generation is open, transparent, and truly serves the community. Unfortunately, what we see today in both the city council and the school board is leadership that either serves special interests or avoids accountability by delegating too much authority to staff. This not only distances them from the difficult decisions they were elected to make but also erodes the trust that residents should have in their leaders.
When decisions are made behind closed doors, and the will of the people is overshadowed by special interests, it creates a dangerous disconnect between the community and those in power. Residents feel unheard, marginalized, and some end up leaving. This culture fosters disengagement and leads to a diminished sense of community, as described in the recent article.
What makes this situation even more alarming is that once leaders manipulate democratic processes to retain control, they often take further steps to tighten their grip. As public dissent grows, leadership may resort to more exclusionary practices—such as banning Zoom participation—to silence opposition and avoid scrutiny. These actions, as pointed out in the recent piece, are symptomatic of a leadership culture that leans toward authoritarianism.
If we allow these patterns to continue, we risk handing down a legacy of distrust, disengagement, and authoritarian-leaning leadership to future generations. My grandkids—and all of Laguna Beach’s children—deserve better. They deserve a government that listens, that is accountable, and that represents the diverse needs of the entire community.
The November election offers us a chance to restore good governance. We can elect leaders who prioritize transparency and accountability, not just maintaining power. Implementing term limits, as suggested in the recent opinion piece, would be a crucial first step toward achieving this. Let’s also ensure that we support candidates who serve the people, not special interests.
By taking these actions, we can heal the political divide in Laguna Beach and set a positive example for future generations.
Michèle Monda is a resident with a passion for government transparency, fiscal responsibility and accountability.
With an MBA from Wharton Business School and a career in advertising and marketing for major agencies and companies she uses her talents to build community arts; first resurrecting the Laguna Art Museum store and currently developing ArtStart for our landmark Hotel Laguna. She is married with three grown sons, two grandchildren and a feisty cat.
While it’s admirable that residents serve their community in elected offices, some are reluctant to give up their power. They seem to believe what Andrew Carnegie stated – “Immense power is acquired by assuring yourself . . . that you were born to control affairs.”
Entrenched electeds employ two tactics to retain control and power: refusal to accept term limits and refusal to share leadership positions.
Until recently, our city council’s tradition was that councilmembers would rotate mayor and pro tem positions. This ensured that presiding officers represented councilmembers’ constituencies and no faction monopolized the agenda. The school board rotated, too, even requiring it under a binding bylaw.
But the school board violated its own bylaw and ended rotation, and then the city council did the same. We’re witnessing the de facto ruling party monopolization of both bodies.
Without rotating presiding officers, term limits are the only way to ensure a more open democracy. Term limits expand participation, diversity and enable more people to help their town. Only councilman George Weiss supports term limits – the other councilmembers refuse.
Councilman Bob Whalen is a case in point. Whalen has been on city council for almost twelve years and is seeking another four. He’s been mayor five times and pro tem twice. He’s been in control for seven years of his twelve-year tenure – almost 60% of his time in office. He and Mayor Sue Kempf keep passing the titles back and forth to maintain a stranglehold on power.
This control doesn’t seem to advance a resident-friendly or fiscally responsible agenda. Despite backlash from residents, Whalen voted to acquire the $2.7 million Ti Amo property without an appraisal. He spearheaded the Presbyterian Church parking structure that would have cost residents $12 million to build, not including lease and operational costs over 50 years. At the end – the church would’ve gotten it free and clear, plus all income from parking. Residents – nothing.
Now, Whalen wants to acquire, underground and beautify Laguna Canyon road for $150 million plus $12 million in annual liability costs and an unknown amount for annual maintenance and staffing. Where’s that money coming from since the council refused to raise any kind of revenue at a recent council meeting? Residents.
Whalen also wants to build a parking structure at city hall for 300-400 visitor cars at an unknown cost. He says we need to manage visitor impacts. Is encouraging them to come with more resident-funded parking the answer?
In Whalen’s 12 years, city staff has increased 35% to 336 staff members, while the city’s population dropped by almost a thousand between 2020 and 2023. The city budget went from $70 million in 2013 to a projected $147 million this fiscal year. We need new eyes looking at these increases.
As for the school board, president Jan Vickers is seeking her 11th term. She’s served some 40 years. First elected in 1980, she was recalled in 1987 for voting to retain a football coach arrested on felony drug possession, trafficking and resisting arrest charges. She served two terms in the 90s and has now been on the school board consecutively since 2000.
In the past ten years, she’s been president six times, 60% of the time. Vickers served three consecutive terms from 2017 to 2020 and is currently serving two consecutive terms. She voted to ignore board bylaws on rotating the presidency and then voted several months later to change the bylaws – apparently to deny another board member from becoming president and maintain her own control of the agenda.
Vickers championed the questionable $19 million 50-meter pool serving only 79 water polo students, but can’t accommodate community swim activities or swim lessons for children. The pool’s extensive construction will disrupt the community, school and Park Avenue (an evacuation route) for three years. A renovated 35-meter pool could serve all those functions at a fraction of the cost. Vickers also voted to transfer $10 million out of the general fund into the facilities fund in the last six months for this project.
Recently, 120 students and parents implored the school board to resurrect the special needs program that the superintendent disbanded. Vickers responded that the school board was not to be blamed. Yet, the state mandates that the school board is indeed responsible for what happens in the district and can change decisions. The board directs the superintendent, not the other way around.
That’s not how she wants it, apparently. She allows the superintendent to develop policy, and the board rubberstamps his decisions. In fact, she voted to give the superintendent a four-year contract instead of the usual two-year contract. So, who’s running the district?
Term limits would solve these problems of excessive control by a few individuals. It’s time for new blood and new perspectives. Vote accordingly.
Michèle is a 21-year Laguna resident and actively follows Laguna politics. She is the treasurer of Laguna Beach Sister Cities and is involved with the local arts scene. She can be reached at Michelemonda3@gmail.com.
