Letters to the Editor

Jahraus Park renovation should honor its history

While I am thrilled that Jahraus Park will be renovated, as a former longtime Laguna resident, I take issue with two omissions in the recent article.

First, I think you owe your readers a little background on the importance of the Jahraus family. Their many accomplishments include helping establish the water district that brought a reliable source of water to Laguna Beach; establishing the Laguna Beach Lumber Company, which provided the materials used to build the town; and, most importantly, negotiating with Mr. Heisler for our beautiful park and then holding Mr. Heisler accountable when he wanted to back out of the deal and develop the property for housing.

Second, the “water fountain” is not just a water fountain. It is a fabulous sculpture by Ruth Peabody, executed in 1933, and I believe it is the oldest piece of public art in our town. I loved it as a child and I still do.

Laguna Beach is Laguna Beach because of all the wonderful people who gave their energy and commitment to our town. They deserve to be honored, and I am so pleased that the secret little Jahraus Park will be celebrated and improved. I look forward to attending the dedication.

Hedy Buzan Williamson

Laguna Woods

Where is a carless visitor supposed to smoke?

Laguna Beach’s smoking ordinance leaves a curious problem for visitors.

Consider an adult who flies into Orange County, takes a rideshare to Laguna Beach and stays at a smoke-free hotel. Smoking is prohibited on the city’s streets, sidewalks, beaches, parks and other public places. The hotel prohibits smoking on its property. Rental car companies generally prohibit smoking in their vehicles.

Where, exactly, can that visitor legally smoke?

This isn’t an argument for smoking on beaches or crowded sidewalks. It’s a request for a practical accommodation: a small, responsibly located designated smoking area, coupled with proper disposal and clear notice of Laguna Beach’s broad restrictions before visitors arrive.

A city can strongly discourage tobacco use while recognizing that adults still legally use tobacco.

Good public policy should account for predictable real-world situations. Laguna Beach should provide visitors without cars with a lawful option rather than effectively providing none.

Jacob Sigo

Washougal, Wash.

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

Trust the parents, vote Joan, Shaheen and Kimberly

In just a few weeks, you will open your mailbox and in it will be an oversize envelope containing the ticket to the success of my son’s future education here in Laguna Beach. This October, voting will begin for the most important Laguna Beach Unified School District School Board election in my lifetime.

I am a parent of an 11-year-old at Thurston Middle School, but also an alumna of LBUSD. Growing up in Laguna, I knew how special this public school district was. We had the most amazing staff, coupled with an army of parents with a shared commitment to creating the most excellent public school system in the nation. And I believe they achieved that. That is exactly why when it came to making the decision of where to send our child to school, it was LBUSD all the way.

And while there are new faces on the campuses, there is still that same level of commitment from faculty, staff and parents who drive the excellence of this district. I just had my first Back to School Night at Thurston and was blown away by the caliber of teachers that my son has

But one thing seems to be keeping the district back and that is what I view as the failings of three of the current school board members, including Dee Perry, who is up for re-election. While the issues at hand are complex and too convoluted to outline in a mere 400 words, my concerns can be summed up as follows.

A school board that does not have the full support of its teachers and staff is failing to do its job. A school board that has lost its true north star of serving the students and their families is failing to do its job.

So, we, as the voters of Laguna Beach, need to do our job to ensure that we vote for board members who prioritize rebuilding the trust of our teachers and reorienting the board’s purpose back to the central focus of serving our students and families.

When I get my ballot, I will be voting for Joan Malczewski, Shaheen Sheik-Sadhal and Kimberly Smith. Joan is an incumbent school board member and has been a champion for our teachers and students. Shaheen and Kimberly are both LBUSD parents, with deep commitments to our children. Trust the Teachers. Trust the Parents. Vote Joan, Shaheen, and Kimberly.

Sara Lowell

LBUSD Parent and LBUSD Alumna (‘99)

A message from Laguna Beach teachers that is too loud to ignore

I have a child at Top of the World, one at Thurston and one at Laguna Beach High School. I have been an LBUSD parent for years, through different grades, teachers and stages of my kids’ lives. I have seen this district from almost every level and gone through some of those levels more than once.

That is why the change over the last few years has been hard to watch.

The teachers and staff I know still care deeply about our kids. They show up and do the extra things that make these schools what they are. But they seem tired in a way I don’t remember. Something is weighing on this district. We need to stop pretending it doesn’t affect the people working in our schools.

Because they have been telling us.

For two years in a row, roughly 90% of teachers who voted in union votes have expressed no confidence in board leadership. And now we have something I find even harder to ignore.

This year, teachers participated in their endorsement process in record numbers. Every single teacher who voted, 100%, endorsed Joan Malczewski, Shaheen Sheik-Sadhal and Kimberly Smith.

Our classified staff also participated in record numbers, and 98% made the same choice: Joan, Shaheen and Kimberly.

I keep coming back to that because people don’t understand how unusual it is.

Anyone who has spent time around a school knows teachers don’t all think alike. They don’t have the same politics, personalities or opinions. They work at different schools, teach different ages and have very different experiences.

Yet, when a record number of them showed up to have a voice in this election, every single one who participated agreed.

That should stop us in our tracks.

I’ve heard some district leaders say teachers and staff shouldn’t have much influence in a school board election because many don’t live within LBUSD boundaries. I don’t understand that argument.

They may not all vote here, but they work here. They spend more waking hours with our kids during the week than many of us do. They know what is happening inside these schools in a way the rest of us cannot. And it isn’t about money.

What I keep hearing is about respect, trust, being allowed to do your job and feeling like your professional judgment matters instead of constantly having someone looking over your shoulder or adding another task.

Think about what these employees have carried over the last two years: health care audits, investigations, grievances, negotiations, leadership changes and constant conflict surrounding the district. Then they go back into a classroom.

Kids still need help reading. Middle schoolers have tough days. High school students worry about college. Parents email. Lessons need planning. Meetings must be attended. Buses need driving. Offices must be run.

All that other stuff takes up space in their heads.

As a parent, I want our teachers and staff to spend as much energy as possible on our kids, not on problems created around them.

And I want to say something directly to our teachers and staff: thank you.

Thank you for continuing to show up for our children through all of this. Thank you for keeping so much of what our kids experience every day feeling normal, even when I imagine things behind the scenes have felt anything but normal.

I know that takes something out of you, and I don’t think parents say often enough that we see it.

I’ve been around LBUSD long enough to know what we are seeing right now isn’t normal.

Two years of overwhelming no-confidence votes are not normal.

Holding a rally at Main Beach for the first time in living memory is not normal.

One hundred percent of participating teachers and 98% of participating staff coming together behind the same three people is certainly not normal.

So, when our teachers and staff go to this much effort to make themselves heard, I am not going to explain it away or tell myself it doesn’t matter. I am listening.

I hope everyone voting in this school board election understands just how loudly they are speaking.

Chelsea Haderer

LBUSD Parent

Aliso Viejo

Lessons learned

While many community members may not be paying close attention to what is happening in our school district, the dysfunction on our school board – and its impact on our community – has become much too important to ignore.

As a five-decade LBUSD parent and grandparent, it is embarrassing to admit that I was careless with my school board votes in 2022 and 2024. I fell for what I now believe was a well-crafted misinformation campaign by a newly formed special interest political group. Serious allegations were made about then-board members and the superintendent, and I allowed that rhetoric to influence my normally reasonable judgment and, ultimately, my votes.

Big mistake. I recognized that after watching the people I supported serve together in their elected roles. I am speaking specifically about Dee Perry, who is seeking another term, and Howard Hills and Sheri Morgan, who were elected in 2024.

Watching their conduct at board meetings and their interactions with staff, teachers, students and parents has been an eye-opener. I have become increasingly concerned by what I see as a lack of respect for differing viewpoints and a disregard for the collaborative educational environment our elected trustees should be working to protect.

This year's election has taught me an important lesson: look beyond campaign rhetoric and examine the record. For me, that means taking a hard look at Dee Perry's record and the decisions made by the current board majority.

Consider the 2026 high school graduation controversy. The board voted 3-2 to move graduation from Guyer Field back to the Irvine Bowl, with Perry, Hills and Morgan voting in favor. While the district reviewed venue options, student feedback, logistics and cost sharing, I did not see the kind of thorough, transparent financial and data-driven analysis I would expect before making a decision affecting hundreds of students and families.

The decision generated significant community opposition and division.

For me, this is not simply about where graduation was held. It is about how decisions were made.

Did they listen to those directly affected? Examine data? Understand the financial and operational consequences? Build consensus before making decisions that affect students, families and our community?

These questions matter to me.

The same concerns extend beyond graduation. The continuing turmoil, contentious meetings and 3-2 votes on major issues, including the separation agreement with Superintendent Jason Glass and his replacement, have reinforced my concerns about the actions of the board majority.

I have watched these developments and reached my own conclusion: it is time to thank Dee Perry for her 12 years of service and move on. I do not believe this district can afford more of the same leadership.

Perry’s running mate, Elizabeth Bates, also represents, in my view, many of the same approaches that concern me. I see their campaign as aligned with the current majority and the governing philosophy that I believe has contributed to our current unrest.

Making decisions that affect students, teachers, staff, parents and taxpayers without meaningful stakeholder input, consensus-building and sufficient supporting information is a lose-lose proposition.

Giving significant authority over a large public budget and major facility commitments to individuals who, in my observation, have not demonstrated a willingness to listen to those affected is asking for more turmoil and dissension.

The lessons I have learned over the last decade of watching LBUSD are simple.

We need intelligent, professional, successful and independent thinkers. We need leaders who listen and understand that governing a school district requires collaboration, transparency and accountability – not division. Most importantly, we owe our children outstanding educational experiences and opportunities.

I made mistakes with my votes before. I own that.

This time, I’m looking carefully at the records, conduct and leadership approaches of the candidates. On November 3, I’ll be supporting Joan, Shaheen and Kimberly because I believe, based on what I have observed and learned, that they understand the depth of the issues facing LBUSD and have the approach I want to see moving our district forward.

After five decades as an LBUSD parent and grandparent, I believe our students, teachers, staff and community deserve nothing less.

MJ Abraham

Laguna Beach

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

El Niño and Kelvin waves

We have all heard about the growing El Niño, fueled by very warm waters across the tropical Pacific. El Niño is a naturally occurring climate pattern that develops every few years and can influence our weather through the fall and winter.

This El Niño is expected to be a strong one. That can mean an increased chance of storms, rain and large surf for Southern California, but it is important to remember that no two El Niños produce exactly the same weather pattern. We have experienced strong El Niños in the past that did not result in an exceptionally wet or stormy winter.

There is another feature in the Pacific worth watching: a marine heat wave, or MHW, involving unusually warm ocean temperatures off portions of the California coast.

Separate from that marine heat wave, El Niño can also produce Kelvin waves. These are large pulses of warm water that travel eastward across the tropical Pacific and, after reaching the coast of the Americas, can move northward along the coastline.

Kelvin waves do not create giant breaking waves or tsunami-like waves. What they can do is raise coastal sea levels by several inches for extended periods of time.

That matters here in Laguna Beach, particularly after the recent pounding our coastline received from Hurricane Marie.

Even a relatively modest rise in background sea level can make a difference when it coincides with high tides, especially around full and new moons, along with winter storms and strong surf. Under those conditions, ocean water can be pushed farther inland than it would under normal sea conditions, increasing the potential for coastal flooding and erosion.

Kelvin wave activity associated with El Niño has already reached the California coast, and its effects may become more noticeable through the fall and winter. Elevated sea levels can persist for months, particularly when multiple Kelvin waves occur during a strong El Niño cycle.

None of this means significant flooding or damaging storms are certain. But with our beaches and coastal properties already vulnerable, it is another factor worth watching closely as we head into fall and winter.

Dave Murray

Meteorologist, KXFM

Laguna Beach

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

After the swells: How Orange County should rebuild differently

When a coastal home is damaged, the immediate questions are urgent: Is it safe? What can be saved? How quickly can life return to normal? Before permanent repairs are designed, another question deserves attention: Are we rebuilding the same vulnerability?

Dana Point’s September 14 update reported 10 homes red-tagged and seven yellow-tagged on Beach Road following coastal floodingassociated with Hurricane Marie. Those figures describe the city’sassessment at noon that day, not a count of homes destroyed.

Behind those notices are families facing difficult decisions. Theydeserve practical help and clear information. Public beaches andaccess deserve care too.

I have not inspected the affected homes. Photographs cannot establish why a particular structure failed or what would have saved it. Those conclusions require qualified professionals examining the site.

But we can improve the questions owners ask before the next major coastal renovation.

Start with the ground, not the finishes. Floodwater entering a room, waves striking a building and erosion removing support beneath it are different problems. Federal building-science guidance calls forassessing flood hazards before design and construction. Owners needadvice specific to their property, not a foundation detail borrowedfrom another house.

I propose a short, plain-language resilience brief alongside thedrawings. It would summarize the professional reports and decisions in terms an owner can understand. It would not replace engineering,permits or essential emergency work.

The brief should answer four questions.

What are the risks? Identify the hazards assessed, the reports and their dates and the professionals responsible. State what remainsunknown.

What will the work improve? Connect each major recommendation to an identified problem. Explain the alternatives, their costs, maintenance needs and limitations. An expensive feature is not automatically the right response.

How would the home recover? Federal guidance addresses protecting service equipment and designing assemblies that can dry after flooding. Ask which measures suit the property and what would still need repair or replacement.

Who is responsible for what comes next? Separate immediate safety work from the permanent plan. Identify the agencies involved, outstanding approvals and future inspection or maintenance obligations. Emergency protective work should not be mistaken for a complete long-term strategy.

This information can help owners compare proposals on the same basis. It also keeps unresolved risks visible when the pressure to finish quickly is greatest.

The discussion must extend beyond the property line. NOAA explains that shoreline armoring can restrict sediment movement and affect beaches and habitat. The Coastal Commission advises selecting adaptation strategies according to a site’s risks, applicablerequirements and local goals.

A larger barrier is therefore not a universal answer. A seriousoptions discussion should ask what happens to neighboring shorelinesand public access, how long the benefits may last, who maintains thework and what changing conditions would require reconsideration.

Homeowners deserve a fair process and understandable choices.Communities deserve honest discussion of the effects on shared coastal resources.

We cannot make the coast stop changing. We can change what we consider a successful rebuild: a home restored with a clearer understanding of the ground beneath it, the risks around it and the responsibilities beyond it.

Sam Rad

Laguna Beach

Founder, Salt & Summit Design Build

Contribute vs. control

It’s fair to say anyone serving on or running for the LBUSD school board cares deeply for our youth and wants a top-performing district that benefits every resident, with or without children enrolled in our schools.

I’m not comfortable supporting a candidate slate that, in my view, is focused on controlling the board rather than contributing to it. The FUEL Forward PAC is supporting three candidates for the three seats on the ballot. To me, that signals an effort to secure a predetermined board majority and run the board, rather than simply be part of it.

I believe our school board should consist of individual community members, each with independent views, varied backgrounds and a mix of community representation. I’d rather vote for individuals who agree to work together on behalf of all stakeholders than a predetermined majority.

FUEL is a relatively new organization, formed in early 2025. I’m opposed to “turning over the keys” to an organization that, in my view, has a limited historical track record in our community.

The district manages a substantial annual operating budget, and voters are now being asked to authorize up to $83 million in bonds for school facilities improvements. I was concerned that FUEL supported moving the bond process forward while specific projects and priorities were still being developed and finalized. To me, that raises questions about fiscal responsibility.

Our district is in great shape today, but there is always more to be done. We have an experienced new superintendent with a plan to move forward. Plans to target areas needing attention are already underway. A well-qualified assistant superintendent of business services is also in place, with the district emphasizing fiscal transparency and long-term planning.

Independent, experienced and qualified candidates can continue this positive momentum. Demanding that voters “Flip the Board” is, in my view, an unnecessary and unwise gamble that could have a materially negative impact. We need board members who will work together, not a predetermined majority committed to one organization’s agenda.

Dee Perry worked in Laguna Beach schools for 35 years and has served on the board since 2014. She knows LBUSD from the inside and is focused on how every dollar spent benefits students.

Liz Bates was raised in Laguna Beach and has been an LBUSD parent since 2000. She has emphasized giving parents, students, teachers and constituents a voice in district decisions and believes no private organization or special interest should carry more weight than the public.

A vote for Dee and Liz keeps our district board independent.

Gary Kasik

Laguna Beach

Why I’m supporting Dee Perry and Elizabeth Bates

School board elections can feel abstract until we remember what they shape: the teacher who notices a struggling child, the math program that builds confidence and the classrooms our kids and community will rely on for decades. Those everyday decisions are why experience, judgment and local accountability matter so much in this race.

Dee Perry brings firsthand knowledge of those realities. During her 35-year LBUSD career, she taught in every district school, serving students from preschool through high school as a special education teacher, general education teacher and speech-language pathologist. She is also the only candidate to have served three terms as a trustee. That combination means she understands both what students need in the classroom and what responsible oversight requires in the boardroom.

Liz Bates brings a complementary perspective. An LBUSD graduate, she has raised four children in the district since 2000. Her decades of fiduciary experience have required her to assess risk, review contracts carefully and remain accountable for decisions affecting others. Those skills are directly relevant to a board overseeing a large public budget and long-term facilities commitments.

The broader community provides the local property taxes that are the lifeline of our community-funded schools. That makes transparency and responsible stewardship a community-wide concern. Dee and Liz understand that board members must serve students and families while remaining accountable to every resident who supports LBUSD.

Together, Dee and Liz combine educational experience with financial judgment. They want stronger outcomes in mathematics, science and the arts, greater emphasis on critical thinking, practical limits on screens in the early grades and careful stewardship of local tax dollars. These are concrete priorities grounded in what students experience each day.

Their connection to Laguna runs deep. Dee even taught Liz in third grade at Top of the World, and now, decades later, they are running as independent grassroots candidates. Dee knows the district from the classroom and boardroom, while Liz knows it as a former student, longtime parent and fiduciary. Both know Laguna and both are prepared to serve it.

For their experience, independence and commitment to the entire community, I am supporting Dee Perry and Liz Bates for the Laguna Beach Unified School District board.

Cyrus Polk

Laguna Beach

Laguna Terrace residents raise concerns over construction parking proposal

I live at Laguna Terrace Park, the 157-home manufactured-home community at 30802 Coast Highway across from the Montage. Temporary Use Permit 2026-1685 proposed using the parking lot at our community for the Pacific Edge Hotel remodel, about two miles north, from October 2026 through October 2028.

Residents say no household in the park received mailed notice of the September 2 Planning Commission hearing. The parcel is owned by park operator Hometown America, and residents say they were not included on the mailing list. Residents showed up anyway. Following the hearing, the request was revised to construction employee parking only. The revised request, limited to construction employee parking, returned to the Planning Commission on Wednesday, Sept. 16, and was approved.

A key concern remains: the applicant told the commission the lot is “already a parking lot.” Residents say it sits unused and that even the park owner needs city consent to use it. The applicant also said no other site was considered, including the former Gelson’s lot a block away.

My concerns are the security and fire-safety implications of bringing construction-related parking next to our homes and Hobo Canyon, as well as what this proposal could mean for the long-term security of our community.

Robert Risbrough

Laguna Beach

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

Democracy happens in the room

At Tuesday night’s KXFM candidate forum, our community had an opportunity to do something increasingly important in our democracy: hear directly from the people asking for the privilege of representing them.

All but one candidate for Laguna Beach City Council showed up, though she was represented via proxy. In the school board race, Joan Malczewski, Kimberly Smith and I participated. Dee Perry and Elizabeth Bates were invited but did not attend; their absence was felt.

Candidate forums give voters something a social media post or yard sign cannot: the opportunity to hear candidates respond to the same questions, in the same room, before the same community and to learn how they listen, disagree and engage with ideas different from their own. Forums are also an opportunity to put the best ideas into the public square so they can be debated, refined and ultimately carried forward by whoever has the privilege of serving. There is value in that shared experience.

When you choose to run for public office, you ask your neighbors to entrust you with their vote and, ultimately, with decisions that affect their community and, in a school board race, shape the education and opportunities we provide our children. And with that trust comes an obligation to show up: to answer questions, explain your positions, listen to your fellow candidates and allow voters to see where you agree and where you differ. That matters especially in a local election. We are neighbors asking other neighbors for their trust.

None of us should expect every voter to agree with us, and disagreement should not be something candidates fear. A healthy democracy depends upon our willingness to engage one another respectfully, particularly when our views differ. And whatever our differences, the school board conversation should keep returning to the same place: what will best serve students.

I am grateful to KXFM for creating that opportunity, to the community members who came to listen, and to every candidate who participated. Democracy happens not only at the ballot box. It happens in rooms where neighbors gather, questions are asked, ideas are tested and the people seeking public office have to listen as well as speak.

The PTA will host a school board candidate forum on October 7, which may be the last public opportunity for voters to hear the candidates together before Election Day. I hope all five of us will be there for a thoughtful, substantive conversation about public education, our schools and, most importantly, the students we are each asking to serve.

Shaheen Sheik-Sadhal

Laguna Beach

Candidate for LBUSD School Board

Never forget 9/11

Tom, your “Fair Game” column hit all the high notes. Yes, we should never forget 9/11. And yes, we should reflect on what’s important to us today. Here’s what that fateful day still means to me:

The morning of September 11, 2001 started off as usual. My wife and I woke our two young children, fixed them breakfast, checked their backpacks and got ready to send them off to TOW.

At least that was the plan – until a neighbor called. “Go downstairs, turn on the TV, but don’t let the kids watch,” she said.

After seeing the second plane crash into the World Trade Center, I knew my kids would not be going to school that day.

I also knew I needed to call their older brother, who at the time was an undergraduate at New York University. I couldn’t reach him, but parental intuition kicked in. I knew he was safe, although that wasn’t confirmed until dinnertime.

Days later, it became clear that America had suffered the worst attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor. Nearly 3,000 people were killed that day in New York City, at the Pentagon in Virginia and in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. As I recall, some Laguna Beach residents lost relatives or friends in that unspeakable tragedy.

Clearly, the shock and sadness did not end that day. Health consequences have continued to affect first responders, recovery workers, Manhattan residents and others who were exposed to the toxic dust and debris at Ground Zero. According to reports recently released, the number of 9/11-related cancer certifications has risen from 3,204 in 2015 to 57,044 this year.

You’re right, Tom. Twenty-five years later, we must never forget the lives lost, the families forever changed or the courage of the first responders who ran toward danger while others were running away.

Denny Freidenrich

Laguna Beach

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

Laguna spoke up. City Hall awoke.

With little more than three years until the possible loss of Laguna’s only hospital and 24/7 ER, the city has finally taken concrete steps to address the potential loss of emergency care in Laguna Beach.

They are seeking specialized outside expertise, bringing county and state agencies into the process, digging deeper into seismic, construction and emergency response questions and looking at alternate health care providers.

Good. These are exactly the kinds of actions many of us have been asking for.

But credit belongs to the Laguna residents who showed up, spoke out and refused to accept losing our ER without exhausting every reasonable option.

I was one of them. I have publicly called for independent analysis, the right experts at the table, county and state involvement, cost estimates for alternatives, clear deadlines and accountability.

Now we are beginning to see those things happen.

That is what community involvement is supposed to do.

So yes, belated credit to the city for responding and moving this work forward. And credit to the Lagunans who pushed for greater urgency and helped move this conversation forward.

Now comes the important part.

We, as Lagunans, need to keep watching.

We need to monitor the independent analysis, the alternatives being considered, the deadlines being set and whether meetings actually turn into results.

This isn’t about winning a political argument. It’s about protecting emergency care for our community.

Laguna spoke up. City Hall responded. Now we need to make sure they follow through.

The clock is ticking…

Ashley Cintas

Laguna Beach

Candidate for City Council

District inquiry on TMS protest supports equal rights for all

As a witness to May 14 political demonstrations at Thurston Middle School (TMS), I welcomed as “best practices” the School District assignment of public school operations experts to report on what occurred. Board Bylaw 9124 and Education Code Section 35204 authorize the District to retain legal counsel and, under Section 35204, utilize an administrative adviser. In my view, those provisions support the District’s decision to seek professional review of what occurred.

Reports by outside professionals are advisory. The District will decide what weight to give the report based on the evidence, including recordings by official school site cameras and private videos posted on press websites and social media.

Instead of waiting for the report, some Board members have described the TMS protests as peaceful exercises of free speech. If true, the community needs to know if protesters whose rights were respected also respected the rights of others.

The report also could find that free speech was allowed for protesters, but conditions interfered with non-protesters’ ability to access or participate in the meeting, or placed children participating in the protest in unsafe circumstances. If so, the community should know that as well.

Since the public is being given one account by some School Board members and even some City Council candidates, without drawing final conclusions before seeing the report, here are some of my initial impressions and opinions.

TMS is a public education facility where students, parents and District employees were on campus for regular school activities at 3:15 p.m. on May 14. California’s open-meeting law required the School Board meeting to be open and public, with members of the public permitted to attend, subject to lawful meeting and safety rules.

Balancing the District’s education mission with public meeting legal mandates, the former Superintendent and school site staff, in my opinion, had two clear responsibilities: 1) uphold school conduct standards protecting the social-emotional well-being of students, and 2) respect the First Amendment rights of participants and others while enforcing lawful safety and meeting rules.

As a Board member I was not consulted or informed about the nature or extent of any communications between the Superintendent or school site staff and protest organizers. So it was surprising when I arrived early to prepare for the Board session and pre-meeting protests were beginning to flourish campus-wide, including robust free speech that in my experience and opinion quickly became quite inflammatory, with little apparent intervention at that time.

I recognize that much of the expressive activity by protesters was protected by the First Amendment. In my view, however, the rights of others to access the meeting, along with campus safety and student well-being concerns, were not adequately protected.

Official school site and private videos, in my opinion, appear to show adults encouraging a group of young children, whom I estimated to be roughly 4 to 10 years old, to participate with adults in outdoor chanting and foot stomping that became frenzied and deafening.

Disruptive activity inside the meeting site included children repeating verbal messages and displaying placards that, in my observation, adults appeared to encourage. Some of the language I personally regarded as hateful and inappropriate.

Adults can be seen and heard, in my opinion, encouraging a group of pre-teen boys to gather at the main entrance to the School Board meeting site. Adults also can be heard calling out Board members by name, after which some students shouted insults and accusations at Board members.

In my opinion, videos appear to show student actions escalating to kicking or stomping near metal door frames. I cannot determine from the recordings whether that conduct caused any property damage. Next, students entered the meeting room to address Board members at close range with language I regarded as lewd and hateful, also repeatedly opening closed doors so the exterior noise level further disrupted the pre-meeting work of Board members and staff.

Staff did not intervene in the conduct I observed at that point. But my concern intensified around the time of Dee Perry’s arrival. I had earlier observed individuals I believed were acting as protest monitors communicating remotely, but I cannot know from the recordings what was said or whether those communications related to Perry.

In my opinion, videos show Perry was surrounded by a large and extremely loud crowd.

In my opinion, videos show Perry having difficulty moving through the crowd and that her path toward the meeting entrance was obstructed for a period of time.

After that chaotic incident, accounts by Perry and others are uncertain and differ. Some accounts reported that Perry lost her footing and fell; Perry subsequently said she was not pushed. She was then assisted into the meeting area.

School administrators and police present did not intervene at that point, as I observed it. After additional officers arrived, a corridor was created to facilitate access to the meeting.

What if a person of color or a transgender student was physically obstructed by an angry crowd while attempting to enter a public meeting on the same terms as everyone else?

If someone gained access only after being stopped, jostled and turned back by a hostile crowd, would those School Board and City Council candidates dismiss that as free speech?

Perhaps the District report will help answer those questions.

Howard Hills

LBUSD Board Member (personal views, not on behalf of the board)

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

Time for a change, all right

In her last LTE, Dawn Hunnicutt once again missed the mark.

LBUSD remains a great school district and an attractive place to work. Teacher compensation is highly competitive with surrounding districts, and employees have the opportunity to work in Laguna Beach.

Hunnicutt argues that the relationship between employees and the district has changed under the current board majority and that decisions and direction supported by that majority have contributed to what she describes as a “dramatic deterioration in trust.” I disagree with that conclusion. The Board has oversight and ultimately approves negotiated agreements, while the bargaining process itself involves district administration and employee representatives.

Hunnicutt states that her health insurance premium is increasing by 36%, or $536 per month, amounting to nearly $6,400 annually. That increase deserves context. The district has recently addressed discrepancies between negotiated health-benefit caps and amounts historically paid toward employee coverage. According to the district’s audit, those discrepancies resulted in approximately $1.77 million in excess district contributions for active employees over four years. Any discussion of current premium costs should take that history into account.

Hunnicutt accurately notes that employees received a 1% salary increase and an additional 2% toward health insurance, while facing increased deductibles and copayments. She does not mention an additional contingent 1% salary increase tied to property-tax revenue growth. Previous health plans also offered comparatively low deductibles, so the recent changes should be considered in the broader context of benefit costs and the district’s finances.

The district is also managing the financial impact of the approximately $25 million pool project approved under the previous board, along with other ongoing obligations. Those circumstances did not originate with the current board majority.

Hunnicutt writes that Perry and the current majority have contributed to a deterioration in trust between employees and the district. I see it differently. The current board has continued funding programs and employee compensation, chose not to seek repayment from employees for the health-benefit overpayments identified by the district and has explored ways to help employees find housing in Laguna Beach.

Board member Dee Perry certainly knows how the district once felt to employees. But I disagree with Hunnicutt’s conclusion that Perry’s support of the current board majority makes her responsible for the problems Hunnicutt describes. In my view, some of the district’s current financial and operational challenges stem from decisions made before the current majority took office.

Hunnicutt spent her career at LBUSD and is entitled to her perspective about how the district has changed. I simply reach a very different conclusion about why those changes occurred and who should be held responsible for them.

Hunnicutt now lives in Eagle, Idaho. Those of us voting here should consider the district’s record, finances and leadership for ourselves. I will be voting for Dee Perry and Elizabeth Bates because I believe they will prioritize student safety, fiscal responsibility and transparency.

Alex Miller

Laguna Beach

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

Time for change in LBUSD

For many years, LBUSD was known as an exceptional school district and one of the best places to work. Employees felt valued, and the Board approached compensation, benefits and working conditions with trust and respect. I am saddened by how much that relationship has changed under the current board majority.

I retired from LBUSD in June 2022. This year, my health insurance premium is increasing by 36%, an additional $536 per month, or nearly $6,400 annually.

During recent negotiations, LBUSD employees faced an extraordinarily difficult choice. As LABUFA President Scott Wittkop explained in his July 23 board report, members had to choose between ratifying the agreement or proceeding to an impasse “with the very real possibility of significantly higher health insurance costs.” Employees reluctantly accepted a 1% salary increase, with another 2% directed toward health insurance, while also facing increased deductibles and copayments.

Collective bargaining should not leave dedicated educators feeling they must accept a difficult agreement because the alternative could be substantially worse. And that brings me to former Board President Dee Perry.

Dee is a former teacher and three-term board member. She knows what this district once felt like for its employees because she was one of them. Yet throughout this period, Dee has repeatedly aligned herself with the board majority and members Morgan and Hills, supporting decisions and a direction that I believe have contributed to this dramatic deterioration in trust between the district and its staff. In doing so, I believe she has betrayed the profession she came from, the community she was elected to serve and the institutional values she should have understood better than most. After three terms on the board, in my view, she cannot separate herself from the consequences of the leadership she has repeatedly supported.

At some point, longevity in public office stops being an asset if it means becoming disconnected from the people and institutional values you were elected to serve.

I spent my career at LBUSD and have tremendous affection for it. Today’s teachers and staff deserve the respect and partnership that once made this district such a special place to work. Taking care of the people who take care of our students is fundamental to excellent public schools.

After watching what has happened over the past 20 months, I believe it is time for a change.

Dawn Hunnicutt

Eagle, Idaho

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

Laguna Beach’s “Summer of Discontent”: We need action now

Laguna Beach is a world-class community. Our beaches, neighborhoods, businesses, restaurants and natural beauty attract residents and visitors from around the world. But this summer, too many people are experiencing a different side of Laguna Beach – one marked by overflowing garbage, streets that need more attention, pedestrian crossings that can feel dangerous and growing concerns about public and beach safety.

This should not be accepted as the price of living in or visiting a busy beach town.

Clean streets should be the minimum

Walking through parts of Laguna Beach this summer, it is difficult not to notice garbage and areas that need more attention. Cleanliness should be one of the city’s most basic responsibilities.

Our residents pay taxes, our businesses work hard and our visitors spend money in our community. We should expect clean streets, sidewalks, public areas and commercial districts.

The city needs to evaluate whether summer garbage collection, street cleaning and maintenance are keeping up with the increased number of people coming into Laguna Beach.

Our crosswalks need to be safer

Pedestrian safety has become one of my biggest concerns.

During the summer, our streets are filled with pedestrians, families, children, cyclists and vehicles. Some crosswalks can feel extremely dangerous, particularly on busy roads where drivers may not see pedestrians until the last moment.

We need more than paint on the pavement.

The city should identify the most dangerous crossings and consider additional crosswalks, brighter lighting, flashing pedestrian signals, improved signage, pedestrian refuge areas where appropriate and longer crossing times.

We should also increase enforcement in areas where drivers routinely fail to yield to pedestrians.

Nobody should have to take their life in their hands simply to cross the street.

More police presence during peak summer periods

Laguna Beach needs adequate police staffing during the times when the number of people in the city and traffic increase dramatically.

A visible police presence can help deter dangerous driving, improve pedestrian safety, manage congestion and respond to problems before they become emergencies.

This is not about over-policing our community. It is about making sure we have enough personnel to keep residents and visitors safe when demand is at its highest.

More lifeguard resources

Our beaches are one of Laguna Beach’s greatest treasures – and they can also become extremely dangerous when crowded.

We should examine whether additional lifeguards and marine safety resources are needed during the busiest summer periods and at the beaches experiencing the greatest crowds.

A lifeguard can mean the difference between a close call and a tragedy.

We should not wait for more major incidents before determining whether more resources are needed.

We need a summer safety plan

These problems are not impossible to solve. What is missing is a stronger sense of urgency.

I am asking our city leaders to develop a comprehensive “Summer Safety and Cleanliness Plan” that addresses:

–More frequent garbage collection and street cleaning during peak periods

–A review of the city’s most dangerous pedestrian crossings

–Additional or improved crosswalks where warranted

–Better lighting, signs and pedestrian warning systems

–Increased traffic and pedestrian-safety enforcement

–Adequate police staffing during peak summer hours

–Additional lifeguard and marine safety resources when conditions require them

–Regular public reporting on progress and problem areas

Laguna Beach should not have to choose between being a successful tourist destination and being a safe, clean place to live.

This is about loving Laguna Beach

Calling this the “Summer of Discontent” is not an attack on Laguna Beach. It is a wake-up call.

We love this community. That is precisely why we should demand better.

We should not normalize overflowing garbage. We should not normalize dangerous crosswalks. We should not accept inadequate safety resources during the busiest time of the year.

Laguna Beach has the beauty, character and resources to do better.

Now we need our elected officials and city leadership to turn that potential into action.

Listen to the residents. Walk the streets. Look at the crosswalks. Talk to the businesses. Talk to the lifeguards and police officers. See the problems firsthand – and then fix them.

The goal should be simple:

A cleaner Laguna Beach. Safer streets. Safer beaches. Better pedestrian protection. And a community where residents and visitors can enjoy everything Laguna has to offer without unnecessary danger or frustration.

The “Summer of Discontent” should be a turning point – not a permanent description of summer in Laguna Beach.

JoAnne Artman

JoAnne Artman Gallery

Laguna Beach

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

What Laguna should understand about the healthcare issue

The healthcare contribution issue at Laguna Beach Unified deserves a clear explanation because the amount of noise and misinformation surrounding it has made the underlying facts harder to understand.

For several years, some employee healthcare deductions were not calculated correctly. The district continued paying the full insurance premiums, but certain employees were not charged the amounts required under the contribution formulas.

At the November 13, 2025 Board meeting, Assistant Superintendent of Business Services Manoj Roychowdhury presented the findings of the independent review. He explained that the problem involved weaknesses in internal controls, gaps in communication between Human Resources and Business Services, conflicting fiscal and insurance-plan calendars, and the absence of a consistent annual reconciliation process. Incorrect employee contribution rates had also been published in the Employee Benefits Guide.

This was a real administrative failure, but it was not a scheme created by employees. They did not establish the formulas, publish the benefits guide, administer payroll, or determine the deductions appearing on their checks.

Board President Dee Perry made that distinction clearly during the meeting.

“Our employees should not have to pay for these errors,” Perry said, “and I’m certain we can find a way to handle this without burdening our wonderful staff.”

As someone who has worked in HR for 20 years, I agree.

Benefits administration is complicated. Insurance rates change annually. Employees select different plans and coverage levels. Marriages, births, divorces, dependents and enrollment changes all affect deductions. Those rates must be accurately coordinated across insurance records, payroll systems, contracts, contribution tables and employee communications.

Mistakes can happen without malicious intent. Accountability means identifying what happened, correcting it and strengthening the process.

The district has done that work. At the November 13 meeting, Roychowdhury outlined a formal annual reconciliation process, improved coordination between departments, specialized staff training, outside consulting support and efforts to simplify the benefits structure.

“We have recognized the error and now we should move forward, close the error to make us whole and move ahead with improved processes,” Roychowdhury said.

At the December 16, 2025 special meeting, he returned with four corrective-action options. The Board voted unanimously for the option under which the district absorbed the approximately $1.04 million cumulative cost rather than attempting to recover money from employees.

The past error was investigated. The procedures were corrected. The financial question was settled.

Yet the public conversation has continued to be dominated by inflated figures, accusations and repeated suggestions that employees received something improper. That noise is not creating greater accountability. It is distracting the community from understanding what actually occurred and from having the more important conversation about the future of employee healthcare.

Over approximately six years, healthcare premiums increased nearly 30 percent, while the district’s contribution caps barely increased. When insurance costs rise substantially but employer contributions do not keep pace, more of the cost is shifted to employees.

That is the issue Laguna should be discussing.

Healthcare benefits are part of compensation. Every employer must decide how much to invest in them and how much cost to pass on to employees. Some employers offer higher salaries with weaker benefits. Others provide stronger healthcare contributions because they understand that competitive compensation is necessary to recruit and retain excellent people.

Laguna Beach should make that decision intentionally through collective bargaining, using accurate figures rather than misinformation about a settled accounting error.

Our teachers and staff are not simply another line item. They educate the future doctors, artists, engineers, business owners and public servants who will shape our community and the world beyond it.

The district should remain accountable for what went wrong. But accountability should lead to clarity and better policy, not become an endless political distraction.

The question now is whether Laguna Beach will support a sustainable strategy of strong healthcare benefits for the people who educate our children.

Briana Heathcott

Laguna Audubon

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

Residents turn out to support Laguna’s hillside protections at appellate court

Is the city of Laguna Beach trying to discourage resident involvement?

Nearly two dozen residents attended Tuesday’s appellate court hearing to demonstrate their support for protecting Laguna’s hillsides from development. The environmental group LBCEP (Laguna Beach Coalition for Environmental Protection) sued the city of Laguna Beach over what it believes were violations of the General Plan, which contains policies limiting development on steep hillsides, and prevailed in Superior Court. The city, however, decided to use taxpayer dollars to appeal the ruling – a decision many residents oppose.

After waiting almost two hours to be heard, the court granted a continuance. We will now return to court on August 17.

The LBCEP lawsuit was filed after the city approved development on a very steep lot, which LBCEP argues violates our own General Plan. Legal costs continue to be funded by private citizens while the city’s legal staff and outside counsel are paid with taxpayer dollars to appeal the ruling.

For more information on this case and its importance to Laguna Beach residents, please visit the Coalition’s website at www.lbcep.com.

Joy Berry

Laguna Beach

Stewarding more than a budget

Laguna Beach has spent generations protecting the things that make this community special.

We preserve our coastline. We protect our open space. We invest in our arts. We care deeply about our neighborhoods, our history and the character that makes Laguna Beach unlike anywhere else.

That didn’t happen by accident.

It happened because generations before us believed stewardship meant thinking beyond today’s challenges and making decisions that would benefit the community for decades to come.

Over the past several weeks, our city has had an important conversation about its financial future. The projected structural budget deficit has forced difficult discussions about spending, efficiencies and potential new sources of revenue.

Those conversations matter.

But they also made me wonder whether another conversation deserves a permanent place alongside them.

How do we intentionally steward the economy that funds everything else we value?

I’m not talking about economic development in the traditional sense. Laguna Beach already invests considerable time and energy in supporting local businesses, tourism, planning and economic development.

I’m talking about something I think of as economic stewardship.

To me, economic stewardship means asking not only how today’s policies affect next year’s budget, but how they shape the long-term health of the economy that funds future budgets.

The recent discussion surrounding the proposed 3% business license tax on restaurants and bars is a good example.

Whether someone supported it or opposed it isn’t really my point.

The conversation made me think about something bigger.

Every fiscal decision influences behavior.

Some encourage investment. Others discourage it. Some make entrepreneurship easier. Others make it more difficult. Good fiscal policy shouldn’t only ask how much revenue a proposal might generate. It should also consider how that proposal affects the long-term economic activity that produces future revenue.

I think the same way about commercial occupancy.

This isn’t about whether Laguna Beach has “too much” vacancy or whether our numbers are better or worse than another city.

It’s about recognizing opportunity.

Every occupied storefront represents local jobs, private investment, economic activity and another reason for someone to spend time in Laguna Beach. Every long-term vacancy represents opportunity that hasn’t yet been realized.

The same is true for tourism.

Whenever conversations turn to strengthening the economy, it’s understandable that some people hear that as a call for more tourism.

I don’t see it that way.

To me, economic stewardship isn’t about making Laguna Beach busier.

It’s about creating more value from the people who are already here.

Helping visitors stay another hour. Visit another gallery. Have dinner before heading home. Shop at another local business. Supporting businesses that complement one another rather than simply competing for the same customer.

That’s not growth for growth’s sake.

That’s strengthening the economy we already have.

None of this suggests that fiscal stewardship becomes less important.

Quite the opposite.

Responsible spending, operational discipline and thoughtful budgeting will always be essential.

I simply believe every major fiscal decision should also ask another question: How will this decision shape Laguna Beach’s economy ten years from now?

That question doesn’t point to one predetermined policy. Sometimes it may reinforce the direction the city is already taking. Other times it may point somewhere different.

It begins by asking whether we can grow the tax base before we grow the tax burden. Before asking residents, businesses, or visitors to contribute more, we should also ask whether we’ve fully realized the economic potential of the community we already have.

It might mean reducing barriers for businesses that invest in Laguna Beach, addressing long-term commercial vacancies, encouraging a healthy mix of local businesses, helping visitors stay longer rather than simply attracting more visitors, or strengthening the city’s economic base before asking residents and businesses to contribute more.

Ash Cintas

Laguna Beach business owner, resident, and Visit Laguna Board Member

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

Never again allow public money for schools to be spent like private money

In my opinion, I don’t think the local press is doing our schools any favors with its recent coverage of the $80 million school construction bond vote.

The Board does not have the power to approve a bond. What the Board did was approve moving forward with a ballot proposition to give voters a choice to approve or disapprove a new bond, based on a neutral public information program advising the community of the pros and cons.

Taxes will go down if the new bond is not approved, so we will continue to pay close to $90 million annually in local, state and federal taxes for our small, excellent, but shrinking school district. Thus, the argument that the bond does not raise taxes because it is an extension of the old bond is, in my view, the kind of shell game and sleight-of-hand gimmick the experts advised against.

Bond advisers agreed that over-selling the bond with misleading slogans can cause voters to lose confidence and trust in the bond supporters – many of whom are consultants, builders, architects and other contractors who stand to gain from an even greater infusion of tax dollars.

As a lifelong advocate for our schools, I campaigned for the 1969 bond as LBHS student representative on our School Board. As a parent of children and grandchildren in our schools from K-12 at the same time, I campaigned for the current bond in 2001.

So, I am inclined to support the proposed bond. But I am waiting to study a final project list to ensure that political agendas are not embedded in the fine print, and that terms are included to prevent the kind of no-bid and sole-source contracting that has, in my view, undermined the integrity of LBUSD contracting over the last two decades.

This is an American small-town democratic exercise to ensure our tradition of public education for all is supported fully by the community. 40% of the voters are not property owners but renters, so this is about public education values, not property values or privilege.

As we have seen, corruption of public-school governance can result when public schools start spending public school funds as though they were private money.

Howard Hills

Laguna Beach

Elected member of LBUSD (all views expressed are personal, not on behalf of the Board)

“Sawdust”

Life is Motion

In Oklahoma, Bonnie and Josie,

Dressed in calico, danced around a stump.

They cried, “Ohoyaho, Ohoo”…

Celebrating the marriage of flesh and air.

–Wallace Stevens, 1919

In many ways, over sixty years,

the Sawdust Festival is

an annual marriage ceremony

of oil and canvas,

of clay and hands,

of breath and air.

The grounds provide a wedding reception

for the wedding party

who in their heart of hearts

know the bride and groom intimately

and celebrate their sacred union

in admiration, in touch, in song.

Erick Phillips Garske, 2026

Anaheim Hills

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

Transparency builds trust

I am writing in response to Tom Johnson’s “Fair Game” article regarding the American Civil Liberties Union’s allegations that the Laguna Beach Unified School District Board of Education violated California’s Ralph M. Brown Act during its June 8, 2026, closed-session meeting. This issue raises important questions about transparency and accountability in local government, regardless of whether the Board ultimately acted within the law.

The Brown Act is intended to ensure that government decisions are made openly where everyone can see them. People in the community may start to worry that they are not being included in important decisions when the Board talks about important topics behind closed doors. While the Board may have done nothing wrong, meeting behind closed doors may make it more difficult for them to trust that the rules are being followed.

This situation affects more than just the individuals involved in the May 14 protest. It affects every single community member who wants to ensure that their elected leaders are doing their jobs honestly and out in the open. The school district says that it does not agree with the ACLU’s allegations and it plans to answer the complaint within 30 days; that answer needs to clearly explain why the Board made its choices so that regular people can look at the facts and decide for themselves. The best way to bring people together in this community and rebuild trust is sharing information openly.

Regardless of the outcome, this should serve as an opportunity for the district to strengthen its commitment to transparency. If there were mistakes made by the Board, then acknowledging and correcting them would show accountability rather than weakness. If they were lawful, however, a public explanation can help address any further concerns and restore confidence back into the community.

Good communities need trust between their leaders and people who live there. I hope both the school district and the ACLU keep talking about this issue respectfully. The main goal should be making sure Laguna Beach residents stay informed and feel confident about the choices that affect their schools.

Colin Hebble

Mission Viejo

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

The Board has plenty of power. The question is whether it knows how to use it.

Laguna Beach Unified is heading into a superintendent transition and a board election. Before campaign mailers arrive and everyone claims lifelong devotion to transparency, voters should ask a more useful question: Do current or potential board members understand the job?

School boards have broad authority. They set up policy, approve budgets and contracts, hire and evaluate the superintendent, establish goals and monitor results. They do not run the district day-to-day. That is what the superintendent and staff are there to do.

LBUSD’s recent history explains why this distinction matters.

In January, the board proposed changing Bylaw 9322 so the board president would have final approval over meeting agendas. No pattern of agenda failures had emerged. Dr. Jason Glass said the existing process worked until a dispute arose over one item. Staff, both unions and many community members opposed it.

The majority passed it anyway.

At the same February 12 meeting, the board discussed moving the high school graduation ceremony, a decision traditionally handled at the school-site level. Two weeks later, the board voted on it.

Glass recommended leaving the decision with the site. Dee Perry said she wanted it to remain “a site decision.” Then she joined Sheri Morgan and Howard Hills in voting to move graduation to the Irvine Bowl.

Apparently, “site decision” meant “site decision unless the board preferred to decide.”

The board could have required more student input or a better process. Instead, it chose the venue. That is management, not oversight.

The same instinct appeared with superintendent appointments. In December 2024, the new majority voted to prepare a contract for a specific interim candidate. That attempt failed when the candidate declined. In May 2026, just forty-eight hours after approving Glass’ separation, the same majority appointed Dr. Don Austin without a new public search.

In December, the candidate said no. In May, the candidate said yes.

Howard Hills later said the board could appoint a superintendent “any way the board wants to do it and any time.” Broad legal authority is not the same as good judgment. “We can” is not a complete governing philosophy.

This election, I want candidates to answer practical questions. What happens after they lose a vote? When should the board defer to staff? Do policies still count when inconvenient? How should public input influence a decision without letting whoever fills the room govern by volume? Does the superintendent work for the full board, or whichever trustee has the longest to-do list?

Transparency, excellence and putting students first will appear in every campaign statement. The real test is whether a candidate respects the process when it conflicts with the result they want.

LBUSD does not need more creative explanations for why the rules were technically optional. It needs trustees who understand their authority, respect its limits and know the difference between governing the district and running it.

Erika Hennon Rule

LBUSD Parent

Aliso Viejo

Public tennis courts next to the Festival of Arts have been a gift to me

In response to the recent Courtside Kitchen item in “Fair Game” (June 26), I would like to share what a gift those courts next to the Festival of Arts have been to me.

I had lived in Laguna Beach for several years before I knew they even existed, driving past them probably hundreds of times. Never knowing the two courts nestled among beautiful, shading trees, with a thriving local tennis community among them.

A friend from my tennis club told me about how I could drop in to play doubles every day of the week. No need to arrange a foursome. No need to battle for court reservations.

The skill levels vary from used-to-play-on-the-pro-tour to those who learned to play in adulthood without a pro’s attention. The confidence levels also are on a wide spectrum – from those who think they’re a lot worse than they are, to those who portray themselves as a lot better than everyone else. And you learn what times to go to the courts depending on who’s playing.

If I want to practice playing against people who will lob incessantly and drop shot on each exhale, I go to the canyon. If I want a hard-hitting game, I can get that, too.

The personalities have taught me life lessons. I have had to ensure my energy and boundaries are protected from players who give off an angry vibe and encroach upon others. I have been grateful to the players who are exceptionally skilled and are open to partnering with lesser skilled players, and still, with a smile and a good attitude even when the partner makes mistakes.

There are players from various business industries – some retired, some sneaking in a long lunch break, and some who have the fortune to carve their work around tennis.

Some have played on the courts for decades, and I have been to a few of their funeral services. They played on these courts to almost the very end.

The running jokes give me joy. We can rib on each other, and it’s not a thing. As a woman in a group that’s mostly men, it has been a learning experience to see the hierarchies men put themselves in and navigating how to bring out the best in them.

As we see more and more tennis courts being turned into pickleball courts, for the local tennis community, these canyon courts have been one of the things that I most enjoy about living here. In the summer, we get to play to great music at the Festival. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve gone right from playing tennis to walking over to the Festival dance floor. How glorious is that?

Stacy Ison

VP, Laguna Public Recreational Facilities Conservancy

Laguna Beach

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

Affordable housing church project process was a success

The Neighborhood Congregational Church project that was approved by the planning commission on June 3 is a tribute to how addressing the diverse interests of neighbors, congregants, historic preservation advocates, Montessori scholars and other concerned community members can result in a promising affordable housing project. All this was done within a complex regulatory framework, skillfully managed by the developer (Related Companies of California, LLC) and our city staff.

Village Laguna was concerned early – when 71 units and a large new church complex was proposed. This proposal would have meant demolition of the historic Bridge Hall by Aubrey St. Clair and the sanctuary by William Blurock, and all the negative impacts on views, community character, traffic and parking that would have come with such a dense project. Village Laguna joined with others in raising our objections – and together we proposed better options and presented a report documenting the historic significance of the church buildings. We were among many who met with church representatives and the developer urging reconsideration.

Now there are 29 instead of 71 units, the Montessori school remains and the historic buildings will be preserved. It’s not perfect –

there are concessions on parking, and neighbors will still be affected by construction and larger buildings next to them. We will see a change. But we hope opportunities for at least some desperate housing seekers will be fulfilled and the church campus will be revitalized. Perhaps again Laguna will be a model for a better way forward.

Merrill Anderson

President, Village Laguna, Inc.

Laguna Beach

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

The Great Superintendent Swap: A $1.3 million lesson in governance

As a former English teacher, I am about to commit a small act of professional apostasy and venture into mathematics. Much as I believe words matter, numbers matter too, and they tell stories every bit as efficiently as language and sometimes with considerably less spin.

Consider our two superintendents, who recently engaged in what can only be described as an educational version of The Parent Trap: Dr. Jason Glass and Dr. Don Austin, who switched districts and are now working for the other. Glass “mutually separated” from Laguna Beach Unified School District, while Austin “mutually separated” from Palo Alto Unified School District on February 20, 2026, after a turbulent tenure. One earned the job the old-fashioned way – through a legitimate superintendent search in PAUSD. The other somehow landed in LBUSD without the benefit of anything quite so inconvenient.

But let us turn to the numbers.

Glass was hired in July 2025 at a base salary of $435,000 –

roughly $62,000 more than his predecessor who served LBUSD for eight years. In addition to his salary, Glass received $30,000 in moving expenses and up to $60,000 in temporary housing assistance. His first-year compensation package totaled approximately $525,000.

Quite the welcome basket.

I could revisit the pointed criticism that board members Sheri Morgan and Howard Hills once directed at our former superintendent’s compensation when they occupied seats on the opposite side of the dais, but I will leave that discussion to others.

Now the story becomes more interesting.

On May 12, 2026, Glass entered into a “mutual separation” agreement and was placed on paid administrative leave through May 30. His daily rate, accrued vacation days, severance package and earnings for ten months of employment bring the district’s investment in Glass to approximately $766,451.

To be clear, that number is not an indictment of Glass. He moved his family to Laguna Beach, enrolled his children in our schools and signed a four-year contract. Every indication suggests he intended to stay. The board majority that once praised him enthusiastically apparently decided they preferred a superintendent who would not challenge their ambitions. A plan was set in motion, and ten months into his tenure, he was gone.

Enter Austin just 48 hours later.

Austin’s LBUSD contract includes a base salary of $450,000, an additional $18,000 tax-sheltered annuity recognizing his “longevity in the profession” and five guaranteed daily-rate compensation days at $2,008 per day, with additional days available at the board’s discretion. At minimum, the package totals approximately $478,040 annually.

Another hefty welcome basket.

Then there is the supporting character in this Shakespearean tragedy, Mr. Manoj Roychowdhury.

Following Glass’s departure and before Austin’s arrival on July 1, Mr. Roychowdhury will have served as interim superintendent for approximately 35 days. At a daily rate of $1,783, that temporary assignment adds roughly $62,405 to the superintendent-transition ledger.

When one adds together Glass’ compensation and separation costs, Austin’s minimum first-year compensation package and the interim superintendent costs incurred between them, the total reaches approximately $1,306,896.

That number does require one fair caveat. The district would have paid a superintendent regardless. If we credit the district for the roughly $353,000 it would have spent on a superintendent under the prior salary level, the adjusted total is approximately $953,896. Add the roughly $25,000 superintendent search process, and the number rises to approximately $978,896 before accounting for any additional interim compensation from the earlier transition.

In other words, even after giving the district credit for the superintendent salary it would have paid anyway, this is still a nearly seven-figure superintendent shuffle, and likely a seven-figure one once all transition-related costs are included.

So yes, the gross number is about $1.3 million with the adjusted number is still right around $1 million.

One million dollars, give or take, for what may someday be remembered as “The Great Superintendent Swap of 2026” – a production equal parts Shakespeare, sitcom and farce, brought to you by the board majority at LBUSD and their apparently unlimited willingness to spend taxpayer money on executive musical chairs.

Meanwhile, as more than $1.3 million in gross superintendent-related spending was being shuffled across contracts, separation agreements and interim coverage, the two unions representing the people who actually interact with children every day – CSEA and LaBUFA – were being treated to lectures about professionalism while fighting over the financial equivalent of couch-cushion change. Their bargaining journey began with a 0.5% offer and, after weeks of what I can only imagine entailed negotiations, counterproposals, meetings and carefully choreographed displays of “good faith,” culminated in a triumphant 1% raise. O-N-E percent. Depending on the size of your gas tank, it may not even cover a week’s commute. Yet this microscopic increase, compared to the district’s willingness to absorb executive-level transition costs, was presented as the product of a serious bargaining process. If this was good-faith negotiation, then Shakespeare’s villains were merely misunderstood conflict-resolution specialists.

The lesson here is not really about Glass, Austin, or even the costly game of Superintendent Swap. The real story is about governance.

For the past 18 months, Laguna Beach has felt less like a high-functioning, top-tier school district and more like a Greek tragedy written by someone who occasionally moonlights as a sitcom writer. Power has been consolidated, critics have been dismissed and maligned, and taxpayers have been handed the bill, yet the ending always seems to involve the same handful of people – the board majority – Sheri Morgan, Howard Hills, and Dee Perry – insisting that none of this is their fault.

The good news is that unlike the heroes of Greek tragedy, voters are not prisoners of fate, and in November, the community will have an opportunity to decide whether this spectacle deserves another season or whether it is finally time to lower the curtain. If residents are exhausted by the drama, frustrated by the spending and concerned by the direction of the district, they possess a remarkably effective remedy.

It is called a ballot. And unlike a superintendent swap, it does not cost $1.3 million.

Dawn Hunnicutt

LBHS Retired Teacher

Eagle, Idaho

Open story in new window…

Guest Letter

Dave Kiff

City Manager

City of Laguna Beach

Click on photo for larger image

Submitted photo

Dave Kiff

Dear Readers,

Here’s another part in an irregular “three things to know” about city goings-on – I apologize that I’m sporadic about these, but here goes:

1 – The Promenade, the trees and the Promenade budget. We’re in June now, and our goal is to have the Promenade open to the public late this month. A few folks have asked me how the budget got where it is, so here is the short version of how a project gets priced. When pricing out a capital project like the Promenade, it usually happens in these steps: (1) you develop a concept design; (2) you get an engineer’s estimate of the likely project cost, along with its contingencies; (3) you complete the design to “construction drawings” level; (4) you sometimes re-do the engineer’s estimate at this point; (5) you put the project out to bid; (6) you consider the bids, and generally accept the lowest responsible bid, and (7) the low bid amount generally becomes your final pricing – you decide if you can meet it/fund the project and go from there.

For the Promenade, we did an estimate at Point #4. Previous to that time, we had set aside funds in our Capital Improvement Program reflecting only a portion of the Promenade’s likely cost (we set aside $2.85M). The project budget that went to council following competitive bidding in January was $7.2M, which included $5.55M for construction and a $1.1M contingency for uncertainties. As of the first part of June, we’ve allocated about $150K in contingencies. That use of the contingency may grow, but we are hopeful we will stay below the total amount. Yes, we removed more trees than we expected and therefore added more trees to the project – these have costs.

And a tree update: Several of the new trees are in place, but not yet planted (they’re still in their boxes with their native soil). We’re following the nursery’s watering protocols closely, especially for the two Southern live oaks. These two trees are experiencing some leaf drop – this shock after removal is normal, and we check in with the nursery regularly with photos. Next steps include the arrival of more plants, more trees and the start of the brickwork. We’re still on target for having the site open to the public the last week of this month.

2 – Laguna Canyon Road. I’ve gotten really good questions about Laguna Canyon Road lately, all centering around “why would we ever consider taking on ownership of the road?” It’s a fair question, usually asked with few exclamation points. Ordinarily, we wouldn’t! But hear me out, please. As you know, Caltrans owns Laguna Canyon Road (LCR) all the way down to Coast Highway. Caltrans’ design approach emphasizes moving cars through. Generally, that means wide lanes, limited speed reduction, no new traffic signals unless their formulas call for them, and in LCR’s case, no plans for more sidewalks or separated bike lanes.

The piece that matters a lot is Caltrans will not allow utility lines and their vaults to be placed under their roadway. Therein lies much of the rub. Putting those utility lines underground can reduce pole strikes, road closures and possibly avoid starting fires. Because Caltrans won’t allow them to go under their roadway, then there are at least three choices: (1) leave them above ground, and instead work with SCE to harden the above-ground utilities; (2) find room alongside the road for undergrounding some or most of the above-ground utilities, or (3) own the road ourselves, and place the lines under the roadway.

Each one comes with pros and cons. #1 is definitely feasible – but it leaves both an accident risk and wildfire risk (albeit lessened), even with hardened infrastructure. It still leaves LCR vulnerable to being closed multiple times a year, including possibly during red flag days. #2 is tough – we’ve had good engineers look at both sides of the roadway to accomplish this. The side to the east has lots of existing pipes beneath the ground as well as complex right-of-way acquisition needs. The side to the west is protected open space. Remember, too, the logistics of placing lines underground – you need to accommodate continuous power during a construction period, as well as space to work around lines (like transmission lines) that may not be moved at all. As to #3, we made several attempts to get Caltrans to change their policy, but they refused each time. But taking over ownership means taking the responsibility for a major roadway, including liability.

This is genuinely a complex issue involving tradeoffs – better fire safety against possible accident claims, for example. This is in large part why it’s been on the city’s plate for many, many years.

3 – The City’s Budget. I’ve written recently about the city’s long-term future so I will keep this part short. In a nutshell, it comes down to three things:

First, we operate as if we’re a city that has many thousands of more visitors than residents. Oftentimes the visitor expenses are not fully covered given how many visitors we host. Visitors pay part of their way – through parking fees, sales taxes and hotel bed taxes – but it isn’t enough to cover their costs. Second, we are almost 100 years old, and some of our infrastructure is pretty old, too. Each of our four fire stations should be redone, and other spaces need upgrading, too. Third, we have both fixed and other costs that continue to climb, just like they do for you. Insurance, wages, benefits, workers’ comp, fuel, materials and more are all headed upwards at a fairly tough trajectory.

In the proposed budget I presented to the City Council in May, I tried to flatten the cost curve, but I didn’t flip the angle downward. Doing that would mean cutting services (including some that keep visitor impacts at bay – special trash collection, dayporters in restrooms and more) and cut back programs (like Laguna Local) that folks are not ready to have taken away. Takeaways are very hard here – I get that, too.

I get asked, “do we have a structural problem?” Yes, we do. But we’re not dipping into our reserves, nor running a deficit. Right now the structural issue is manageable, through an approach that isn’t great – the worst part being that we may invest less in our infrastructure than I think we should. Other suggestions are very valid – such as trying to be more efficient with what we have, and using more AI for processes like plan check. We’ve made some strides there, but have a ways to go.

Some have suggested program cutbacks and reduced staffing levels. We did pull a number of positions from the roster (I think we’ll end with seven to nine reductions). But for every resident who advocates for a trim here or there, someone else will tell you how much that service means to them or their family.

Again, takeaways are hard.

If this is your kind of subject, please join me and our Administrative Services Director, Michelle Bannigan, for a Budget Town Hall in the council chambers on Tuesday, June 16 at 5 p.m.

Thanks for reading!

Sincerely,

Dave Kiff

City Manager

dkiff@lagunabeachcity.net

Open story in new window…

Guest Letter

Kathryn Burton Gray

Laguna Beach Community Land Trust, Treasurer

Questions and answers about the Community Land Trust

The Board of Directors of the Laguna Beach Community Land Trust intends to ensure transparency and accountability. The following statements will hopefully clarify any confusion that may be circulating:

–The purpose of the Land Trust is to preserve long-term affordability for artists, creatives and working members of the Laguna Beach community who are increasingly being priced out of the city. This is not a speculative real estate venture. The properties are intended to remain affordability-restricted and mission-driven.

–The city loan structure was publicly reviewed and approved through the normal public process, including City Council meetings, staff reports, legal review, financial analysis and public comment.

–Any statements implying that Land Trust board members are positioning themselves for future personal financial gain are serious allegations unsupported by evidence. Public officials are subject to conflict-of-interest laws and legal disclosure requirements.

–The Land Trust was approved for non-profit status in July 2025 by the state of California. IRS determinations for 501(c)(3) organizations at the federal level were protracted due to government shutdowns. The Land Trust did receive its IRS determination January 14, 2026…approximately one month prior to the escrow account closing of the two properties purchased in Laguna Canyon.

–Any characterization that the properties are somehow uninhabitable or uniquely environmentally compromised is misleading. Extensive due diligence was conducted and plans to address required improvements will be addressed responsibly and legally.

–The broader issue facing Laguna Beach is whether the community wants any pathway for artists, nonprofit workers, teachers, creatives and local residents to continue living here. The Land Trust is attempting to preserve Laguna’s identity and culture to create one long-term affordability model within an extraordinarily difficult housing environment.

Bottom line, it is important for conversations to stay grounded in facts. We encourage anyone interested to review the actual City documents, staff reports, environmental materials and public meeting records.

Kathryn Burton Gray serves as the Treasurer of the Community Land Trust. Kathryn also serves as a Trustee and Vice Chair of Laguna College of Art and Design, Trustee for Laguna Art Museum and Mission Providence Hospital as well as Chairman of ULI SHC (Seniors Housing Council) and other national healthcare industry boards. She has been a Laguna Beach resident for over 26 years.

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

Howard Hills was elected to serve LBUSD, not punish it

LBUSD had a significant healthcare contribution issue that required review, correction, legal analysis and improved internal controls. There is no suggestion that the district should disregard public funds or collective bargaining agreements.

However, in my view, Howard Hills did not approach this as a problem to be resolved; he treated it like an opening.

The healthcare issue became a vehicle he could use against the old LBUSD, against Dr. Glass, against staff, against unions, against former board leadership and against those who did not validate his theory that the district was broken, and he was the person brave enough to expose it.

The actual record is not as dramatic as Howard needs it to be. This was a district-administered benefits issue. Teachers and staff did not set the rates, design the contribution structure, or secretly drain money from classrooms. The district identified the issue, reviewed it, made it public and pursued a corrective path that did not claw back money from employees who did not create the problem.

That should have been the point at which a responsible trustee focused on controls, processes and prevention.

Instead, Howard kept the outrage machine running. The same claims are repeated by the same small circle. He then points to the noise as proof that “the community” is demanding answers.

It seems convenient when you help build the noise in the first place. When Dr. Glass would not turn a compliance issue into the public prosecution Howard seemed to want, his view on him seemingly changed. Howard did not need the district to fix the issue as much as he needed it to validate his version. He needed villains, a scandal and proof that everything he believed about LBUSD was true.

When the facts would not go that far, he seemingly went there anyway. That is not transparency, fiscal responsibility and it is for sure not courage. It is a trustee using a real administrative error as a vehicle for revenge against the district.

The healthcare issue was real and the correction was necessary. But now Howard’s fixation is now the story.

He was elected to serve the district, not to punish it.

Erika Hennon Rule

LBUSD Parent

Aliso Viejo

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

Thanks LagunaTunes

Once again, LagunaTunes put on a terrific concert at the high school. Sunday’s Piano Men honored the likes of Irving Berlin and Ray Charles, Jerry Lee Lewis and Burt Bacharach, Leon Russell and Bill Withers, Stevie Wonder and Elton John, and Barry Manilow and Billy Joel. And while the community chorus sang hits like “Georgia on My Mind” and “Great Balls of Fire” – the addition of the high school choir brought down the house. So thanks, LagunaTunes, for ending May the way you did. You hit all the right notes.

Denny Freidenrich

Laguna Beach

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

Transparency and fairness at SchoolPower

SchoolPower states they are open, welcoming and “evolving” with new trustees every year. Their own process, however, raises real questions about accessibility.

When parents express interest, SchoolPower sends a “Trustee Interest Form” describing their formal nominations process that occurs in the spring. They seek “current LBUSD parents who are well-connected and active in the community…engaged with SchoolPower by attending our events and are current SchoolPower donors.” Nominees are then invited to join. (See their website and their Trustee Interest Form reply.)

This creates a selective system that primarily benefits parents who are already well-connected, on-campus and able to meet the financial commitments ($250 annual dues, $100 gala contribution, suggested $2,000+ personal donation) plus the time required for multiple meetings, events and fundraising.

This is a public school district, not a private club. Every working family in Laguna Beach pays the same taxes and deserves a real voice – not just those who can afford significant donations and have the flexibility to be deeply involved on campus.

SchoolPower also benefits from a $1-per-year licensed use agreement for their office on school property. In 1994, SchoolPower itself paid $625 per month for its previous space. This sweetheart deal, combined with their on-campus presence, gives them direct access and influence with district leadership that working families simply do not have. This is the imbalance of power I am talking about: money and proximity should not buy special treatment in our public schools.

SchoolPower has done important work for 45 years. However, the overlap with FUEL – a 501(c)(4) political organization – creates legitimate concerns. Even if they claim it is less than 10%, FUEL leaders who also serve on SchoolPower’s board helped organize the recent protest at the school board meeting. That day, 70-year-old board member Dee Perry was overwhelmed by the protesting crowd and required assistance. This raises serious questions about how influence is exercised in our public schools.

Fairness and true equity mean opening the doors for everyone – not just the people who can afford it or are already part of the inner circle.

Elizabeth Bates

Laguna Beach

LBHS Class of 1992, mother of a senior in the Class of 2026 and a junior in the Class of 2027

Deeply concerned by impact of chronic dysregulation within our community

I am not unique in sharing concern for our planet, our country, our state, our cities, or our communities. But the level of angst I am witnessing today feels both sad and shocking to me.

Sometimes I wonder…where have I been?

Have I spent so much time at the ocean that my head has metaphorically been in the sand?

At school board meetings, we now see adults screaming, shaming, name-calling and pointing fingers while children stand beside them – watching, absorbing and even being encouraged to mimic the behavior.

As a nervous system awareness coach, I observe this with deep curiosity and compassion. I hold no judgment. We truly do not know what we do not know.

But I do understand this:

The nervous system learns through repetition and reference.

When rage, humiliation, accusation and chronic outrage become the emotional atmosphere children are repeatedly exposed to, those states become familiar. The body begins to associate dysregulation with influence. Adrenalized intensity becomes confused with power.

Name-calling and shaming immediately activate the sympathetic nervous system – fight or flight. Over time, living in this heightened state becomes like burning the candle at both ends…driving a car without oil…continually demanding more energy than the system was ever designed to sustain.

The body will comply for a time.

Until it cannot.

A nervous system fueled by chronic stress begins to fray. The body compensates, adapts, braces and pushes harder. But eventually, depletion appears as anxiety, addiction, aggression, exhaustion, numbness, illness, or emotional fragmentation.

And our children are learning these patterns younger and younger.

What concerns me most is not disagreement. Healthy discourse is essential in a free society.

What concerns me is the normalization of dysregulation as a form of communication.

Perhaps true leadership is not found in who can scream the loudest.

Perhaps true power is found in the ability to remain present, regulated, thoughtful and connected – even in the midst of disagreement.

Because the nervous system of a child does not only hear our words.

It becomes shaped by the emotional environment we create.

Meghan Sickner

Laguna Beach

Founder, Crystal Bridge Foundation

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

LBUSD’s board majority is responsible for the dismantling of our future

The LBUSD board majority did what many of us feared it would do.

In a 3-2 vote, Sheri Morgan, Howard Hills and Dee Perry approved a “voluntary separation” with Superintendent Dr. Jason Glass. Joan Malczewski and Jim Kelly dissented.

I am angry.

I am angry because that vote belongs to Sheri, Howard and Dee. But they also own what comes next.

This was not a routine personnel decision. This was a destabilizing act by a board majority that has spent months ignoring professional judgment, consolidating power, inflaming suspicion and pulling this district further into conflict.

The community saw the warning signs. We saw the bylaw change, which moved power toward the board. We saw the graduation location overstep. We saw professional recommendations that were dismissed. We saw district staff, parent groups, community partners and educators dragged into versions that made the district less stable, not more transparent.

After that came the healthcare audit, which should have been administered with precision and responsibility. Instead, it became another weapon in a larger effort to create distrust.

And now this.

I am angry because during one of the most serious moments this district has faced in years, Howard Hills smirked while the separation was being read. That moment was hard to watch and impossible to forget. A person’s livelihood is at stake. A district’s stability is at stake. Our children’s future is at stake.

Nobody should be smirking.

This is not governance. This is not accountability. This is not leadership. This is a board majority choosing control over stability.

I am angry because Sheri, Howard and Dee now own the consequences: the loss of trust, the damage to staff morale, the leadership instability, the reputational harm, the legal costs and the fact that our good employees look at this district and wonder whether it is still worth staying.

And the community cannot allow this chaos to become a distraction.

The budget, LCAP, legal costs, healthcare audit and staff morale still matter. Every decision this board makes from here deserves scrutiny because this board’s majority has shown us exactly how it uses power.

Orange Unified already showed Orange County what happens when a board majority destabilizes a district and assumes the public will eventually move on. The damage lasts. Trust does not simply return because the meeting ends.

LBUSD cannot afford people to get tired, tune out, or accept this as normal.

I am angry because this district belongs to students, teachers, staff, families and the community. It does not belong to Sheri, Howard, Dee, or any political faction cheering them on.

They made this decision. They own what happens next.

And we cannot not let them forget it.

Erika Hennon Rule

Aliso Viejo

Dr. Glass’ departure is a devastating loss for our community; Hills, Morgan and Perry should resign immediately

The recent departure of Dr. Glass is a staggering loss for our school district and a direct indictment of the board majority’s incompetence. Dr. Glass was a top-tier leader, yet he was met with consistent obstruction by board members Howard Hills, Sheri Morgan and Dee Perry, who prioritized personal agendas over the autonomy he needed to succeed.

The consequences are severe. Taxpayers are now footing the bill for mounting legal fees. Furthermore, our district’s reputation is so damaged that no high-caliber candidate would willingly enter this dysfunctional environment.

By choosing ego over stability, these three board members have compromised the educational environment for our students and staff. If they truly care about our district’s recovery, they should resign immediately and allow for leadership capable of repairing the harm they have caused. If not, they should be recalled!

Gwen Myers

Laguna Beach

Lack of financial oversight and accountability: they (the unions) signed the checks then led the protests

In 2021, union leaders Sara Hopper (LaBUFA) and Margaret Warder (CSEA) signed MOUs with the Laguna Beach Unified School District that allowed $350,000+ in health benefit payments above the contract caps for that year. These agreements were publicly approved by the board.

After the MOUs expired, the district continued making these above-cap payments for three more years totaling roughly $1.77 million with no new board approval, no new agreements and no one bringing it back to the bargaining table.

School Board Members Dee Perry, Sheri Morgan and Howard Hills (the latter two who were not on the board in 2021) discovered the issue in 2024. They ordered an independent audit, which confirmed the improper overpayments.

In December 2025, the school board unanimously voted to absorb $850,000 from the general fund to protect employees from higher health premiums.

Despite this, the same unions that signed the original agreements organized protests in spring 2026 against the board, accusing them of harming staff and students.

The public records show a different story: the overpayments started with union-signed agreements and continued quietly for years without proper authorization.

Transparency and accountability matter. Truthfulness is a matter of public record.

My gratitude and appreciation for this responsible financial oversight by Dee Perry, Howard Hills and Sheri Morgan.

Lorene Laguna

Laguna Beach

Correcting misinformation about SchoolPower

SchoolPower and FUEL are two separate organizations with different missions. At times there may be overlap, as both are driven by volunteer parents who are active in our school community. That does not equate to a “concentration of power.” SchoolPower is governed by a volunteer Board of Trustees. We currently have 32 Trustee members (couples count as one vote). While three leaders of FUEL are valued members of our organization, they make up less than 10% of our Board. More than 90% of our Trustees are not leaders in FUEL. Our Board is always evolving, as we welcome a new class of Trustees every year.

Our Trustees also serve organizations such as the Laguna Beach PTAs, Boys & Girls Club and Little League. They are members of the Lawn Bowling Club and Woman’s Club, Girl Scout leaders, local business owners, LBUSD alumni and families new to the District alike. What they all share, as do the hundreds of Trustees who have volunteered for SchoolPower over the past 45 years, is a deep commitment to enriching our public schools.

SchoolPower’s former office was a house located on St. Ann’s. Following COVID, SchoolPower worked with the District to establish the Family Resource Center. The former office was identified as the ideal location for the FRC. SchoolPower contributed funds toward the design and construction of the center and subsequently relocated to its current, smaller office located on Manzanita. The District provides a licensed use agreement for the current space. This is entirely normal for an education nonprofit foundation, as it helps ensure that more of the funds raised can directly benefit students. Thanks to the partnership between the District, SchoolPower and our donors, the LBUSD community now has an incredible resource in the FRC.

SchoolPower’s legacy and mission is to enrich the education and support the well-being of all children in LBUSD and we focus on four core programs: Educator Grants, the Athletics Fund, SPASE (After School Enrichment) and Family Support Services (including financial assistance, scholarships and parent education). Information about our programs, financials and Board can be found on SchoolPower’s website and Annual Report. We invite you to meet with us if you have questions.

We are so grateful for the ongoing support from this community and are proud to serve in our roles for SchoolPower.

Ashley Brown, President 2025-2026

Erin Berryman, President 2024-2025

JJ Ballesteros, Incoming President 2026-2027

Sarah Durand, Executive Director

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

Ken Frank’s passing

Sad news about Ken Frank. Back in 1985, when I was retained to organize Orange County’s opposition to offshore oil drilling, Ken and then-mayor Bob Gentry were extremely helpful. They personally encouraged 22 Republican mayors to publicly oppose the Reagan administration’s plan (which these local “electeds” ultimately did). I have long said that if it wasn’t for Ken and Bob’s efforts, there very well could be oil rigs off Laguna’s coast today. RIP Ken.

Denny Freidenrich

Laguna Beach

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

We need to expand our Marine Protected Areas

More than 90% of Orange County’s kelp forests have been lost since the 1980s due to overfishing of urchin-eating species like lobster and sheephead (Orange County Coastkeeper). These kelp forests are a key base for ocean ecosystems up and down the coast, homing countless species of marine animals. They are iconic parts of California’s identity, and they are what make our oceans unique.

I have grown up in Laguna Beach, snorkeling through the kelp forests and watching them change through the years. Marine Protected Areas were established along Laguna Beach coasts in 2012, and since then, I have seen the beautiful ecosystems slowly build back to their true beauty.

The biodiversity along our beaches has thrived over the past 10 years, and I have seen firsthand the effectiveness of establishing Marine Protected Areas, which protect our ecosystems from harmful human activities that prevent them from thriving.

We need to protect our oceans so that they can thrive once again. By expanding Marine Protected Areas, we can revive more of these beautiful coastlines.

Kate Trevino

UCLA 2027

Laguna Beach

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

Why is our school board majority not listening to its superintendent?

Over the past five meetings, the LBUSD Board has repeatedly agendized “Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release” under Government Code 54957 in two-hour closed session meetings with no report out of any actions taken during a collective 10 hours. At the same time, the community has been given no clear understanding of the board’s expectations. Not for the superintendent, not for staff, not for the goals he is being measured against and not for the direction they want this district to take.

Closed session exists for confidentiality, but it does not exempt transparency required by law.

Dr. Jason Glass – our superintendent hired with a unanimous 5-0 vote of this board, reflecting full confidence from every member – is less than a year into the role. He was selected from a strong national pool and brings experience leading large, complex school systems. Since arriving, he has introduced structure, professionalism and a steady, disciplined approach to decision-making.

But how the board majority engages with him has raised questions about whether his professional judgment is being respected and whether he has been given space and authority to lead the district as he was hired to do.

In a recent graduation site decision, the superintendent presented a recommendation grounded in staff input and operational considerations. The board majority overrode that recommendation in a 3-2 vote. This came just weeks after his guidance against amending Board Bylaw 9322 was also dismissed, resulting in a change that gave final agenda-setting authority to the board president, despite top-performing districts in California and nationally not operating this way.

Yes, the board has the authority to make these decisions. But repeatedly overriding the superintendent, the one with direct experience running school districts, signals a pattern of second-guessing on core operational matters. And that is based only on what we can see in open session.

Add to that an off-cycle review of the superintendent on February 26th, just weeks after a standard evaluation, followed by the same “Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release” item appearing in closed session at each of the next five meetings.

It is fair to ask: what is being evaluated over and over again? And what direction is being given around staffing or leadership that requires this item to return repeatedly, without any public framework or explanation?

No one is asking for confidential details, but the public does deserve to understand, at a high level: What are the board’s priorities? The superintendent’s defined goals? How is performance being measured? And what is the timeline for any decisions that could impact the leadership of this district?

Operating within the law is the baseline. High-functioning school boards go much further. They establish clear goals, align with their superintendent, communicate priorities publicly and evaluate leadership against transparent, consistent metrics.

Leadership instability at the top affects everything: staff morale, which we witnessed last week in their first march in over 40 years, retention and ultimately student outcomes. Our district cannot afford this level of ambiguity from a board majority that has not earned the community’s trust.

They hold ultimate authority. The question is whether they are using it responsibly or weaponizing it for their personal agendas.

Iva Pawling

Laguna Beach

Parent, TOW & Thurston

FUEL, Board Member

Our General Plan is not a suggestion

The City Council’s decision to remove a “significant natural watercourse” from our General Plan (GPA 25-2345 along Buena Vista Way) was a dangerous step toward dismantling Laguna’s environmental legacy.

City staff claimed the watercourse was no longer “important” for scenic or ecological reasons because storm drains now capture uphill runoff. This misses the point entirely. The fundamental intent of our General Plan is to celebrate and preserve our natural topography – not to bulldoze, dig up, or build over it.

By erasing this blue line to accommodate a single developer, the council is setting a terrifying precedent. If we allow “piecemeal” de-mapping of natural features through private hydrology reports, we invite the over-development of our remaining hillsides. Setbacks from watercourses exist for a reason – they are safety buffers that protect our community from erosion and drainage failures.

Furthermore, “de-mapping” a natural feature does not change the laws of physics. Water follows gravity, not administrative convenience. By affirmatively ignoring a known drainage path, the city assumes massive legal and financial liability. Should future atmospheric rivers cause flooding or mudslides downslope, the city could be held liable under the doctrine of Inverse Condemnation.

We are effectively prioritizing a larger building footprint over the structural integrity of our hillsides. Laguna’s identity is tied to its rugged, natural character. If we stop protecting our mapped watercourses, we aren’t just losing a line on a map – we are losing the very protections that keep our neighborhoods safe and beautiful.

We chose our leaders to be stewards of Laguna’s unique landscape, but current decisions are moving us away from that vital mission of preservation.

Joy Berry

Laguna Beach

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

Let’s support the new Promenade that is coming to be

I appreciate the very detailed and considerate letter re: trees on the Promenade. Everyone jumped to their own conclusions, and this was much needed to hopefully calm all the naysayers down. I hopped on that bandwagon for a bit before realizing there had to be more to the story.

The Promenade has been such a huge subject for years (I am a local). I can remember back many years when conversations started about the possibility. Now, in these times, the debate has continued with younger and loftier responses.

Forest Avenue is not what it once was, a thriving and fun place to go to buy a gift, pair of shoes, school supplies and chocolate parfaits…yes, I go way back. There are only a few surviving stores of years gone by.

Now the street is filled with restaurants, a few lovely art galleries, some high-end stores and some low-end stuff…and mix in a coffee shop or two.

I think the Promenade will brighten things up and once established, draw in some more interesting businesses that are fun as well.

If the people who own all that would bring down the rents, there might be hope. So many of the buildings Downtown are owned now by people from another state or country, it is really sad.

I look forward to joining in at the Promenade and creating more of a sense of community…like the old days with a new twist.

SenaRose Hilario

Laguna Beach

LBHS Class of ‘59

Governing in the shadows

I read with interest FUEL’s recent letter in Stu News titled “Governing in the daylight,” in which they call for transparent, lawful governance and position themselves as community watchdogs.

Public records tell a different story.

On February 22, 2026 – the same day I sent a formal complaint/request for investigation of Board Member Joan Malczewski to the full LBUSD Board – Board Member James Kelly forwarded that complaint and bcc’d it to the FUEL President along with several former Board Members and teachers. Board Member Kelly added the note: “Just when you think they cannot go lower they out do themselves!!!! Jim”

This occurred just four days before the 3-2 Board vote on the high school graduation venue.

The email is now public record via my PRA request.

Laguna Beach families deserve straight answers. Why did Board Member James Kelly forward my private parent letter this way? And how does this align with FUEL’s public calls for transparency?

I welcome any explanation from Board Member James Kelly, FUEL, or the individuals involved.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Bates

Laguna Beach

LBHS Class of 1992, parent of an LBHS senior (Class of 2026) and junior (Class of 2027)

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

A district at a crossroads, a community in motion

I have attended just about every LBUSD board meeting in person this year, written regularly about district issues and spent months listening to parents, teachers, staff and community members trying to understand the direction of LBUSD. From that vantage point, the recent rally for teachers and staff felt like an important marker in a much larger story unfolding across the district.

Families have watched as tension has grown, trust has weakened and staff concerns have become harder to dismiss. Listening sessions, public comments and conversations throughout the community have all pointed to the same reality: too many people closest to students feel unheard, strained, or deeply worried about where things are heading. Parents may not see every internal dynamic, but we can see the effects when instability begins to shape the atmosphere around a district.

That context is what made the rally feel so significant. I arrived at 4 p.m., not knowing what to expect, and found a strong crowd already gathered. There were teachers, staff, parents, grandparents, children and community members. The energy was immediate, focused and electric.

The experience itself carried the kind of community connection that matters. Parents made signs together while their kids added personal touches. People helped each other get there straight from work by carpooling the kids. As we walked, drivers honked, people waved and support came from every direction. With young kids, I ended up toward the back of the group, which gave me a full view of the crowd stretching ahead.

As often happens with major community rallies here, the walk ended at Main Beach. I left feeling energized and more convinced than ever that community voice matters. When families, staff and neighbors show up together, it sends a clear message that the health of LBUSD matters and that the people caring for students every day deserve to be heard.

Erika Hennon Rule

LBUSD Parent

Aliso Viejo

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

Governing in the daylight

Laguna Beach is a community that invests deeply in its schools, not just financially, but through our trust. That trust depends on one non-negotiable foundation: transparent, lawful governance.

Right now, that foundation is being tested.

Recently, a formal “cure and correct” demand was served on the Board by a Graduation Committee parent regarding the February 26 vote to relocate the high school graduation ceremony. Setting aside the venue decision, it raised serious questions about whether the decision-making process complied with California’s open meeting laws. The demand, based on more than 300 pages of emails produced in response to a public records request, alleges that a majority of board members engaged in a “hub-and-spoke serial meeting” through an intermediary outside of public view. Such a process undermines the integrity of the public vote and limits the community’s ability to meaningfully participate.

More broadly, many in the community are concerned about a pattern that has emerged in recent months: extended closed-session meetings with little or no reporting out, an off-cycle superintendent review outside the typical cadence and multiple changes in legal counsel over a short period of time. Taken together, these actions create a level of opacity that is difficult to reconcile with the past one and a half years of this board majority and the expectations of a high-functioning public institution.

FUEL (Families Unified for Education in Laguna) has been closely monitoring these developments. Our role is not to inflame, but to inform and to ensure that governance remains transparent, that legal standards are upheld and that the community has access to clear, factual information.

As we look toward the future, our community must demand a fundamental reset. We need leaders who respect the law, value fact-based, public input, and understand that our schools are a public good meant to serve the students first. This moment calls for renewed attention and civic engagement. Laguna Beach has always been a community that shows up. We need to demand leadership that actually governs in the daylight.

Sincerely,

The FUEL Board

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

The cheapest talking point in town

There is a familiar move in school district politics: take a complicated issue, boil it down to one number and hope people confuse a talking point for an argument.

In Laguna Beach Unified, that number is often the cost per student.

The current discussion about staffing does not automatically become a debate about cost per student, but that narrative is already circulating in the community. And this progression is familiar: what begins as “just a report” can quickly become scrutiny of staffing, then salaries, then cost per student, and eventually a case for cutting back the very people and conditions that made the district strong in the first place.

LBUSD is a basic aid district, which means its financial structure differs from that of districts that rely primarily on state funding, so it should not be judged as though it were. Comparing Laguna Beach’s per-pupil spending to districts operating under different revenue models is not serious analysis. It is a shortcut, and a misleading one.

Where does that shortcut usually lead? Usually, it’s the suggestion that teachers, staff and their benefits cost too much. It suggests that the people actually doing the work of educating children have somehow become the problem.

No.

What people are calling “high cost per student” is often just the cost of running a high-performing district in a high-cost community. It is the cost of retaining experienced teachers long enough to move up the salary schedule, as they should. It is the cost of step increases and column movement that help educators keep up, at least in part, with the cost of living. It is the cost of rising health benefits. It is the cost of recruiting and keeping talented educators in a coastal district where living nearby is expensive, and commuting in is expensive too.

This is the price of quality, and frankly, that is where I want the money to go.

If Laguna Beach is going to spend generously anywhere, it should be on the people who are with children every day. Teachers and staff are not some side expense standing in the way of the mission. They are the mission.

As a parent of young children, I care far more about whether the adults in front of my children are experienced, supported and able to stay than I do about whether a spreadsheet number looks too high to someone in the community. Teachers and staff spend a large part of the day with our kids. They guide, support, challenge and help shape the kind of people they become. Students do not experience “cost per student.” They experience whether the adults around them are stable, capable and invested enough to keep showing up well.

Shrinking enrollment is real and is happening across California and across the country. But that does not make the staff the problem. Strong districts respond to pressure by protecting what makes them strong, strengthening programs and giving families reasons to come and stay. They do not answer enrollment pressure by shrinking their ambitions.

The planned rally on Thursday, April 16 should not be treated like a symbolic release valve. Teachers, school staff, students and community members are gathering because they believe student learning conditions and staff stability are being put at risk. The message is simple: “We Are One School District, One Community.”

And support should not stop at the rally; community members should carry straight into the 6 p.m. school board meeting in the Thurston Middle School library. I will be there because real support means showing up where decisions are being discussed.

I am not interested in Laguna Beach Unified trying to look cheaper on paper, so a few people can feel fiscally righteous. I am interested in Laguna Beach remaining excellent. If that requires a high investment per student, good. Excellence should cost more than mediocrity.

If a large share of LBUSD’s budget is going to the teachers and staff who educate, support and shape children every day, then the money is going exactly where it should.

Erika Hennon Rule

LBUSD Parent

Aliso Viejo

Two roads…four to eight hours…no drills

During last week’s screening of Lahaina: Voices of Change, Laguna Fire Chief Niko King said he loses sleep over how little residents know about what to do in a wildfire.

Laguna Beach has one structural reality every resident must understand: two roads in and out – Pacific Coast Highway and Laguna Canyon Road – and an estimated four-to-eight-hour evacuation window whose assumptions nobody has explained. Best case: no Santa Ana winds, no rush hour, no tourist season. Reality rarely cooperates.

The Palisades, Eaton and Lahaina fires showed what happens when evacuation systems go untested. In Eaton, alerts never reached some residents – fatalities followed. In the Palisades, abandoned vehicles blocked Sunset Boulevard; bulldozers cleared it mid-fire. In Lahaina, gridlock pushed residents toward the ocean. People died in their cars. These are not abstract warnings. They are blueprints.

One contrast stands out. After its 1993 wildfire, the Topanga Coalition for Emergency Preparedness, TCEP.org, began holding regular in-person evacuation drills. During last year’s fires, they coordinated preemptive road closures and contra-flow planning before fire arrived. One fatality: a resident who refused to evacuate.

Laguna holds no in-person drills. Chief King and Police Chief Calvert have said drills are too expensive and poorly attended – but Laguna has never held one. How do they know?

Our community includes seniors with mobility challenges, families with children and residents who need support to evacuate safely. Without zone-by-zone drills, we cannot identify bottlenecks, test our two-road system under pressure, or build the neighborhood networks that separate orderly evacuation from chaos. One disabled vehicle, one accident, and that window collapses.

Some residents believe the beach offers a fallback. It does not. Laguna’s water temperatures, tidal range and currents cannot support prolonged stays – especially if fire moves toward the coast.

What must happen: zone-by-zone drills starting in high-vulnerability areas the city has already identified; a community forum drawing on TCEP.org’s expertise; education on shelter-in-place and trapped-vehicle scenarios and neighborhood action groups trained to support those who cannot self-evacuate. Emergency Ops Coordinator Sarah Limones and Community Preparedness Educator Shannon Martinez were hired for precisely this work. They can use the ongoing Community Preparedness Workshops to do it.

Email all five council members at citycouncil@lagunabeachcity.net and City Manager Dave Kiff at dkiff@lagunabeachcity.net. Demand a community forum with TCEP.org and zone-by-zone drills this year.

The only way to know if our evacuation system works is to test it –

before the next fire does it for us.

Kiku Terasaki

Laguna Beach

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

A parking structure built out of town would be a step in the right direction for Laguna

It’s upsetting to see what is happening in my little village by the sea. I left Laguna over ten years ago – now one of the main reasons being (oh, you think I would do that – you think I’m that stupid) what I saw happening to the town. How little respect was being paid to our streets and beaches. Public Works was under stress then and it hasn’t gotten better.

A small town being responsible for cleaning up after thousands of unconscious tourists with little to no compensation isn’t fair!

So, here’s what I was thinking: a pay-for parking structure built out of town, perhaps near the intersection of El Toro and Laguna Canyon roads, with a free shuttle into town. The money raised going toward city coffers.

Yes, there is the current utility yard parking (Act V), but more is needed, and it would be nice to help eliminate the traffic and the pollution that it creates in the canyon.

Creating more parking in the village will kill its charm. It saddens me to see what was once my home being destroyed by people who don’t care. They need to underwrite its upkeep.

Good luck!

Regumbah Connolly, former proud resident of the historic Sara Thurston Park Neighborhood formerly known as Fairywood

Coupeville, Wash.

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

Heartfelt thanks from our family to the teachers and staff of LBUSD

I wanted to take a moment to say thank you to the teachers and staff of the Laguna Beach Unified School District.

Our family has been part of this district for the past 11 years, starting in first grade at El Morro Elementary, then Thurston Middle School and now with our twins finishing their junior year at Laguna Beach High School.

Looking back, what stands out most are the adults. Time and again, our sons have had teachers, counselors, coaches and staff who genuinely cared about them, who took the time to get to know them, support them and push them when they needed it.

Those relationships have made all the difference. It hasn’t gone unnoticed. We’ve been struck by the positive influence those connections have made in our sons’ lives and in our family’s overall experience in LBUSD. They’ve been a big part of who our sons are today, confident, grounded and prepared for life after high school.

As we head into their final year, we’re just really grateful. Grateful for the consistency, the dedication and the heart that so many in this district bring to their work every day.

Chris Tebbutt

Parent Mentor, LBUSD Special Education

Director, LBHS Scholarship Foundation

Laguna Beach

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

The tax line that launched 1,000 complaints

School bonds keep getting treated like evidence of failure, when really, they are evidence of something much less dramatic: Buildings age, systems break and school districts need to plan for it. A bond is not a sign that LBUSD is financially unsound, nor is it a hidden way to cover salaries or routine operating costs; rather, it is a tool for long-term capital needs, which is exactly what it is supposed to be.

I support a future bond because I think it is a necessary and reasonable way to pay for major facilities work without throwing the district’s regular budget off course. Roofs, HVAC, plumbing, electrical systems, drainage, safety upgrades, and modernization are the basic work of maintaining schools that are safe, functional and worthy of the students and staff who rely on them every day. In a district that expects a lot from its schools, it should not be controversial to say those schools require real investment.

And the cost argument has been stretched well past the facts. At about $8 and change per $100,000 of assessed value, the current bond is hardly the burden some make it out to be. If you are paying about $10,000 a year in property taxes, only about $89 of that goes toward the bond. At that rate, LBUSD can pursue a future bond in the range of roughly $80 million to $100 million, which makes the case fairly straightforward. For all the handwringing, that is a remarkably small slice of the bill for something with a very real return. I support it because the need is real, the cost is manageable and the payoff is worth it.

It is also worth being clear about who this district includes, as some believe LBUSD is limited to people with a Laguna Beach mailing address. Its boundaries actually include parts of Aliso Viejo and Newport Coast, so if you live within those boundaries, you are part of the district. We all pay into it, and bond measures affect our property taxes, so you and your neighbor have every right to weigh in on the district’s future.

What has been most frustrating in this conversation is how quickly some people would rather build a narrative than deal with basic facts. Supporting a bond is not supporting waste but supporting the district’s long-term health. A bond acknowledges that school facilities do not maintain themselves and that putting off necessary work does not save money forever – it usually just makes the bill larger later.

That is the real issue here. Not whether the word bond can be made to sound ominous, but whether the district has real facilities needs, whether the tax impact is reasonable and whether the return justifies the cost. In my view, it does.

Erika Hennon Rule, LBUSD Parent

Aliso Viejo

Hammering out the Irvine Bowl RFP analysis

The first thing that stands out is this RFP contains no language for revenue opportunities for the applicant. They only ask for detailed operational expenses. (There is) no mention of providing production and operational services of the Bowl for third-party promoters, and how costs and revenues would be divided.

The city is borrowing from the Santa Barbara Bowl model where an in-house entity controls everything – booking, ticketing, production and all revenues to the house. But Irvine Bowl is vastly different insofar as third-party promoters and event organizers have always been responsible for their own operations and production, and pay a flat fee to the FOA for use of the grounds. Thus, all revenue goes to the event producer.

I’ve been told the original intent to hire a production company was to manage the operations of the Bowl – sound, lighting, staging, etc. Not to book the talent and sell the tickets.

It seems they are gaming this RFP for the consultant who helped them draft it by giving other applicants three weeks to figure out all their costs associated with the Bowl, including:

–Building a temporary stage over the orchestra pit.

–Bringing in all the sound and lighting.

–Calculating all the other mandated expenses, detailed further down this doc (personnel, 20 free tickets).

–Figuring out food, beverage, alcohol and vendors.

–Proposing a minimum of two acts for every available date this fall.

Only one entity knows the answers to all of these because they produced the Jack Johnson shows last fall. They are also the ones helping the city author this, so they have had plenty of time to anticipate these questions.

According to EUNA Solutions, the average cycle time for RFP Public Procurement is 57 days. This was issued on March 18 and due on April 8 – so only 21 days to figure all this out – and there has been no talking with city staff, who could help provide many of the answers.

Specific Points worth consideration:

Intro refers to “Event Producer” then in IV calls for an “Experienced Entertainment Consultant” for “booking and entertainment services.”

III A. Purports that IBPC can approve dates for “off-season” events from September 1-April 30. Not according to the Festival of Arts Board.

B. Proposed events must be approved by IBPC

IV: “Present multiple artist options per performance dates in 2026.” Not realistic for anyone just receiving this.

“Preferred Genres:” Surf Pop, Surf Rock, Indie Rock, Soft Rock, Singer/Songwriter, Alternative Folk, Contemporary Folk, Contemporary Singer/Songwriter, Indie Folk, Folk-Rock, New Acoustic, Traditional Folk (Who comes up with this?)

Missing from “Preferred Genres”: Jazz, Latin, Reggae, Classical, Opera, Blues, R&B, Soul, Country, Americana, World, K-Pop, etc.

E. List three (3) most recent projects, and at least one where all the principal team members worked together. Precludes any new team forming.

J. Cost Proposal: Includes “total fees and expenses for the entire scope of the project” without specifying that consultant must provide a stage to cover the orchestra pit, plus sound and lighting.

Guidelines for Use:

Written consent required for:

Artist

Use of vendors

Food and beverage

Third-party food service

Alcohol

Vehicles on premises

Ad materials

Use of Festival name

Amplification equipment

Applicant must provide:

Janitorial services

Security and crowd control

Professional security firm

Festival venue technician

Can only sell 2,589 seats out of 2,629

20 of the best tickets provided to the administrator

15 guards, + one security advisor and four Festival guards

12 ushers

Must build a stage over the orchestra pit.

Cannot use Festival sound, lighting equipment, or Pageant Control booth

Professional Services Agreement

Boilerplate Laguna doc

Exhibit A (Scope of Services)

Exhibit B (Schedule of Services)

Exhibit C (Compensation)

In no part of the RFP is there a reference to compensation from the city, or the events themselves.

So, who keeps the revenue from:

–Ticket sales

–F&B

–VIP

–Vendors

–Sponsors

How can other entities book acts? How much do they pay the consultant/operator for use?

What revenue does the promoter keep versus the consultant?

Conclusion:

It appears the city is playing favored nation by offering a Live Nation-style hammerlock on production of shows with one company who will do everything, to the exclusion of everyone else who has historically staged concerts at the Bowl, including KXFM Radio, who produced five shows between 2010 and 2020.

In my opinion, it’s a no-bid contract disguised as an RFP!

Billy Fried, Executive Director

KXFM Radio

Laguna Beach

Grandparents For Grandkids will be attending the March 28 “No Kings” rally at Main Beach

Last year, my Laguna friends Geoff Glass, Bob Mister and Cort Kloke helped me create Grandparents For Grandkids. Together, with support from Scott and Tracy Ferguson, Faye Baglin, Diane Kloke, Howard and Leanne Englander, Stephanie Mister, Bill Witte and Keiko Sakamoto, Bruce Dwyer, Jerry Hornbeak, Dennis and Robin Walsh, Tom and Ginger Osborne, Susan Hough, Chris and Glenn Etow, Betsy and Gary Jenkins, Ed Kaufman and Karen Redding, Adrienne Fayne, Bill and Maria Hoffman, Ketta Brown, Greg and Barbara MacGillivray, Beth and Steve Wood, David and Kerry Rubel, Cathy and Marlo Bartels, Jan Jordan, Ken Aubuchon, MJ Abraham and Vicki Borthwick, you may have seen several of us at previous “No Kings” rallies at Main Beach.

Why? Because we know when a president undermines the independence of the judiciary and treats legal constraints as optional, the damage does not stop with today’s headlines. It reaches forward – into the lives of our children and grandchildren, shaping the rights they will, or will not, inherit when we are gone.

A nation governed by laws cannot tolerate a double standard – one in which constitutional protections apply selectively, depending on which administration is in power. When enforcement authorities like ICE are allowed to operate in secrecy, shielded by masks, the rule of law does not bend. No, it breaks! We “grands” believe it is safe to say you never would see Laguna Police Officers hiding their faces from the public.

Please join “Grandparents For Grandkids” when we gather March 28 at Main Beach (11 a.m.-1 p.m.). You’ll find us at the corner of Ocean Avenue and PCH (on the waterside sidewalk). Hope to see you there.

Denny Freidenrich

Laguna Beach

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

SchoolPower and FUEL are not the same

SchoolPower has supported Laguna Beach public schools for 45 years. It was created at a time when the district faced significant financial need and, over decades, has evolved to meet the changing needs of LBUSD. Today the organization raises roughly $1 million each year to support programs and services that benefit children across the district.

At its core, SchoolPower exists for one reason – students.

The organization funds initiatives that help as many children as possible thrive. That includes Educator Grants for teachers, counselors, and administrators who want to bring new ideas to their classrooms and programs. It helps fund science camps so middle school families face less financial burden, and an Athletics Fund that supports middle and high school athletes so students can learn leadership, resilience and teamwork through sports.

SchoolPower also operates the district’s elementary after-school enrichment program (SPASE), serving nearly three-quarters of elementary students, and provides scholarships so families who need support can access these opportunities. Through the Family Resource Center, it also helps fund direct assistance for families in need. In short, it helps provide the wraparound support that many school districts simply cannot fund on their own.

I have served as a SchoolPower trustee for seven years and was president in 2023-2024, a role I’m incredibly proud to have held.

What many people do not understand is that SchoolPower does not direct the school district in any way. It has no authority over curriculum, staffing, academic decisions, or school-site operations. None. SchoolPower exists solely to support students and programs.

Trustees are parent volunteers who donate significant time and financial support because they believe in that mission. They spend countless hours in committee meetings, planning community events and finding new ways to grow programs that benefit our students.

Recently, a narrative has emerged suggesting that SchoolPower and FUEL are somehow connected. That is simply not true.

FUEL formed in response to concerns many parents had after the new school board majority took office at the end of 2024. It is a community advocacy effort focused on governance and the future direction of the district.

Is it surprising that some of the same parents involved in SchoolPower are also active in FUEL? Of course not. Laguna Beach is a small community. The parents who dedicate time and energy to supporting our schools tend to be the same parents who step forward when they believe the district needs engagement or advocacy.

But the two organizations are entirely separate. SchoolPower is a 501(c)(3), it does not engage in governance matters and simply receives periodic updates from school board representatives.

When hearing claims about organizations that support our schools, it is worth considering the source and whether they have any real experience or involvement with the organizations they are speaking about.

Parents who volunteer their time and resources to support public education are a strength of our community.

SchoolPower has been an extraordinary asset to Laguna Beach for nearly half a century. It reflects the best of what a community can do for its schools, and it remains something many of us are deeply proud to support.

Iva Pawling, SchoolPower Trustee and FUEL Board Member

Laguna Beach

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

Setting the record straight

I wanted to provide clarification to a letter (“Where was the urgency?”) that ran in your Letters to the Editor section on March 3 and provide clarification, as the account presented does not fully reflect what occurred.

Based on the information available to staff, the city’s Animal Services Officers responded appropriately and carried out their enforcement responsibilities in accordance with established protocols. In this instance, officers provided both animal welfare protection and enforcement action where warranted.

It is possible that (the writer) was not aware of all aspects of the response that occurred during the call on Saturday. For that reason, I believe it is important to ensure that both she and the broader community understand that the city takes animal welfare seriously and remains committed to professional, responsible enforcement.

If it would be helpful, we can provide a factual summary of the response to ensure the record is clear.

Here is our Police Department’s chronology of the events that day:

On March 1, 2026, at approximately 3:22 p.m., Laguna Beach Animal Services responded to a report of two small dogs left inside a parked vehicle in the 600 block of South Coast Highway. Upon arrival, an Animal Services Officer with six years of experience observed two dogs inside a black SUV with the windows partially open. The vehicle was parked and not running. The dogs were alert, responsive and did not exhibit signs of immediate medical distress. The officer began canvassing the area on foot to locate the owner as additional calls were received.

A second Animal Services Officer with three years of experience arrived shortly thereafter to assist. One officer remained at the vehicle to continuously monitor the dogs and maintained communication with concerned community members, while efforts were made to contact the registered owner.

At approximately 5:20 p.m., the owner returned to the vehicle. The dogs were immediately removed, evaluated and provided water. Although mildly dehydrated, neither dog required veterinary treatment.

The owner was issued a citation for leaving animals in an unattended vehicle and for having unlicensed dogs. The owner was further educated on the dangers of leaving animals unattended in vehicles. Contrary to some assertions, the person was not observed to be under the influence.

We encourage anyone who observes an animal in distress inside a vehicle to contact Animal Services or the Police Department immediately at 949.4970701 so that we can respond promptly.

Jeremy Frimond, Assistant City Manager

City of Laguna Beach

Editor’s Note: This letter from the city of Laguna Beach is in rebuttal to a letter we ran on Tuesday, March 3.

Reasons why, and hope that, the school board will reconsider and reverse their decision on moving graduation to the Irvine Bowl

I am writing representing a group of parents and families of the Laguna Beach High School Class of 2026 to respectfully request a special meeting and ask the board to reconsider and reverse the February 26 vote moving graduation to the Irvine Bowl, returning the ceremony to Guyer Field.

We are not trying to escalate conflict. We are offering the board a straightforward, face-saving reason to revisit this: The vote occurred late in the planning cycle, without key operational facts finalized and without meaningful notice to the Seniors’ parent community that a location change would be voted on at this stage.

Why reconsideration is warranted:

–Late-stage change equals significant cost and operational disruption that was not fully quantified before the February 26 vote, including core details such as guest seating/ADA/ticket allocation/logistics/manpower.

So, moving venues now forces a major reset and introduces real incremental costs and logistics that were not fully established on the record, which include: additional staffing/manpower to execute a venue change cleanly; student transportation/busing to the Bowl; lighting, staging and A/V requirements specific to graduation (including livestream needs); florals/decor, seating/chairs and equipment transport; administration, crowd control and entry management unique to a ticketed venue.

With other questions such as – will Thurston graduation remain at the high school and how will we justify the $60k expenditure for one graduation? And what will be the additional expense in manpower and transportation to execute two events?

Even if some of these are “solvable,” the real question is: Why incur additional expense, complexity, and risk when both the high school and middle school ceremonies can be executed efficiently at Guyer Field – and the Class of 2026 community strongly prefers it?

–Accessibility for this graduation is a district legal obligation, and Guyer Field is the safest, least risky choice. Graduation is a district program, and ADA Title II requires the district to operate each to and usable by individuals with disabilities. Title II also requires reasonable modifications when needed to avoid disability discrimination.

We are not asking the board to direct staff to build an additional “ADA plan” for the Irvine Bowl, that would unfairly add pressure to staff. Our point is simpler: Guyer Field inherently gives the district the flexibility to meet real-world needs without scrambling, including mobility-limited guests who need shorter routes and flexible seating; families who need to remain together rather than being split into designated areas, and attendees with vision/hearing limitations who benefit from clearer visibility and proximity options.

Strollers are also a practical accessibility reality. Many Class of 2026 families have babies and toddlers. Guyer Field provides flexibility where families can stand or reposition to the rear if needed without blocking aisles. A fixed, ticketed seating venue is far less accommodating to strollers and the day-to-day realities of families.

–Planning is already in motion, including invitations that have already been printed based on Guyer Field planning. Reversing course now would create unnecessary waste and disruption. Petition weight and representation: The petition presented to the board was not verified and does not reflect the directly impacted community.

–Fair viewing and visibility: Irvine Bowl’s own guidance suggests many guests will struggle to see clearly. Graduation is not a concert. Families expect clear visibility of the stage and graduates. The Festival of Arts’ own visitor guidance notes many returning patrons bring binoculars, and binoculars can be rented on site. (This may be reasonable for entertainment, but not for graduation.)

–Aesthetics and construction/seasonal build-out are a real concern for June on the Festival grounds. The Festival of Arts Fine Art Show begins in July. These are prime build weeks for the artists with active construction/staging activity, including temporary materials, caution tape and work zones.

–Safety and emergency egress should not be an afterthought. We hesitate to raise this, but it matters. Irvine Bowl’s layout and controlled entry points raise reasonable questions about emergency evacuation flow for a graduation crowd that includes many elderly and mobility-limited guests. We are not making a technical claim here, we are saying it is a foreseeable safety concern the board should not ignore. Guyer Field provides more flexible movement and open-space options.

A move back to Guyer Field protects the district, avoids unnecessary cost and staff burden, respects the planning already underway, and delivers the most inclusive and visible graduation experience for the students and families.

Stacie Parker, Parent for the LBHS Class of 2026

Laguna Beach

The city needs to drop their appeal of the LBCEP lawsuit

The General Plan is the blueprint for development in the city and is the controlling document for development decisions. It states that nothing can be built on a hillside slope of greater than 45% but the city approved a home to be built on a much steeper slope than that. The LBCEP sued and won, with the judge clearly stating that the approval violated the General Plan.

Now the city is spending taxpayer money to appeal this decision and if they win, it creates a binding precedent for the city to bypass the General Plan in approving development on our currently protected hillsides and canyons.

The developer is not even involved in this appeal. It is a decision made entirely by the city council.

This is not about quote, “just one buildable lot.” In fact, this lot has never been buildable. To be buildable, a lot must meet the requirements of the General Plan, and this does not. When neighbors were charged by the city for undergrounding, this lot was not assessed any fee because the city knew that the lot could not be built on. The lot is not charged sewer fees because it is acknowledged to be unbuildable.

The property has a very narrow flat section currently used as a private road for the neighborhood with the proposed building site on a sheer cliff. Instead of using the “rise over run” formula established by the General Plan to determine slope, the city erroneously and very intentionally used a formula in the zoning code intended to determine maximum building height to justify their approval. The court appropriately rejected this.

Laguna has long had a reputation that certain builders and architects could get projects approved that others could not. So, part of this issue is one of fairness. The rules should be clearly stated and should apply equally to everyone, but they were applied differently in this case.

The fact that the LBCEP won their case so definitively means to me that those rumors are potentially correct. The city should never have approved this project in the first place.

It is not too late for the city to do the right thing. They will decide to pursue the appeal or not in the near future and I hope they decide to follow court’s definitive ruling and drop their expensive appeal.

Susan Skinner

Laguna Beach

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

The board makes the call, schools carry the load

A graduation venue is not just a backdrop. It is months of planning: contracts, staffing, accessibility, security, sound, seating, parking, rehearsals and clear communication to every family. When the board changes the plan at the last minute, the impact is immediate, and it falls on staff who are expected to make it seamless.

This issue does not affect me personally. My oldest child is in transitional kindergarten, so graduation is still far off for my family. I am writing because I am concerned about the example this decision sets, and because both student and community feedback have been unusually clear.

Laguna Beach High School was set to hold graduation at Guyer Field, coordinated with Thurston Middle School to share costs and logistics. When the board decided to move LBHS back to the Irvine Bowl, it disrupted that shared plan. It also assumed that Thurston could stay at Guyer. Dr. Glass made it clear that it is not how it works. If LBHS moves to the Irvine Bowl, Thurston needs a different plan.

That is a major problem to create this late in the year. Thurston does not have an easy fallback. The community does not support the old middle school gym. If the answer is “use a field,” the questions are obvious: Which field, is it available and is it financially realistic now that costs are no longer shared with LBHS? Staff should not be forced into an 11th-hour scramble because a governance decision did not fully account for operational dependencies.

LBHS seniors also weighed in. The student vote was close, but the majority still chose to stay at Guyer Field. About half of the senior class participated, sending a strong signal that is difficult to dismiss.

The community response has been just as clear. In a matter of days, the new petition to keep graduation at Guyer collected as many signatures as the earlier petition did over months. That kind of turnout is not only about one night in June. It is about trust in process.

This is where the concern grows. When a board majority starts stepping into operational decisions, it tends to continue. Parents should pay attention now, because if this can happen with graduation, it could happen with the next “fix,” whether that is delaying the pool project or pushing for more board involvement in instructional materials and book choices.

The board says it is committed to listening. This is a moment to show it.

Erika Hennon Rule

LBUSD parent

Aliso Viejo

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

Responding to Tom Johnson’s unfair comments

Tom Johnson’s February 24 opinion piece (“Fair Game”) was unfair and one-sided. It framed my letter to the board as “chaos” and “devolving lower,” accused the board of “stooping low,” and called for people to “get mad as hell” and recall the elected majority (Sheri Morgan, Howard Hills, Dee Perry), while completely omitting the public statements and actions that prompted the letter.

The letter requests a review of board member Joan Malczewski’s conduct during the February 12, 2026, LBUSD board meeting (video timestamp 2:38:00, www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzO_UskYq7E). Joan stated on the record:

“I do think it’s a site-based issue…many of my friends were on the petition so I just sent a text…not a leading text but…I see you’re on the petition. What are your feelings about the Irvine Bowl? Some people feel strongly…some thought, ‘well it sounds kind of cool’, ‘but I don’t know what the trade-offs were and…I think it’s a site decision’… I don’t necessarily think that 750 people were voting strongly to move it (graduation) to the Irvine Bowl.”

She reaffirmed trust in the principal to make the “thoughtful” decision. This is not “texting two people” as minimized. Joan acknowledged reviewing the petition, identifying multiple friends among signers, contacting them and steering conversations toward the “site-level” argument that was refuted by Superintendent Dr. Jason Glass in the same meeting as falling under board authority.

Following her comments, a wave of retractions and “misleading” claims appeared online. Signers saying they believed the petition was student-driven (despite its clear title identifying me as organizer), or that it lacked due diligence, or reflected only nostalgia. Several people shared removal instructions and expressed intent to notify the board of “mistakes.”

The petition is clear: it calls for returning graduation to the Irvine Bowl, citing historic significance, addressing decision-maker concerns and asking for community support. Signatures are verified via Change.org email confirmation. As of today, it exceeds 1,131 verified signatures from alumni, parents, current students and Laguna residents.

My letter (dated February 22, 2026) to the Board requested review of potential undue influence based on Joan’s own public statements, to protect petition integrity, and ensure fair consideration of the community voice ahead of the February 26 vote. It cited LBUSD Board Bylaws 9005 (Governance Standards – ethical conduct, trust and integrity) and 9270 (Conflict of Interest – avoiding appearance of impropriety), along with relevant California Government Code sections.

This is not chaos. It is a community member asking for accountability when a board member’s actions raise legitimate ethical questions.

I welcome fair, balanced coverage that includes the full video of Joan’s statements (on record), petition text and exhibits showing the retraction pattern. Laguna deserves transparency and accurate representation of all sides.

Thank you to everyone who has signed, shared, or spoken up. This is about our shared heritage and our kids’ future.

Elizabeth Bates, LBHS Class of 1992 & parent of LBHS students

Laguna Beach

Petition link: https://chng.it/yDBNSNYVwZ

Tell the City Council to protect our iconic hillsides and uphold our General Plan

Though the Laguna Beach General Plan prohibits building on steep hillsides and canyons, city leaders approved a plan to build a home in an area designated as unsuitable for building.

The Laguna Beach Coalition for Environmental Protection (LBCEP) filed a lawsuit to stop the project, as it would set a precedent, potentially opening up all of our canyons and hillsides to development.

The court ruled in favor of LBCEP, agreeing that the city was indeed violating its General Plan. Now the city is appealing that decision, using taxpayer dollars to impose the vision of city leaders and their interpretation of the General Plan on residents.

Send an email today to citycouncil@lagunabeachcity.net, telling city leaders to:

–Follow the General Plan

–Protect our hillsides and canyons from unfettered development

–Drop their appeal

You can find more information below and at www.lbcep.com.

What this is about: Our General Plan is the “blueprint” for development in Laguna Beach, inspired by our community’s priorities and vision. It lays out specific protections for our hillsides and canyons. In particular, it prohibits building on slopes of more than 45%.

When city leaders approved a project in an area explicitly identified in the General Plan as unbuildable due to its steepness, the LBCEP sued, and WON: the court determined that the city was indeed violating its General Plan in approving the project.

This lower court ruling is now being appealed not by the developer, but by the city!

The city maintains that its leaders have “administrative deference” to decide how steepness should be measured. Instead of residents knowing that the same mathematical formula will be used every time, they want us to defer to whoever happens to be on the city council, staff, planning commission or DRB at a given point in time.

What’s at stake: If the city wins the appeal, every inch of Laguna’s canyons and hillsides could be open to development, at city leaders’ discretion, despite geological risks (think landslides and mudslides) and the damage to the environmental character of our town.

What you can do: Please email city leaders at citycouncil@lagunabeachcity.net and urge them to drop their appeal against LBCEP; follow mathematical principles in measuring steepness; and respect the vision laid out in the General Plan

Joy Berry

Laguna Beach

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

Laguna deserves better

Our school board majority will soon make Laguna Beach schools an educational anomaly. At the next board meeting, they will pass a bylaws amendment that will give the school board president the final say on all board agenda items.

No high-performing district in the state has such a policy. It is against the recommendation of the superintendent (who has a Doctorate in Education), illogical and contrary to the desires of the vast majority of the community.

The board majority (Howard Hills, Sheri Morgan and Dee Perry) desire this change to settle old grievances and grab power. If you doubt my statement about grievances, please watch the (previous) board meeting where Mr. Hills criticizes a board president from 2019 and Ms. Perry complains about when her agenda suggestions were not honored by a previous board. (ALERT: The meeting is almost 7 hours long.)

The beacon of hope in this dismal display of governance were the 17 people, led by a high school student, who stepped up to the podium past midnight to bluntly describe to the board majority the damage that they are doing to the schools and our community, including wasting the time of administrators and interfering in many ways, on many levels.

If you have students in the district, or simply care about the schools, please get involved. Join FUEL (Families Unified for Education in Laguna). Our community deserves better than this board majority.

Jeb Brown

Laguna Beach

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

Laguna deserves better

Our school board majority will soon make Laguna Beach schools an educational anomaly. At the next board meeting, they will pass a bylaws amendment that will give the school board president the final say on all board agenda items.

No high-performing district in the state has such a policy. It is against the recommendation of the superintendent (who has a Doctorate in Education), illogical and contrary to the desires of the vast majority of the community.

The board majority (Howard Hills, Sheri Morgan and Dee Perry) desire this change to settle old grievances and grab power. If you doubt my statement about grievances, please watch the (previous) board meeting where Mr. Hills criticizes a board president from 2019 and Ms. Perry complains about when her agenda suggestions were not honored by a previous board. (ALERT: The meeting is almost 7 hours long.)

The beacon of hope in this dismal display of governance were the 17 people, led by a high school student, who stepped up to the podium past midnight to bluntly describe to the board majority the damage that they are doing to the schools and our community, including wasting the time of administrators and interfering in many ways, on many levels.

If you have students in the district, or simply care about the schools, please get involved. Join FUEL (Families Unified for Education in Laguna). Our community deserves better than this board majority.

Jeb Brown

Laguna Beach

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

Laguna Beach’s July 4 fireworks: Time to reweigh the costs and benefits

Every July 4th for decades, Laguna Beach has lit up the night sky over Heisler Park with fireworks, drawing crowds to the sand and boats into the coves. For many residents and visitors, it is a cherished tradition – a moment of shared celebration, family memories and patriotic joy. I am among those who have felt that thrill.

But good traditions are not immune from reassessment when their costs to public safety, city finances and the environment have real consequences for the community we love.

The city of Laguna Beach operates on a general fund of roughly $94.6 million, balancing rising expenses for essential services with flat or slow revenue growth. Public safety – police and fire – consumes about 39% of the general fund, with public works accounting for another roughly 34%. As the city considers future budget measures to maintain service levels, now is an appropriate moment to ask whether the fireworks tradition still makes sense in its current form.

Costs to public safety services

The Laguna Beach Police, Fire, Transit & Community Services and Public Works Departments all increase staffing over the July 4th weekend to manage the fireworks show – traffic control, emergency readiness, ordinance enforcement, fire watch and ambulance coverage. Increased deployment necessarily means overtime pay, equipment wear and cross-department coordination.

The city also strictly enforces its ban on private fireworks, which are illegal in Laguna Beach. That enforcement requires additional patrols and responsiveness that would not otherwise be necessary.

Concrete cost figures where we have them

While Laguna Beach’s budget does not publicly list a single line item for the Monument Point fireworks contract, nearby community budgets provide useful context. The Emerald Bay Service District budgeted $60,000 for their July 4th fireworks display, including a $49,000 pyrotechnics contract with Pyro Spectaculars, with additional marine transport costs exceeding $130,000.

A city of Laguna Beach staff budget document from 2023 indicates that a typical Monument Point Fourth of July fireworks show cost the city at least $40,000 for pyrotechnic services alone. These figures do not include public safety overtime, sanitation labor, or public works hours required to clean debris and restore heavily used public spaces.

Public health and community impacts

Nationally, fireworks account for approximately 10,000-12,000 injuries each year, most clustered around the July 4th holiday, with children disproportionately affected. Common injuries include burns, hand and eye trauma, and hearing damage, sometimes suffered by bystanders. These figures come from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Beyond fireworks-related injuries, large holiday events can strain first responders and ambulance services at a time when rapid response for unrelated medical emergencies must remain fully available.

Wildlife and environmental considerations

While Laguna Beach is not formally designated as a federal bird sanctuary, it supports abundant bird life and sensitive ecological zones along its coast and in surrounding wildland parks. Loud, sudden fireworks can disturb wildlife, particularly birds, during nesting and territorial periods. A 2024 report on Laguna’s holiday planning noted that fireworks are “terrible for wildlife, for nesting birds,” a concern cited when the city experimented with a drone light show.

Tourism, trash and cleanup costs

July 4th fireworks draw large crowds, benefiting restaurants and shops in the short term. But holiday visitation can overwhelm local infrastructure: streets, parking, transit, lifeguard services and beaches operate at or beyond capacity. Trash accumulates on beaches and in parks and sanitation crews work extended hours – costs borne by the city.

Without a dedicated revenue stream tied to the event, residents effectively subsidize public safety, cleanup and infrastructure wear through general fund allocations and property taxes.

Reevaluation, not rejection

This is not a call to eliminate celebration or erase a beloved tradition. It is a call for a responsible, data-informed discussion about whether an event that once made sense in a different fiscal and environmental era still makes sense today.

Laguna Beach has already experimented with alternatives. The 2024 drone light show was an earnest attempt to reduce environmental and public-safety impacts, but it was not warmly received by much of the community and many residents missed the scale and sensory impact of traditional fireworks. That reaction matters and should not be dismissed.

At the same time, light-based technologies are evolving rapidly. Reevaluation does not require immediate replacement; it simply invites Laguna Beach to remain open to alternatives that may better align celebration with stewardship over time.

Laguna Beach is both a city and a steward of remarkable natural beauty. Let’s have an open conversation about how our traditions fit our shared priorities – from resident safety to fiscal responsibility to environmental care. It is time to reweigh whether the costs, in 2026 and beyond, still align with the benefits.

Gregg Homer, JSD, Ph.D.

Laguna Beach

Laguna Beach cannot settle for anything less than a resilient, citywide network

Laguna Beach has long been a leader in disaster preparedness. In response to the devastating 1993 fires, the city formed the Emergency/Disaster Preparedness Committee (EDPC), which works closely with city staff, elected officials and public safety agencies to strengthen community safety. The EDPC played a key role in creating and securing funding for the city’s emergency services coordinator position and has championed numerous safety initiatives. These include implementing emergency alert systems such as Nixle and AlertOC, advocating for seismically secure fire stations, installing outdoor warning speakers, and adding a helicopter fueling station that proved critical during the July 4th canyon fire. The committee also prioritizes public education on emergency preparedness and evacuation planning and pursues vital government grants to support these efforts.

Laguna Beach also benefits from a strong Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) program, which trains residents to assist one another during disasters. At the neighborhood level, grassroots initiatives have further strengthened wildfire preparedness through participation in the national Firewise program. Firewise helps protect people, property and natural resources from wildfire risk before disasters strike. Several neighborhoods – including Arch Beach Heights, Emerald Bay, the Terrace at Canyon Hills, and most recently Top of the World, the largest area to earn certification – have achieved Firewise status. Certified communities adopt best practices in home hardening and vegetation management, often qualifying residents for fire insurance discounts.

Despite these significant accomplishments, critical gaps remain. Laguna Beach lags behind other Orange County cities in the strength and reliability of its telecommunications infrastructure. Residents frequently report poor cellular coverage, particularly in areas like Top of the World. Weak connectivity affects not only everyday convenience but also emergency response. Reliable communication is essential for first responders and for delivering timely alerts to residents, where even seconds can make a life-or-death difference.

Coverage has been inconsistent for years, and efforts by carriers to address dead zones have stalled due to regulatory and procedural obstacles. However, there is a clear path forward. The city should designate telecommunications networks as critical infrastructure, signaling their essential role in public safety and prioritizing their development accordingly. Laguna Beach cannot settle for anything less than a resilient, citywide network.

One practical step would be to appoint a dedicated telecommunications manager within Community Development to serve as a single point of contact. This individual would help shepherd projects through the approval process, coordinating with the building department, planning commission and other relevant bodies. The manager would maintain a comprehensive database of telecommunications projects and stay in regular communication with site operators. Rather than passively waiting for applicants to respond to issues, the city should take a proactive role in resolving obstacles and moving projects forward.

Telecommunications providers often have little incentive to invest in communities where projects face persistent resistance. If Laguna Beach wants stronger, more reliable service, it must actively facilitate these improvements. By prioritizing telecommunications as essential infrastructure and streamlining the approval process, the city can close coverage gaps and ensure a safer, more connected future for all residents.

Tim Templeton

Top of the World Neighborhood Association

Former member, EDPC

Laguna Beach

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

Protect the people who keep schools running

As a parent, I can live with school board drama, but I cannot live with public disrespect toward the people who run our schools and the community they serve.

In most school districts, spirited disagreement is part of governance. What I am most alarmed by is the conduct directed at district staff and at community members who show up to these very long meetings in good faith.

For a while now, many people have left meetings with the same takeaway: Respect is no longer a given in board meetings. Staff and community members do not attend to be treated like political opponents; they are there to do the work and participate in the public process. When the tone from the dais becomes dismissive, sarcastic, or demeaning, it can create a chilling effect. Staff gets more guarded and more scripted, and community members decide it is not worth stepping to the microphone. Over time, the district loses the candid information and collaboration it needs to solve real problems.

This is not about avoiding accountability. Accountability can be firm and still professional. Good accountability looks like clear questions, accurate framing and a commitment to listening, even when the answer is not what you want. It does not look like public humiliation, interruptions, or treating input as an annoyance.

I am not asking for perfection, but I am asking for basic standards and a culture that makes good people want to stay and contribute. If we care about stable leadership, staff retention and a community that remains engaged, then respectful conduct toward staff and community members has to be non-negotiable.

And lastly, to the staff who is showing up every day and carrying this district: I see you. I hear you. Please know that there are many parents and community members behind you, even if we are not always the loudest voices in the room. Stay the course. You are needed, and the work you do matters.

Erika Hennon Rule (LBUSD Parent)

Aliso Viejo

Why a bond makes sense for Laguna Beach Unified School District

In 2001 and 2003, LBUSD issued General Obligation bonds that raised $39 million for school improvements. These bonds delivered remarkable improvements including a new drama room at the high school, a new gym at Thurston, a new building at TOW and 10 new classrooms at El Morro. The bond will be completely paid off in 2027. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to roll this bond forward; no one will get a tax increase, and we can put $80 million into school facilities and modernization.

Laguna Beach homeowners currently pay $8.85 per $100,000 of assessed value per year. This rate is the second lowest in the county and the lowest of any basic aid district. Newport-Mesa has a tax rate of $17.30; Irvine USD pays $27.34. To put it another way, if you take the average assessed tax value of $2M, a resident is paying $14.75 per month to help fund our schools’ future. If your tax value is $300,000, you’re paying $2.21 per month.

Research consistently shows for every dollar spent on schools that property values increase by $20. High-quality school facilities boost test scores, reduce absenteeism and create learning environments where students thrive. Our schools are well-maintained, but they are old.

In terms of where the money will be spent, the starting point is the current facilities master plan which includes build-out for TK expansion, classroom improvements, plumbing and roofing repairs, fire resiliency and enhanced security. There is also the opportunity to partner with the city on modernization projects like the city library so students can study here in town instead of going to Newport.

This matters for Laguna Beach’s future. With an aging demographic, we’ll see approximately 20% housing turnover over the next decade as longtime residents move on. Families choose communities with strong schools. Without quality schools with quality facilities, we risk becoming a town of second homes rather than vibrant family neighborhoods.

Quality schools create thriving communities.

Newth Morris (Father of three)

Board Member, FUEL

Laguna Beach

The emergency room is a pillar of the hospital

There are plans being considered to close the Emergency Room of Mission South Coast Hospital in Laguna Beach. That would leave only civilian or ambulance transportation to the nearest destination hospitals in Mission Viejo, Newport Beach and Laguna Hills for acute care in cases of stroke, heart attack and serious trauma. Imagine.

The Emergency Department of our Mission Hospital is an excellent and nearly brand-new facility that provides on-site lifesaving care and coordinates transfers to full-service medical centers when needed. Urgent care walk-in offices provide care for minor medical and trauma conditions, but are not able to provide definitive care for serious illness. They don’t have immediate access for necessary laboratory, and imaging and surgery services. Only hospitals do. So who can provide adequate care for residents and visitors who nearly drown, have strokes and heart attacks, overdose on drugs, where timing is a factor in life and death outcomes? That’s why we have hospitals and emergency rooms.

There are tough financial challenges for corporations like Providence Health that own and operate health facilities. It is up to them to bite the bullet, hand-in-hand with the municipalities that they serve, to come up with financial solutions to guarantee the proper and successful operations of their healthcare operations. Don’t close our E.R.!

William Anderson, M.D.

Laguna Beach

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

California School Boards Association is clear in stating that boards govern, while superintendents manage

At recent Laguna Beach Unified School Board meetings, one trustee has repeatedly asserted that the superintendent is “the secretary of the board” and that the superintendent’s authority exists only at the board’s discretion. This claim has been stated confidently, repeatedly and incorrectly.

It needs to stop.

Community members have understandably focused on the newly adopted agenda-setting bylaw. While the policy is now in place, the concerns it raised are less about the mechanics of agendas and more about how governance roles are understood and exercised in practice under California law.

Yes, Laguna Beach Unified Board Bylaw 9122 assigns the superintendent to serve as the board’s secretary for administrative purposes, including preparing agendas, maintaining records and handling official correspondence. The bylaw’s language is clear, and it does exactly what it says it does.

What it does not do is define authority.

Under California law, local board bylaws do not create, grant, or limit a superintendent’s legal authority. California Education Code does. When a local bylaw contradicts or diminishes authority established by state law, the bylaw does not prevail. State law does.

Education Code Section 35035 is explicit. The superintendent is the chief executive officer of the governing board, and that authority cannot be altered by local policy. It exists because the legislature established it, not because of board permission, preference, or interpretation. The superintendent is legally responsible for administering board policy, managing district operations and providing professional educational leadership.

Assigning clerical duties does not transform an executive into a subordinate. An executive does not lose authority because they also perform administrative tasks. LBUSD Board Bylaw 9122 describes functions, not power, and treating it otherwise is not a difference of opinion. It is a misreading of the law.

The California School Boards Association is clear and consistent in stating that boards govern by setting vision, adopting policy and providing oversight, while superintendents manage by leading staff and running district operations. CSBA also makes clear that individual board members have no authority outside the board acting as a whole, and no role in directing staff or redefining executive authority.

Yet one trustee continues to cite bylaws and CSBA language as if repetition can substitute for accuracy. It cannot. Repeating an incorrect interpretation does not make it true, but it can create confusion, undermine professional leadership and destabilize the district.

Misstating the superintendent’s legal role weakens governance, damages staff morale and makes it harder to retain strong leadership. CSBA itself warns that blurring the line between board members and the superintendent can destabilize a district and contribute to leadership turnover.

Local bylaws exist to implement the law, not to override it.

California Education Code is clear. CSBA guidance is clear. Our board should be clear, too.

Erika Hennon Rule

LBUSD Parent

Aliso Viejo

Think twice. No, think three times.

The January 22 School Board meeting achieved a new low in Laguna Beach civic governance. At issue was Bylaw 9322 which currently states that creation of the Board Meeting Agenda is shared with the School Board and the Superintendent.

The board majority consisting of (Howard) Hills, (Sheri) Morgan and (Dee) Perry want to amend the Bylaw to state that the Board President has the final say. The drawback to this seemingly innocuous distinction is that it would allow the Board President to eliminate agenda items not to their liking and/or agendize issues that are not the responsibility of the School Board.

Dr. Glass gave a coherent presentation on the perils of this amendment, including the fact that none of the five top-performing school districts in California have such a process.

The manner in which Mr. Hills questioned Dr. Glass following his presentation was inappropriate and inexcusable. Any normal institution would censure a participant for that type of behavior.

It is clear to me that the board majority is not interested in education or our students. It seems to me they want to settle past grievances and consolidate power.

Unfortunately, our options as a community are limited. I urge anyone who cares at all about education in our community to be very careful when voting next November for a School Board Trustee. It is our best chance to correct this very unfortunate situation.

Jeb Brown

Laguna Beach

Fair Game “deeply troubling”

I needed to take some time before responding to your recent article, as I found it deeply troubling and dismissive of the very real concerns being raised by district staff.

Your article appears to be based largely on a single conversation with Board President Sheri Morgan.

I have known Sheri for more than 15 years and Howard Hills for more than 30. We were neighbors; our daughters attended school together. My perspective is not casual or uninformed. I have been part of this district for 35 years and have served extensively: PTA President at all three schools my children attended; Council President; a 12-year member of the Recreation Committee; a school bond campaign partner with board member Bob Whalen that passed with more than 86% voter approval; a Site Council and LCAP member at every school site, and a Booster Club representative for more than six years. I completed every term I was elected to and was never removed from any position.

Against that backdrop, I find it critical to ask:

Why did Sheri Morgan receive only three staff endorsement votes out of roughly 300 during the endorsement process?

Why did staff issue a no-confidence vote exceeding 90% in the current board?

Why has staff now publicly stated, with names attached, and even under possible fear of retaliation, that they believe she and Howard are unfit to serve?

In my 35 years in this community, I have never witnessed anything like what is happening now.

If your goal is to present all sides fairly, I would strongly encourage you to meet with the LaBUFA President Mr. Wittkop and me. We are long-time staff members, too, and our voices matter. This is a small community, and what was written in a single article has had a profoundly destructive impact.

Thasa Zuziak

LBUSD Staff Member and CSEA President

Words have meaning

I’m writing today about the Fair Game article you wrote about Sheri Morgan, the school board and the teachers’ union. This mish-mosh of “facts” leaves the reader more confused as to the goal of the article and what info you are trying to share with us.

You make no conclusions or provide any guiding light to assess this info. What happened in past public board meetings that set this up? Bring up the actions we see in those meetings.

One can claim they have no recollection of saying something, but when they said it on record, lucky for us as the public we don’t have to rely on that recollection given to defuse a situation or hide true intent.

I would expect that a journalist would have gone and watched the board meeting recording (all six hours of it) and determine for themselves what the truth was about what she said and reported that.

Words have meaning. This isn’t just something to fill the page, this article has a direct effect on our town and community as a whole and that accountability falls on you as a voice for the community. She played you. I hope you won’t let that happen again.

Thank you for being a voice for our town and while I felt it important to clearly share my feeling above, I want to be sure that I tell you I am a huge supporter of local news, and I am so glad our town has multiple news outlets to keep us informed. What you do is critically important to how our community operates, and I know that is not an easy job or one you take lightly.

Please consider the above has come from a parent who is new to this community, moving here for the schools and feeling very strongly about clear and fair public governance.

I do not know Sheri personally, only what I have observed in public meeting settings.

That alone has given me great concern in her and Howard Hills’ abilities to successfully manage this district, and so far it would seem to me that they do not care to participate in the collaborative process that is required of a school board. It seems like they believe they are always in the right even when others around them (Dr. Glass included) are telling them it’s not how this is done.

If you haven’t watched the board meeting held last night [Thursday, Jan. 22], I invite you to see the hours-long bylaws “conversation” where not one person in the audience, or those giving their expert opinion, agreed to the bylaw change; 11 in-person public comments and 16 pages of online were all against the change to give the board president ultimate control of what is on the meeting agendas.

The Superintendent has had an important check and balance authority taken from him and given to Sheri as board president. They passed it. A completely unnecessary change that may push Dr. Glass to leave.

I don’t understand why you would pull from the District release and then provide the analysis, “well that all sounds good.” It seems like you are trying to help her defend herself when I would think it’s your job to call out that hypocrisy of the indefensible behavior.

Kit Verdugo

Laguna Beach

Before you amplify Morgan’s reinvention tour you should talk to ex-board members

Super disappointed in your story about Sheri Morgan, new board president, and her relationship with the union.

First, your “playground fight” framing minimizes poor governance Laguna Beach Unified staff is enduring under Sheri Morgan and this dysfunctional majority school board.

Morgan has spent a decade or two as a grievance gadfly.

Her election didn’t erase that history; it amplified it. You failed to mention a staggering 90% staff no-confidence vote against the present board, specifically the majority board members – Morgan, Hills and Perry.

The union’s letter cited concrete issues, not “feelings”: Morgan inserting herself into meetings; taking notes staff may fear she’ll weaponize; staged “circle” formats and scripted questions driven by her, not leadership; introductions killing anonymity. Textbook power imbalances – not squabbles.

The union said “eroding” – trust, candor, climate. Your glib metaphor dismisses it.

Before amplifying Morgan’s “reinvention” tour, call past board members, PTA leaders and site staff from the last 15-20 years. Their consistent stories of grievance over solutions won’t match your piece.

Staff bravely speaks up despite risks. Take them seriously, don’t “send them to the principal.” Normalizing this hurts our schools and students.

I suggest you interview at least two former trustees or PTA leaders before platforming revisionism again. Their Sheri Morgan accounts won’t align with yours – our schools deserve that due diligence.

Leslie Elliott

Laguna Beach

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

Property owners have rights and they should be protected

Laguna Beach has a long tradition of honoring its history, and I respect the passion of groups like Village Laguna who work to preserve it. However, preservation must be pursued in a way that is fair to private property owners and consistent with basic principles of ownership.

If an organization believes a historic home should be saved, the appropriate course is for that group to purchase the property or fund its preservation. What is not reasonable is expecting private owners to bear the financial burden of preserving a structure they do not wish to keep, particularly after the Design Review Board has already approved demolition through a lawful public process.

Telling people how to spend their own money – or how to use their own property – sets a troubling precedent. Laguna Beach can value its past while still respecting property rights and due process.

Preservation should be voluntary and responsibly funded, not imposed.

I encourage supporting our local residents’ private property rights against Village Laguna’s actions to take those rights away.

India Hynes

Laguna Beach

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

Lauding Dr. Gregg DeNicola’s column as we looked back on Fahrenheit 451

I want to thank Dr. Gregg DeNicola for writing his warm tribute to the bookstore that once stood (approximately) where the Wyland Gallery currently stands: Fahrenheit 451, the original. This store was a local treasure, and I still mourn its demise. I moved to Laguna Beach a single young woman at the close of summer 1988, so about the time the original bookstore was being sold and moved across the street. But before that, I frequently visited Laguna Beach by car or bicycle starting in high school, which is when I first discovered the bookstore named for Ray Bradbury’s dystopian novel about the banning and burning of books. Fahrenheit 451 had the quintessential literary atmosphere. Think Shakespeare & Company in Paris but next to the sea. Every time I walked into that bookstore, I felt as though I needed to read a whole lot more. I did need to read more, and thanks to bookstores like Fahrenheit 451, over the years I have.

In May 1991, I visited the modern, reimagined, coffee-serving Fahrenheit 451 across the street and met my husband in what I like to think of as classic meet-cute style. But even better. We were married in October the next year on the Sawdust Festival grounds and continue to call Laguna Canyon home. Both of our daughters graduated from Laguna Beach High School, and both are in the arts living and working in The Big Apple.

In 1988, Laguna Beach had several independent bookstores: Fahrenheit 451, Upchurch Brown and the bookstore inside the two-story Mariners Stationery store. Nothing stays the same. This I know. Time flies faster now. But once upon a time, in a galaxy far far away, going to a bookstore or a record store was something we did. The going wasn’t simply about making a purchase. It was about being in community. It was about discovering ideas we hadn’t thought of before. It was about talking to each other in spaces where we learned that language was revolutionary because it mattered.

Sarah Vogel

Laguna Beach

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

Neighbors to Moulton Meadows Park don’t want the problems the additions might add

This is a BAD IDEA for a number of reasons. As a resident who actually lives next to Moulton Meadows Park and already feels the impact of tennis, pickleball, basketball, soccer, mountain biking, the dog park/run, children’s playground area, numerous party celebrations and increased traffic/parking already at more than 600 cars a day, the proposal does not benefit the residents of Portofino and Arch Beach, period.

I get the feeling that the Orange County Mountain Bike Club has more influence than the tax-paying residents who want a quiet, less invasive environment to enjoy; not to mention potential increases in trash, noise and non-local characters who (may) have little regard for local residents.

Why do you think more than 350 people have signed a petition against the project? I bet very few of the supporters live in the area near the “park.”

This is another example of decisions that benefit “the few” and leave the residents out of the long-term results. Please dig deeper into the impact and leave the natural space “natural” without additional/unnecessary human impact. Bikers have already assaulted trails in and around Orange County and can use that park system designed for this purpose.

John Bohas

Laguna Beach

Moulton Meadows additions could prove to be dangerous

In reference to the Stu News article of December 5, I add my voice against what could be a dangerous addition to the Moulton Park area. It will for certain draw youngsters who could easily hurt themselves. This would be especially true if there is more than one rider on the track. Access, setting and managing time limits, lack of supervision and untrained riders all present further complications. And which entity will be carrying liability insurance?

I fail to see the necessity of such a structure

Deborah Engle

Laguna Beach

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

Feeling disrespect for the lack of recognition

I am writing as a longtime volunteer and docent for the Laguna Art Museum, and as someone deeply committed to the cultural life of Laguna Beach. I was proud to volunteer every day for the museum’s (LAM) 13th Annual Art + Nature Festival, November 1-10, with the main event Sunday, Nov. 9, a “social structure” on Main Beach that was populated by 800 volunteers, herded by dozens of museum staff, docents and friends, with huge audiences along Heisler paths and the boardwalk, dedicating their time, energy and passion to make it a success…and it was a success.

Drone footage is available at the LAM website.

For that reason, I was disappointed that the mayor didn’t attend, and that his printed public remarks at the City Council meeting November 18 praising the Coast Film Festival never mentioned LAM or the Art & Nature events. Sawdust and Pageant were mentioned, but not the museum.

Coast Film Festival is a valuable addition to our cultural landscape. I have attended it; I appreciate the creativity it celebrates. It is a ticketed event with a unique mission and reach. Art + Nature is by contrast open to all, thanks to our legacy on Main Beach, and our stewardship of the origins of the art colony since 1918, grounded in our town’s heritage.

And I can’t wait for the SHACC (Surfing Heritage and Cultural Center) arrival – another museum! How fortunate we are to live here. Laguna Beach is very fortunate to have a wide array of arts orgs, each contributing something personal and unique.

I hope the mayor will champion them all, and that the Laguna Art Museum, our oldest cultural institution – a defining anchor of our town’s identity – will receive the support and visibility it deserves from city leadership. It is not a pop-up, it’s a built-in. It’s more Sandpiper than food truck.

And I thought it was disrespected.

David A Powers

Laguna Beach

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

“The Eyes of Ghana” missed seeing one painful truth

Laguna Beach has long taken pride in their compassion, inclusivity and courage to see the whole picture. Ours is a community that celebrates art not only for its beauty, but for its power to reveal – to tell truths that might otherwise go unseen.

That is why The Eyes of Ghana is such a visually and emotionally stunning work. Its storytelling brings the color, resilience and human spirit of Ghana into sharp focus. Through its lens, we see the creativity, the culture, and the unbreakable pride of a people who have endured so much and still shine brightly.

Yet, as much as the film illuminates Ghana’s vibrancy, one of its deepest shadows was left unexplored. Ghana today remains a nation where being gay is illegal – where love itself can mean prison, persecution, or violence. Under Section 104 of the Criminal Code, same-sex relations are punishable by up to three years in prison, and the more recent “Family Values” bill seeks even harsher penalties for LGBTQ+ identity, advocacy, or support.

This painful reality cannot be separated from history. The roots of Ghana’s anti-LGBTQ+ laws reach back to the legacy of colonialism, which imposed Victorian-era moral codes across Africa. Ironically, while The Eyes of Ghana celebrates the nation’s proud cultural independence and its departure from colonial frameworks, one of colonialism’s most oppressive remnants – the criminalization of self-identity and love – still survives. It survives in laws that punish a person for simply being their authentic self, for daring to love and for finding self-acceptance.

To omit that truth – the persecution of a people simply for who they are – is to leave out one of the most culturally and morally significant stories in Ghana today.

As a longtime advocate for equality and inclusion here in Laguna Beach, I found that omission deeply disheartening. Our town has long stood as a haven of acceptance, from the Festival of Arts to our Pride celebrations. When Laguna supports or celebrates art from abroad, we do so with open hearts – but also open eyes. We celebrate culture, yes, but never at the expense of compassion.

I do not believe The Eyes of Ghana was created in malice – quite the opposite. Its message of shared humanity and resilience has enormous value. But as artists, curators and supporters, we must remember that art’s greatest power lies in its honesty. To tell Ghana’s story without acknowledging its LGBTQ+ struggle is to miss a truth that still cries out to be seen.

In Laguna Beach, inclusion isn’t a trend – it’s a tradition. And our vision, I hope, will always remain clear enough to see those who are still fighting to be free.

Craig W. Cooley, president, Laguna Beach Pride 365

Laguna Beach

Hats off to Stu News writer Marrie Stone

I heard through the Laguna grapevine that my friend and writing colleague, Marrie Stone, has hung up her Stu News/Laguna Life & People reporting hat after nine years of providing readers with insightful, well-researched, often amusing, always beautifully written arts articles.

The grapevine even provided stats: She turned in a whopping 243 arts articles and roughly 40 profiles.

I would lament the loss of a fine writer who could have chosen to spend her time turning in carefully crafted copy to other, more high-profile publications, except for the fact that it’s not Marrie’s style to leave her editors high and dry. Plus, the fact that she’s very much one of our most attentive, engaged residents. Ever the professional, before hitting the eject button, Marrie made sure that Stu News’ arts coverage would proceed uninterrupted by hand-picking an excellent writer whose work I look forward to reading.

Hats off to Marrie Stone (mine and Laguna’s, to her, and hers, from her Stu News duties). I commend Stu News for their attention to consistent arts reporting in our arts-centric town.

Barbara McMurray

Laguna Beach

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

With SNAP benefits in flux, restaurants have begun offering people free meals

Because Congress is in shutdown mode, more than 40 million men, women and children are now at risk of going hungry. As a result, restaurants coast to coast have begun offering free or heavily discounted meals to those in need. I won’t be surprised if Laguna restaurant owners will soon be doing the same thing here (if not already). It’s how we roll in town, right?

Denny Freidenrich

Laguna Beach

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

Disappointed – there were “thousands” participating in Saturday protest

I’m more than disappointed by your inaccurate reporting that hundreds not thousands were at the protest Saturday. If that was an honest mistake that’s one thing but there were thousands and you need to correct that.

David Milton

Laguna Beach

Tom Johnson’s comment was not funny

“And, the effort seems to have been a success – as of Monday morning there were still no kings in America.”

Tom Johnson’s coverage and comment, although technically accurate – for now – missed the point and my funny bone. Our otherwise well-informed and good-natured No Kings in America protests are deadly serious.

Jean-Pierre Garau (born and raised in Laguna Beach)

Portland, Ore.

A call to do better

From the “Fair Game” column of October 21, 2025:

“Up next is a very important election deciding Prop. 50 and the redistricting decision. A “yes” vote supports the Democrat efforts on the re-districting and their call to “Stop Trump.” A “no” vote basically supports the Republican or Trump camp by saying leave the districts as they are designed today.”

The proper name is the Democratic Party. To use “Democrat” as a counter to “Republican” may have been merely sloppy on your part (best interpretation) or a deliberate marker of your personal political affiliation (cynical interpretation).

Either way, do better.

Rina Palumbo

Laguna Beach

(Editor’s Note: In this instance, it was written with the meaning of a “Democrat’s efforts.” A Democrat is a noun for a person who is a member of the Democratic Party.)

A pivotal moment for Laguna’s creative future

I wanted to personally reach out to share something that I believe is truly important happening right here in our own town.

For years, I’ve worked to preserve and celebrate the creative spirit that makes this community unlike any other. But now, we have a chance to take that spirit further, to give Laguna’s artists, musicians, filmmakers and storytellers a powerful voice that reaches the world.

We’re launching Laguna Beach TV, a community-powered station that captures the heart and history of Laguna through art, culture and conversation. It’s a bold, independent step, one that will define how our stories are told for generations.

This isn’t funded by endowments or large institutions. It’s being built through the commitment of those who believe in the power of Laguna’s creative community, the same spirit that has always made this town so remarkable.

This is a rare opportunity, and it’s not guaranteed. What we’re building depends on what we do today. If we come together now, we can turn this vision into a lasting reality, one that reflects the very best of who we are as a community.

And really, when you think about it, we’re all sharing this brief, extraordinary moment together on this planet. What better time to reach for the stars, to come together, and create something meaningful and lasting for our town and for the world to see, something we can all look back on and be truly proud of.

If you’d like a clearer sense of the heart behind this effort, here are two short ways to see it come to life: Watch this two-minute overview of the Laguna Beach Cultural Arts Center, the home of Laguna Beach TV and the place where this vision is growing.

Watch our first pilot episode, “Focus on Filmmaking: 133: The Road to Laguna,” for a glimpse of the kind of authentic, artist-driven programming this station will share with the world.

Most importantly, on Saturday, Nov. 22, we’re hosting the Laguna Beach TV Launch Party at the Laguna Beach Cultural Arts Center, and this night will set everything in motion.

It’s more than a celebration; it’s the turning point – the moment our community comes together to officially ignite Laguna Beach TV and show the world what we can do when we unite around creativity and purpose. Your presence, your energy and your support that night will make all the difference.

If you believe, as I do, that Laguna’s creative voice deserves to be heard, I hope you’ll not only join us but also invite a friend or two who shares that belief. The timing of this moment is critical, and together we can ensure its success for the artists, the storytellers and for the town itself. Even if you can’t attend, your encouragement or support will help this vision become reality.

Rick Conkey, Founder & CEO

Laguna Beach Cultural Arts Center

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

Laguna’s “No Kings” protesters love America

By the time I graduated from high school in 1966, more than 5,000 U.S. troops had been killed in Vietnam. A year later, when I was a freshman at USC, I briefly considered enlisting in the Army. Good thing I didn’t. Four years later, after participating in several anti-war protests, it was clear to me (that) protesting was as American as baseball and apple pie.

During the Vietnam War, protesters were greeted with taunts like “love it or leave it.” During the run-up to Saturday’s “No Kings” rally at Main Beach and across the nation, several GOP lawmakers proclaimed protesters “hate America.” If you ask me, nothing could be further from the truth. No matter what they say about us, remember this: We love this country, the World Series and 4th of July dessert just as much as Republicans do. Maybe more…

Denny Freidenrich

Laguna Beach

Open story in new window…

Letters to the Editor

Protecting Bluebird Canyon’s open space and safety

As residents of Bluebird Canyon and Saling Way, we want to express our strong concern about the increasing pressure to allow lot splits and new development in Laguna Beach’s steep hillside neighborhoods. Bluebird Canyon, in particular, is among the most unstable and fire-prone areas of our city. These aren’t theoretical risks – they are hard-earned lessons from our past.

Our community has endured two catastrophic landslides, in 1978 and 2005, which destroyed homes and displaced families. City and state geologists have long confirmed that much of Bluebird Canyon sits atop ancient landslide zones with high groundwater and limited slope stability. Even minor grading or drainage changes can reignite ground movement. Expanding development in such fragile terrain puts both lives and property at unnecessary risk.

Access and evacuation are equally serious issues. Narrow, winding roads like Saling Way and parts of Bluebird Canyon Drive were never designed for modern traffic or emergency equipment. During a wildfire or landslide, evacuation can be slow and dangerous – conditions that already challenge our first responders.

While California’s SB 9 housing law encourages infill housing in appropriate urban areas, it also recognizes that cities can and must deny projects that would create “specific, adverse impacts” on public safety or the environment. Steep hillside zones with known fire and landslide hazards fit that definition perfectly. SB 9 was never meant to override common-sense safety or long-standing conservation protections – especially on properties that were developed with “open space preservation stipulations.”

Laguna Beach has spent decades preserving open space and managing growth to protect both the environment and public safety. Those efforts – by the city, local conservation organizations and dedicated residents – have worked. We urge our leaders to stay the course: To uphold our open-space commitments, enforce hillside safety standards and prevent risky development that could endanger lives and damage the very character of Laguna Beach.

Respectfully,

Dave Bryant (representing Saling Way and Bluebird Canyon residents)

Laguna Beach

Open story in new window…