SR 02-09-2021 13E 13.E
February 9, 2021
Council Meeting: February 9, 2021 Santa Monica, California
1 of 1
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE - MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk, Records & Elections Services
Department
Date: February 9, 2021
13.E Request of Mayor Himmelrich, Councilmember Davis, and Councilmember
de la Torre that Council direct staff to retain Lamont Ewell of Ralph
Andersen & Associates to provide executive search services for the
position of City Manager for the City of Santa Monica.
13.E
Packet Pg. 550
1
Vernice Hankins
From:zinajosephs@aol.com
Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 8:32 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Christine Parra
Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com
Subject:FOSP: City Council 2/9/21 items 13-C, 13-D, and 13-E -- SUPPORT!
EXTERNAL
February 8, 2021
To: Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: Support for 2/9/21 agenda items 13-C, 13-D, and 13-E
The FOSP Board wholeheartedly supports these three agenda items.
13-C: Support for the agenda item -- Opposition to SB 9 -- It would allow 6 to 8 units where 1 home now
stands, with no garage or yard required. SB 9 is an attack on home ownership, Latino suburbs, South L.A., theInland Empire, all coastal cities, and a long list of working-class homeowner neighborhoods from Paramount to
Lynwood to Alhambra. Corporate rental giants, given the upzoning-and-demolition allowed by SB 9, could
swarm communities. 10,000 homes in San Fernando Valley are apparently already owned by rentalcorporations.
13-D: Support for the agenda item -- Opposition to SB 10 – It would let cities ignore CEQA in order toallow 10-unit pricey market-rate apartments almost anywhere (i.e., in areas that are transit rich, jobs rich, and
“urban infill,” however those terms are defined). It would also allow a City Council to override voter-approved
initiatives (including Measure LC?), an attack on our 108-year-old right to initiative.
13-E: Support for retaining former City Manager Lamont Ewell of Ralph Andersen & Associates toprovide executive search services for the position of City Manager for the City of Santa Monica. While CityManager here, Mr. Ewell instituted the annual “Can We Talk” events each fall, in each neighborhood, to get
input from residents on city budget priorities. He was renowned for treating everyone with respect, and his
motto for customer service was “Doing the Right Thing Right!”
“Praised for Healing Fractured Relationships, City Manager Lamont Ewell Steps Down”
Item 13.E 02/09/21
1 of 14 Item 13.E 02/09/21
13.E.a
Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: Written Comments (4448 : City Manager Recruitment)
2
1/21/2010 – Santa Monica Daily Press
https://www.smdp.com/praised-for-healing-fractured-relationships-city-manager-lamont-ewell-steps-
down/75846
Item 13.E 02/09/21
2 of 14 Item 13.E 02/09/21
13.E.a
Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: Written Comments (4448 : City Manager Recruitment)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:OZ <zurawska@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 12:06 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; George S. Cardona; Lane Dilg; Lori Gentles; Jorge Casuso; Santa
Monica Observer; editor@smdp.com
Subject:13 E - Lamont Ewell - OPPOSE
EXTERNAL
Why doesn’t the City solicit the services of several reputable firms who could assist with the hiring of a new city
manager, and then select the best fit?
Perhaps the City could aspire to use the services of someone who does not have a history of being investigated by
the FBI or resigning from city manager positions amid corruption scandals?
It is a scary prospect to rely on Mr. Ewell's recommendation for a new city manager, considering the following
episodes from his own career as city manager:
“A onetime Santa Monica city manager has resigned from the same post in Compton, where the mayor is alleging
fraud in the city's accounting system.”
Source: Ex-Santa Monica Official Resigns in Compton | Santa Monica, CA Patch
"San Diego's assistant city manager Lamont Ewell is being haunted by a small-business-loan
scandal at city hall in Durham, North Carolina, where he used to be city manager, reports the Raleigh
News and Observer. An audit ordered by Ewell's successor, Marcia Conner, discovered that some of
the businesses receiving a total of $800,000 in loans didn't exist or used phony addresses and some
signatures on cashed checks didn't match those on loan applications. The audit also found
"significant internal control weaknesses, most of which can be classified as weakness in the city's
control environment." The district attorney has begun a fraud investigation.
Source: https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2001/nov/08/payback-time/
“OCTOBER 07, 2005|JUDICIAL WATCH
City Pension Fiasco
A few months ago the San Diego (California) County District Attorney charged six city officials with felony conflict of
interest in the pension-fund scandal that prompted the resignation of Mayor Dick Murphy. Now the FBI has launched
a probe that focuses on City Manager Lamont Ewell.
The feds recently subpoenaed a 2002 memo–apparently laced with falsehoods and signed by Ewell–that defends
the council’s decision to boost retirement benefits, amid deep criticism from then-pension board trustee Diann
Shipione.
Item 13.E 02/09/21
3 of 14 Item 13.E 02/09/21
13.E.a
Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: Written Comments (4448 : City Manager Recruitment)
2
Turns out that the benefit boost was full of irregularities and the feds think Ewell was involved in a conspiracy to
cover them up.
The pension has a $1.37 million deficit, due in great part, to a pension board vote that tremendously boosted
pension payouts of the six city officials turned defendants.“
Source: https://www.judicialwatch.org/corruption-chronicles/city-pension-fiasco
"Emails Trail Ewell to Santa Monica
By Olin Ericksen
Staff Writer
March 29 -- As much as the new City Manager, Lamont Ewell, wants to settle into the day-to-day business of
running Santa Monica, a voice echoing in the distant San Diego press keeps haunting him.
The voice is that of Michael Aguirre, San Diego’s City Attorney, whose public battles with the former city manager
have been the fodder of news article for several years.
Shortly after Ewell became San Diego’s City Manager in 2004, Aguirre began criticizing him and at least two San
Diego City Council members for their handling of the City’s well-documented billion-dollar-plus shortfall in pension
funds, as well as the scandal’s subsequent investigation Ewell helped steer.
Ewell -- who was originally hired in 2001 as the Assistant City Manager in part to help sort out the pension fiasco
that had been building for nearly a decade -- has publicly defended himself against Aguirre’s allegations.
Now, with his move to Santa Monica, Ewell is trying a different approach to put the issue to rest: silence.
The effort to turn the other cheek, though, may become harder when Aguirre trains a spotlight on Ewell’s former
practices as San Diego’s City Manager, taking his public sparring match to a new level.
Over the next two months, Aguirre plans to selectively release some of the nearly 9,000 emails sifted from Ewell’s
computer and other San Diego City computers Ewell used. The emails were reportedly “permanently erased,” until
they were found last week.
An independent review of the City’s document retention policy was subsequently launched, and Ewell issued a
public statement acknowledging that he had deleted some emails that were personal or privileged, after seeking
legal advice, but that copies of those emails were available in another server.
Emails from Ewell’s last six weeks in office have also not been retrieved yet.
“Emails on my computer were subsequently deleted due to the sensitivity of personnel matters and discussions
with attorneys conducting City business,” Ewell wrote in a statement released in early March. “This was done to
preclude unauthorized persons from viewing them.”
Item 13.E 02/09/21
4 of 14 Item 13.E 02/09/21
13.E.a
Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: Written Comments (4448 : City Manager Recruitment)
3
“The main server, where this information resides, would be held permanently in what is known as the ‘Manager’s
Post Office Account,’” Ewell wrote. “As far as I know, only Data Processing Corporation has access to this server,
which to the best of my knowledge cannot be destroyed by anyone else.”
That statement remains the only public comment to date that Ewell has made regarding Aguirre’s accusations
since taking his Santa Monica post in December 2005.
Ewell retired as San Diego city manager on November 28, after staying on an extra year to help coordinate the
city’s role in the pension scandal investigation.
Still, Aguirre – who Ewell referred to as the “Anti-Christ” in one email published last week – has said he is moving
forward with his investigation.
“We’re separating the emails into two piles: one to be released to the public and one that may provide evidence in
any possible criminal investigation,” Aguirre told The Lookout. He added that some emails that have privileged
information may also be held back.
Santa Monica’s public spokesperson, Judy Franz, said Ewell would not comment on the situation.
When asked if Aguirre is building a criminal case against Ewell, Aguirre offered no comment. He also refused to
answer whether he had any proof the Ewell acted improperly or illegally.
When asked what type of charges could be brought against Ewell and other council members, Aguirre said he
does not “want to speculate on that at this time.”
As more emails are reviewed and released by his office, Aguirre said he will make sure to make public the
findings of his investigation.
The emails – first discovered missing after the San Diego Tribune asked for their release – are now under
investigation by Aguirre to determine whether Ewell and San Diego City council members allegedly kept open an
“underground communication system” with private consultants hired to independently investigate the city's
financial practices.
When Aguirre released the first batch of emails last week – about 100 pages – Ewell refused to comment on the
matter, though both San Diego Council members mentioned in Aguirre’s investigation rebuffed the allegations as
an attempt to discredit consultants hired by the city to investigate San Diego’s well-documented financial woes.
A consultant with the New York-based risk management firm hired by the City, Kroll Inc., defended his company’s
contract drafted under Ewell and said the city manager has been cooperative in the investigation by Kroll Inc.,
according to reports.
Aguirre has publicly disagreed with Ewell and the San Diego council’s decision to pay escalating fees to Kroll Inc.
without a deadline for the investigation.
Despite the well-publicized animosity between the two men, Aguirre said the investigation is nothing personal.
“There are no personal attacks here, our personalities have nothing to do” with the investigation of the emails,
Aguirre said.”
Source: https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2006/March-
2006/03_29_06_Emails_Trail_Ewell.htm
Portion of Ewell’s old e-mail released
Item 13.E 02/09/21
5 of 14 Item 13.E 02/09/21
13.E.a
Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: Written Comments (4448 : City Manager Recruitment)
4
By MATTHEW T. HALL
MARCH 22, 2006 12 AM PT
City Attorney Michael Aguirre made public about 100 of former City Manager Lamont Ewell’s 9,000 recovered e-mails last night, five days after San Diego officials announced that the
messages were not permanently erased as they had once said.
Aguirre said that the messages show an “underground communication system” among Ewell, council President Scott Peters, Councilwoman Toni Atkins and private consultants hired to
independently investigate the city’s financial practices.
Ewell, who calls Aguirre “the Anti-Christ” in one e-mail, declined to engage his old nemesis last night, but Peters and Atkins dismissed Aguirre’s accusation as his latest attempt to discredit the
consultants he has contended for months are using the city as a “drive-up ATM.”
For months, Aguirre criticized the City Council and Ewell for agreeing to pay escalating sums of money to Kroll Inc., a New York-based risk management firm, and its lawyers with no deadline
for the investigation to end.
About an hour before Aguirre released the e-mail messages, he said they would show Kroll consultants were “more interested in getting paid than in remaining independent, so they cozied
up to the people who had to write the checks.”
Aguirre selectively released the e-mail at 5 p.m. after his staff consulted with mayoral spokesman Fred Sainz. After the meeting, Aguirre said he had decided to withhold until next week some of
the e-mail he had promised to release to back up his accusations so copies could be given to
council members first.
Kroll and the law firm Willkie, Farr & Gallagher have received council approval to spend $16.2 million. The consultants have said they will need $3.3 million more to finish their work in May.
KPMG, the city’s independent auditing firm, has said it won’t release an audit of the city’s 2003
books without a private investigation into possible illegal acts by city officials. Without audits for 2003, 2004 and 2005, the city can’t borrow money cheaply on the bond market for capital
projects.
Three consultants from Kroll are serving as the city’s audit committee to facilitate the release of the delayed audits. Troy Dahlberg, reached in New York last night before the messages were
Item 13.E 02/09/21
6 of 14 Item 13.E 02/09/21
13.E.a
Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: Written Comments (4448 : City Manager Recruitment)
5
released, said he would only comment on specific e-mail after seeing them and knowing their
context.
Dahlberg, however, defended Kroll’s contact with Ewell.
“Lamont was the city manager and we were directed to work with him procedurally for our investigation,” he said. “He was as helpful as he could be. He was cooperative. . . . We haven’t
shown any favoritism, nor did he ask any favoritism.”
Mayor Jerry Sanders is studying the city’s e-mail retention policy as Aguirre investigates the deletion and subsequent discovery of some of Ewell’s e-mail on a backup tape. Ewell quit on
Nov. 28 to become Santa Monica’s city manager, and e-mail from about the last six weeks of his employment still has not been found.
The e-mail Aguirre released yesterday show Ewell stayed in regular contact with Kroll as federal
investigators also probed allegations of fraud, corruption and accounting irregularities.
In February 2005, Ewell asks two Kroll consultants to advise him about hiring John Torell, who worked for Santa Barbara County, as the city auditor. In April, one consultant asks Ewell about
the firm’s “talking points” for use with the media. Other messages show the consultants asking Ewell how to get paid more quickly and suggesting Peters and Atkins as the council members
they want at a meeting with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Other e-mail show how completely the relationship between Aguirre, who took office in December 2004, and Ewell fell apart.
On Jan. 28, 2005, Ewell wrote to one city consultant that a meeting he had with Aguirre and then-Mayor Dick Murphy “went well.”
On Oct. 5, Ewell responded to another consultant’s question about getting to work before 8 a.m.
by writing, “When you are dealing with the likes of Aguirre, you have no choice but to start early.”
Ewell added, “I continue to reflect back on the time when I first met you and your colleagues. It
was great watching you each attempt to create a professional working relationship with the Anti-Christ.”
Item 13.E 02/09/21
7 of 14 Item 13.E 02/09/21
13.E.a
Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: Written Comments (4448 : City Manager Recruitment)
6
Ewell declined to comment yesterday through an assistant at his new job. Peters and Atkins,
however, renewed their criticism of Aguirre, who accused Murphy and several council members of securities fraud in a report last year.
“Any communication that doesn’t involve him he says is underground,” Peters said. “But the fact
is, on the City Council we’re committed to cooperating with the audit committee so they have the information they need to finish their report.”
Atkins said, “Pretty much, I think this is a continued attack from Mr. Aguirre on the council
because he doesn’t agree with the use of Kroll.”
Source: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-portion-ewells-old-e-mail-released-2006mar22-story.html
Regards,
Olga Zurawska
Item 13.E 02/09/21
8 of 14 Item 13.E 02/09/21
13.E.a
Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: Written Comments (4448 : City Manager Recruitment)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 1:41 PM
To:Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Phil Brock; Oscar
de la Torre; Christine Parra
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Lamont Ewell
Council‐
Please see the below email regarding Item 13E.
Thank you,
Stephanie
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Tracey Hom <traceyhom@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 7:04 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Lamont Ewell
EXTERNAL
No on Lamont Ewell
Come on people wake up
Tracey Hom
2638 29th st
Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.E 02/09/21
9 of 14 Item 13.E 02/09/21
13.E.a
Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: Written Comments (4448 : City Manager Recruitment)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Sherry Martini <sherryannmartini@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 3:03 PM
To:Kristin McCowan; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; odelatorre16
@yahoo.com; Christine Parra; Sue Himmelrich
Cc:George S. Cardona; councilmtgitems
Subject:Re: Lamont Ewell "boys' club" response to Bloom when he told me seeing trees cut down is not
traumatic for children - Ewell: "you're the man! -- well...my man anyway. thxs"
EXTERNAL
I know being a Santa Monica City Manger is so very difficult. There is no way to please everyone. I guess I am just
hoping that whoever we choose will be kind and humane like Lane and will not have the throw away mentality and lack of
understanding exhibit by Ewell's and Bloom's exchange below. I was a huge fan of Rod Gould as well. He was a good
man. So, I'm not against men. Just want humanity.
On Tuesday, February 9, 2021, 10:09:11 AM PST, Sherry Martini <sherryannmartini@yahoo.com> wrote:
And also, Ewell's and Bloom's take that the Treesavers were dangerous is so scary to me. It's called
Democracy. Peaceful Protest. These follks were treehuggers. Jerry Rubin was the leader and went to JAIL for trying to
protect a tree on fourth street. I was there. He was so sweet and respectful at all times, as he always is. To a fault. Yet
he was charged with a $10,000 bail and I went to Marsha Moutrie's office and spoke with her at length. She said what we
did was important, not dangerous and that the city had originally planned to destroy about 100 trees and that the
Treesavers made a difference. But Bloom and Ewell were doing their old boys club thing and patting each other on the
back at the destruction of the trees, despite how it affected the kids at that preschool. This is the guy you want to appoint
our new City Manager in these times?
We need a kind, loving, thoughtful human being like Lane hiring someone. This mentality just can't be supported
anymore. Read the whole chain below and maybe you will understand. Lane would have responded with kindness and
empathy. We need that and if the person hiring doesn't have it then they won't hire someone who does. Keep in mind, I
was not meant to see that email from Ewell. It was sent by mistake to me.
On Tuesday, February 9, 2021, 10:03:08 AM PST, Sherry Martini <sherryannmartini@yahoo.com> wrote:
Lamont Ewell "boys' club" response to Bloom when he told me seeing trees cut down is not traumatic for children - Ewell:
"you're the man! -- well...my man anyway. thxs."
Gleam and Sue-we can do better.
-----Original Message-----
From: hominita <hominita@aol.com>
To: P.Lamont.Ewell <P.Lamont.Ewell@SMGOV.NET>; richard <richard@bloomlaw.net>; treesavers
<treesavers@googlegroups.com>; egunders <egunders@usatoday.com>
Cc: Kate.Vernez <Kate.Vernez@SMGOV.NET>; francisco.varaorta <francisco.varaorta@latimes.com>; editor
<editor@smdp.com>; ed_kimble <ed_kimble@yahoo.com>; sjmandel <sjmandel@mandelnorwood.com>; richmartini
<richmartini@yahoo.com>; council <council@smgov.net>; attorney <attorney@smgov.net>
Sent: Sat, May 17, 2008 9:47 pm
Subject: And this appears to be Mr. Ewell's response to Mr. Bloom, not sure he meant to send to me, but here it is
E-mail seeming to be from Lamont Ewell responding to Richard Bloom e-mail to me. It seems odd he would copy me on
this? But since he copied a lot of others, I've copied it here to my fellow treesavers.
Peace.
Item 13.E 02/09/21
10 of 14 Item 13.E 02/09/21
13.E.a
Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: Written Comments (4448 : City Manager Recruitment)
2
Love,
Sherry Martini
-----Original Message-----
From: P. Lamont Ewell <P.Lamont.Ewell@SMGOV.NET>
To: Richard Bloom <richard@bloomlaw.net>; hominita@aol.com
Cc: Kate Vernez <Kate.Vernez@SMGOV.NET>
Sent: Sat, 17 May 2008 9:39 pm
Subject: RE: City more concerned about disrupting businesses than traumatizing preschool kids who had to see trees in
street
your'e the man! well...my man anyway. thxs
From: Richard Bloom [mailto:richard@bloomlaw.net]
Sent: Sat 5/17/2008 7:36 PM
To: hominita@aol.com
Cc: P. Lamont Ewell; Kate Vernez
Subject: Re: City more concerned about disrupting businesses than traumatizing preschool kids who had to see trees in
street
Hi and thank you for your email.
I am very sorry that your daughter was disturbed. However, given the threat of various individuals to act out in illegal and
unsafe ways by doing things like chaining themselves to trees, I really don't see how the City had a choice but to act
expeditiously in a way that prioritized public safety. Given the threats of others, perhaps your daughter was spared
significantly more stress, by virtue of the city's action.
The city's decision had absolutely nothing to do with business and the notion that the City would willfully traumatize
children in the service of business is, in a word, preposterous . Frankly, there is no time that this activity could have
occurred that would have precluded exposing children to the program, which, in an of itself, does not strike me as a likely
or predictable source of trauma to children.
I don't know how anyone could have had the authority to promise you that "no work" would occur before 2 pm, given the
scope of the work. However, it sounds like the actual felling of the trees took place outside of that time frame.
We hired Lamont Ewell because he is a superb leader and manager who cares deeply about our community. Like you,
he is a resident. As I am, he is strongly supportive of a diverse and healthy urban forest. This project promotes that goal,
particularly given the failing state of the 23 trees that have been removed. Mr. Ewell has my full support.
I am sorry we do not agree on this issue. However, I do not believe that vilifying hard working and dedicated city staff
serves any purpose.
Thank you again for sharing your opinions on this matter,
Richard
---
Richard Bloom
Mayor Pro Tem | City of Santa Monica
Santa Monica City Hall
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90407
Tele: 310-458-5343 (Sonia Ramos, City Council Administrator)
Fax: 310-458-1621
richard@bloomlaw.net
richard.bloom@smgov.net
---Chair, Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission
---Councilmember, Westside Cities Council of Governments
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
Item 13.E 02/09/21
11 of 14 Item 13.E 02/09/21
13.E.a
Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: Written Comments (4448 : City Manager Recruitment)
3
On May 16, 2008, at 5:07 PM, Council Mailbox wrote:
From: hominita@aol.com [mailto:hominita@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 4:42 PM
To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Council Mailbox; Attorney Mailbox
Cc: sjmandel@mandelnorwood.com; sjman2@pacbell.net; richmartini@yahoo.com; Kevin McKeown Fwd
Subject: City more concerned about disrupting businesses than traumatizing preschool kids who had to
see trees in street
On the morning of May 16, 2008, while walking my daughter to her preschool at 9:00
a.m. on 2nd and Arizona, we came upon a horrific sight. All of the trees we had fought
so hard to defend had been cut down. Their stumps were still exposed, seeping life-
giving sap, and the remains of the trees were strewn about the middle of the street,
taking up an entire City blocks. My daughter saw the trees before I did and began
crying, huge sobs. I was quick to follow. The City Manager, Lamont Ewell, is quoted
as saying"We felt it important to carry this work out as early as possible to
minimize the impact to the public and businesses." It is clear the Mr. Ewell is more
concerned about businesses than about small children. Over 100 little kids had to see
those exposed stumps, with no advance notice given, so that parents might explain the
situation to their children before being dropped off at school. Mr. Ewell, why did you
choose to cut the trees down on a school day, during school hours, or shortly
before, without any notice to parents, and by and through that traumatizing our
kids in order not to disrupt businesses? The City Engineering Department had
promised me in an e-mail that no work would be done in front of the school before 2:00
p.m. in order not to impact the children. This promise was not kept. Why am I not
surprised. We should all take a good look at Lamont Ewell, the City Manager who said
he takes full responsibility for the trees coming down. Who is he? What does he stand
for? Who hired him and why? Who controls him? He clearly does not embrace the
heart of the City -- a City that loves and cherishes its trees. In fact, City Councilman
Kevin McKeown seems to be the only person who knows his City and its people.
Sherry Martini
(310) 451-5088
MY RESPONSE TO BLOOM'S RESPONSE THAT SEEING TREES CUT DOWN IS NOT TRAUMATIC TO A PRE-
SCHOOLER:
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Bloom <richard@bloomlaw.net>
To: hominita <hominita@aol.com>
Cc: council <council@smgov.net>; kevin <kevin@McKeown.net>; P.Lamont.Ewell <P.Lamont.Ewell@SMGOV.NET>;
richmartini <richmartini@yahoo.com>; jolee <jolee@first-pres.net>
Sent: Sun, May 18, 2008 1:58 am
Subject: Re: Further, more introspective response to Councilman Bloom's e-mail re my daughter
Sherry,
Yes, it does look like I've failed to follow my own advice and avoid the legalese. My apologies.
You are correct, I have practiced family law for nearly 30 years, much of that where children are involved. I doubt your
family is from a different planet! But, I do believe, based upon my experience, that it is best to leave children of tender
age to ponder children's issues and leave the adult stuff to us adults. But, you are the parent and I do not intend any
disrespect of your role.
Item 13.E 02/09/21
12 of 14 Item 13.E 02/09/21
13.E.a
Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: Written Comments (4448 : City Manager Recruitment)
4
Parenthetically (uh-oh, there i go again) I'm currently in Todos Santos (near Cabo san Lucas), Mexico, where I
have spent the day meeting with local and international officials on, among other things, efforts to maintain a
mostly pristine and very beautiful natural environment in the face of development. The task of saving the
planet from the many insults we have put upon it is huge. [emphasis added due to ironic nature of this
statement]
A part of me wishes I was able to read 20 stories to my kids again, too. But, I have good news for you on that front: 19
and 20 years old (the age of my kids) ain't bad either. You have good things to look forward to and we all have good
things to look back upon.
Peace and always seeking new paths sounds good to me, too.
Richard
On May 18, 2008, at 1:17 AM, hominita@aol.com wrote:
Dear Councilman Bloom,
It is now 12:50 a.m., long past bedtime for the mother of two small children. Yet, I found myself unable to
sleep. The words in your e-mail to me (below)l responding to mine, wherein I conveyed how traumatic it
was for my daughter to see the trees strewn about the street in front of her preschool, stumps and all, are
haunting me: You said: "Frankly, there is no time that this activity could have occurred that would have
precluded exposing children to the program, which, in an of itself, does not strike me as a likely or
predictable source of trauma to children." This comment is made even more curious because, after
checking the California State Bar site, I find that you are a family law attorney, which means you deal with
children quite a bit.
Maybe my daughter Olivia (and my son RJ for that matter) are from a different planet. We are somewhat
odd. That I can readily admit. We walk in Palisades Park frequently and have names for many of the
trees. Anzara, Joe, Greenie. The list goes on. We hug the trees (yes we are tree-huggers) and call
them by name when we come upon them. My kids talk to those trees, and believe it or not, RJ and Olivia
say the trees talk back, saying all sorts of sweet things. So, for my daughter, trees are her friends. They
are not, as the City is found of calling them, "facilities". This is why she was so upset about the
trees. She lost some friends yesterday.
Listen, we have a terrible war going on, a tragic earthquake in China has occurred, not to mention other
truly more compelling issues and events in this world. So, to many, the Treesavers' efforts seem
nonsensical and a tremendous waste of time. I can't speak for my noble and peaceful fellow Treesavers,
who, despite saying they would chain themselves to trees (which you label an "illegal" activity), would not
hurt a soul and are the most law abiding citizens I've known because they are active citizens. But, as for
me, I became involved in the effort to save the trees because, after having felt so completely helpless
during the Bush administration reign, I thought I could at least have a voice in my own small
community. We were told so many untruths about those trees, with no forthright answers from the
City. That's what made the whole process so difficult to grasp. I think all the Treesavers are still
struggling to understand why the City would say the trees were diseased (when most of them were not),
then say they were coming down for various others reasons. There was no truth, or rather truth-seeking,
coming from the majority of our City Officials.
I want peace. I do not want to argue with you or anyone else. I'm probably the most flawed person I
know, constantly making mistakes. So, I want to forgive and learn and make things better. I just don't
know how to communicate with someone who would say, "in an of itself, [a child viewing the destruction
of the trees] does not strike me as a likely or predictable source of trauma to children." Is this the attorney
in you speaking or the human being?
Well, my kids are safe in their beds (after having told them what seemed like 20 stories), and their
sweetness and innocence inspires me and thrills me. I want to be like them. Recapture that. I think we
all do. Maybe you do too.
Let's find a new path. Okay.
Item 13.E 02/09/21
13 of 14 Item 13.E 02/09/21
13.E.a
Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: Written Comments (4448 : City Manager Recruitment)
5
Sherry Martini
From: Sherry Martini <sherryannmartini@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 9:37 AM
To: Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Kristin McCowan <Kristin.McCowan@SMGOV.NET>;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis <gleam.davis@gmail.com>; Phil Brock
<Phil.Brock@SMGOV.NET>; odelatorre16@yahoo.com <odelatorre16@yahoo.com>; Christine Parra
<Christine.Parra@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: George S. Cardona <George.Cardona@SMGOV.NET>; Lane Dilg <Lane.Dilg@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: I'm not sure having Lamont Ewell choose next City Manager is a good idea
EXTERNAL
Folks,
I'm not sure Lamont Ewell is the right person to lead the search for a Manager to help bring our City together.
I ask that you all do your own research re this. Read up on his tenure here. Read up on what transpired after he retired
from Santa Monica. It is important to know as much as you can about the person who will lead the charge to appoint our
next city manager. You need to know what he stands for and believes in, and what he himself has done in cities he has
represented before, during and after his tenure here in Santa Monica.
For me, I can't get past Ewell's actions as to the Ficus Trees on 2nd and 4th, when they were cut down in the middle of
the night in front of my daughter's First Pres preschool. It was such a cold, calculated and unthoughtful act to cut them
down in the middle of the night. He saw trees as "units" and not living things and the destruction of the trees was called a
"beautification project" (and Marsha Moutrie herself told me the plan had been to cut down a lot more trees even beyond
2nd and 4th). I'll never forget the day my daughter came to school and saw the trees she had given names to and
considered friends slaughtered on the ground. A teacher said she tried to warn us before we came, but I did not get the
message.
In addition, Ewell's extremely cozy relationship with Mayor Bloom, evidenced by an email sent to me around this time was
also of concern. It was like an "old boys club." I think we are past that era.
While I am sure Ewell is excellent at what he does, I also think we need someone without a history in Santa Monica to
help replace the truly irreplaceable Lane. Finding someone as honest, hard working and ethical as Lane will require a
very special person with no prior history to Santa Monic politics.
https://www.santamonicalookout.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2008/May-
2008/05_16_08_City_Chops_Down_Ficus_Trees.htm
"After we received the Court decision in favor of the City, we moved expeditiously in an
attempt to make up for seven months of lost time,” City Manger Lamont Ewell wrote in an
email to the City Council Friday."
Item 13.E 02/09/21
14 of 14 Item 13.E 02/09/21
13.E.a
Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: Written Comments (4448 : City Manager Recruitment)