“The government you elect is the government you deserve”
Fact-Checking
Clarifications of Candidate Statements
PVrrg does not have the resources to fact check all the statements made by candidates in this election. However, certain questions are being raised repeatedly by others, and we thought it would be helpful to provide clarifications as best we understand them.
Q. What is going on with the mailer from the California Taxpayers Protection Committee attacking Councilmember Davidson and the response by some secret unregistered entity calling itself PVRG (and arguing Councilmember Davidson’s point of view)? Who is behind the response, and are the claims legitimate in each mailer?
A. Here is a link to the first flyer attacking Councilmember Davidson. It is from California Taxpayer Protection Committee, and the mailer was funded entirely by Pivot Strategies (a consulting firm for which Peter Constant is CEO) who contributed $2500 to CTPA for the purpose of this flyer. Mr. Constant is the consultant that supported the PVE Pension AdHoc which recently presented its report to PVE City Council; he is an ex-police officer, ex-head of union and 8 year San Jose City Council member; for Mr. Constant’s LinkedIn profile, click here. For Mr. Constant’s open letter to PVE Residents letter explaining his contribution, click here. Form 460 (click here) and Form 496 (click here) for this group shows they have spent $2261.04 to “design, print and mail literature in opposition to Sandy Davidson.” This expenditure is paid for by the $2500 Pivot Strategies contribution to CTPC, and not by any of the PVE City Council Candidates. All of this is disclosed publicly in their filings with the FPPC.
Below are the claims made in the original CTPA mailer (click here), along with PVrrg’s fact check on each claim.
Claim: “Ad paid for by California Taxpayer Protection Committee. Not authorized by a candidate or a committee controlled by a candidate.”
TRUE. All FPPC documentation completed and filed; no candidate was listed. See the City website here.
Claim: “While Sandy Davidson publicly portrays himself as a collegial gentleman, he and his wife, Joan, verbally attack public speakers at council meetings…”
TRUE. There are many instances in City Council meetings where Councilmember Davidson verbally attacks public speakers, as well as one of the other City Councilmembers (Victoria Lozzi). Click here for what has become known as Sandy Davidson’s “Venom” speech attacking the Treasurer Victoria Lozzi.Councilmember Davidson also has demanded Carl Moritz (the City Forrester) be fired publicly many times from the dais.
Claim: “…slander expert consultants…”
TRUE. Councilmember Davidson and his wife Joan on multiple occasions slandered Pete Constant in City Council Meetings; Councilmember Davidson also slandered two other police consultants to the point that those consultants declined to accept the job after the rest of Council approved their hiring.
There is a history of Councilmember Davidson and his wife Joan attacking Mr. Constant in City Council meeting with false claims. For instance, click here for October 22, 2019 at 2:53:47 and here for July 14, 2020 (the recording starts during Joan Davidson's speech because they had forgot to turn it on).
On 7/9/19: The police AdHoc sought to bring a police consultant (McCrary) to help – click here at 1:02:30
On 11/5/19: The police AdHoc sought to bring in a second police consultant, Kim Raney -- click here at 1:18:30
Claim: “…File unfounded campaign complaints…”
TRUE. One example is Joan Davidson’s false claim to the FPPC against Bluff Cove Homeowners Association in a failed attempt to force BCHA to take down the webpage demanding Sandy Davidson’s resignation — click here.
Claim: “…and waste city staffs time filing multiple public records requests.”
TRUE. Have heard this indirectly but we have no documentation
Claim: “It’s no wonder his colleagues refused to appoint him as major.”
TRUE. This occurred at the April 9, 2019 City Council Meeting. Here is the link, and go to 02:31:20 into the meeting
Claim: “PVE residents claim Councilman Davidson fails to tell the truth; alleging Sandy Davidson submitted false biographical information to the city…”
TRUE. See examples on this webpage below.
Claim: “…alleging Sandy Davidson falsely claims to be a Vietnam veteran…”
TRUE. Discussed on this webpage below.
Claim: “…alleging Sandy Davidson failed to keep his pledge to protect parkland & open space…”
MISLEADING. Councilmember Davidson voted against the Settlement of the CEPC Parklands case on the grounds that it still left a 1.3 acre portion of former deed restricted parkland private ownership of Robert Lugliani on the steep hillside behind their house. However, the same settlement added over 3 acres of newly deed restricted and relatively flat parkland that is more accessible and usable by the public in Bluff Cove along PV Drive resulting in a net increase in deed restricted parkland. There were other benefits to the public (such as avoiding $1.5-2 million in likely payments to Lugliani from the PVHA and the City of PVE), and these were also considerations that Davidson rejected when he voted no on the Settlement. The merits of the case were already decided in CEPC’s favor in the the courts and after appeal, so those potential payouts were likely. Further Councilmember Davidson and his wife Joan canvassed heavily for the reelection of candidates that had supported the appeal of the Court’s decision that the parkland sale in 2012 was wrong and needed to be reversed.
Claim: “…alleging Sandy Davidson has targeted residents of the Bluff Cove neighborhood…”
TRUE. On multiple occasions, Councilmember Davidson attacked Bluff Cove residents and specifically Bob Chapman (their leader).
Claim: “See what these residents are saying about Sandy: www.SandyDavidson.org”
TRUE. That link to Bluff Cove Homeowner Association has many facts and video clips that provide evidence of many of the above points
Claim: “Who is Sandy Davidson? What’s Real? What’s Made-up? Who’s pulling his strings? His wife, Joan?
All legitimate questions – especially considering the substantial of amounts of money that Sandy Davidson has received from entities outside of PVE, including a developer; for specifics, click here. No other candidate has as much in contributions from individuals and entities outside PVE.
Below are the claims made on the retaliatory mailer (click here) by PVRG (an unknown entity not related to PVrrg), along with PVrrg’s fact check on each claim:
Claim: “Paid for by PVRG”
FALSE. There is no FPPC filing for such an organization. For the record, PVrrg (Palos Verdes Residents for Responsible Government) has absolutely nothing to do with this mailing, and choosing this name is likely an attempt to slander PVrrg whom Councilmember Davidson has frequently attacked from his position as Councilmember. He advocated vigorously forbidding the use of council chambers for candidate forums, and this took up a lot of staff time and was discussed at five different Council meetings. Davidson accused PVrrg of being a paid lobbying group. For instance, click here. While it is not confirmed what role Councilmember Davidson had in this “Who’s Lurking” flyer, the postal permit used for this “Who’s Lurking” flyer “Permit #731, Torrance, CA” is the same as Councilmember Davidson’s previous flyer that was sent directly by his campaign — click here to see the postal code on Councilmember Davidson’s four mailers that matches the one on the “Who’s Lurking” flyer.
Claim: “Who’s lurking in the shadows? Palos Verdes Estates is under siege from people and groups that don’t have the City’s best interest at heart. They hide and conceal their identities – letting others do their bidding. Protect PVE form self interests and hidden agendas.”
FALSE. The mailer referenced (see above) was paid for by California Taxpayer Protection Committee which filed the required disclosures with the FPPC identifying their source of funding. The same cannot be said of PVRG which is a clandestine organization that has not filed the required forms in order to be transparent about their source of funding.
Claim: “Sleazy mailers”
QUESTIONNABLE. Here is the mailer referenced, and above is the fact-check on it. You can decide for yourself whether it is “sleazy”.
Claim: “Candidates with hidden agendas”
UNKNOWN. We have no knowledge that any candidate is behind the mailing from the California Taxpayer Protection Committee. The Anti-Davidson flyer funding traces back to Pete Constant’s company Pivotal Strategies in records/forms appropriately filed with the FPPC, and no other candidate is involved in that mailer.
Claim: “Bigots”
UNKNOWN. To our knowledge, only Councilmember Davidson is on record multiple times in City Council attacking women including a colleague on City Council and residents/contractors making presentations. For example, on January 22, 2019 he attacks both PVrrg and City Treasurer Lozi– click here
Claim: “Fake Nextdoor Posts”
FALSE. Unsubstantiated claim. Joan Davidson has been successful multiple times in convincing Nextdoor to delete posts and comments that present facts that are truthful and harmful to her husband, but those posts were not “fake”.
Claim: “Rumor mongers”
FALSE. Unsubstantiated claim. Shedding light on the truth (as PVrrg strives to do) is not rumor mongering. It is Transparency. Listing a series of statements that are true (see above) in CTPC’s mailer is not rumor mongering.
Claim: “Biased Forums”
FALSE. Presumably this refers to PVrrg’s Candidate Forum held on October 1st. Councilmember Davidson was invited but chose not to participate in this year’s forum or at the townhall on Measure E. . Please watch the forum here and conclude for yourself whether there was bias in the questions asked and/or in the conduct of the facilitator which treated all candidates equally. And anyone can watch the Measure E Townhall shown here, and see that there was absolutely nothing said against the police.
Claim: “Shine the light on those who target our PVE PD!”
FALSE. The appropriate FPPC filing was made by the (CTPC) California Taxpayer Protection Committee. This is an unsubstantiated and hypocritical claim, since the people behind this mailer were hiding their identity and not filing with the FPPC as required by law. Further, the original mailer by CTPC said nothing at all about the PVE PD. Yet Councilmember Davidson has continually cast as anti-police the activities of the Pension AdHoc including pension reform. The same is true of the way Davidson has criticized other efforts that attempt to make the police affordable and sustainable. Yet, PVE's pension reform includes everything that police benefit from, including
Transparency of pension costs in the budget
Annually funded pensions, so no new pension debt
Fully funded pensions, so no more debt
Claim: “The recent CA Taxpayer Protection Committee Slate mailer was a late contribution/expenditure from Pivot Strategies – run by Pete Constant – Pete is not a resident of PVE…”
TRUE. But this was disclosed in FPPC filings and in Pete Constant’s open letter to PVE Residents (click here)
Claim: “… he is the consulatant (sic spelling) chosen by Michael Kemps and Victoria Lozzi for the PVE Pension Ad Hoc Committee…”
TRUE. But Pete Constant is also the consultant that facilitated (with Kemps and Lozzi) a model process of inclusive and transparent community and stakeholder engagement (including the PVE PD and other City employees that participate in the pension plan) which led to an excellent report on how to address a very significant financial challenge our City faces in terms of the large and rapidly growing unfunded pension liability. For the report, click here. For the presentation, click here. For the video of Kemps and Lozzi giving the presentation, and the subsequent City Council discussion, click here. This is the first time in PVE’s history that an council AdHoc included both residents and employees, kept minutes and allowed the meetings to be public.
Claim: “… on a recommendation from Desiree Meyers (sic spelling).”
True. But the decision to hire Mr. Constant was made by City Council. PVE residents should be grateful to Desiree Myers (correct spelling) for the recommendation since this AdHoc was a model of transparency, community engagement, and concrete solutions that we all should be proud of. Mr. Constant comes with a wealth of experience as a retired police officer who has reformed pensions for many states.
Claim: “This committee also includes Dawn Murdock.”
MISLEADING. While Ms. Murdock was a resident participating in the Pension AdHoc Committee, this reference seems to try to tie Ms. Murdock to the CA Taxpayer Protection Committee and their anti-Davidson mailer – which is false. We understand that Ms. Murdock did pay Pivotal Strategies $1440 on September 22 for a month of digital ads for her own campaign (click here for the invoice), and that does not match the $2261.04 paid by CTPC to “design, print and mail literature in opposition to Sandy Davidson.” Note that $1440 is insufficient to print and mail flyers for PVE – it is at least $2000. Click here for Dawn Murdock’s “For the Record” response.
Claim: “Murdock will not state if she supported Measure E…”
TRUE. Dawn Murdock responded to this question at the League of Women Voter’s Forum without stating explicitly how she voted. She said she had concerns, and felt that a lack of transparency by the City Council led to inadequate information to make an informed decision on Measure E. For her full response, click here and advance to 38:37 into the video.
Claim: “…and her campaign manager Dez Meyers (sic spelling) has attacked the police for years.”
FALSE. Dawn Murdock is her own campaign manager, with counsel from her husband.While Ms. Myers has raised many questions about the sustainability of our PVEPD, and the lack of KPIs and accountability, she has many times made it clear in City Council meetings and NextDoor postings that she supports the local control of having our own PD and states with the proper efficiencies implemented and everyone leans in, it can be made affordable and sustainable.
Claim: “Our 100-Year Old Police Force is in more danger than ever!”
INACCURATE. The Palos Verdes Project was not even in existence in 1920, and the City of Palos Verdes was not formed until 1940. What is now our PVEPD was started in 1929 per the City’s website – click here.
Claim: “Are these the people you want determining PVE’s future?”
OPINION. Frankly, whoever is behind the “Who’s Lurking” mailer is the real danger to our City. It is mostly lies and misrepresentations, unlike the mailer they are challenging (which is mostly truths).
Q. The Palos Verdes Estates Police Officers Association asked all five candidates for City Council to complete a questionnaire so they could select two for their endorsement. The questionnaire also asked whether the candidate was seeking financial support. After selecting the two candidates to endorse, the PVPOA placed at least one ad and sent at least one mailer and filed Form 496 with FPPC indicating they were making a $15,000 contribution to their PAC to invest in the campaign. What was asked in this questionnaire, and were there any promises made in the answers that might compromise the independence of the candidates if elected?
A. For the questionnaire, see this link. Three of the candidates responded, and two of them have provided their answers to PVrrg in the spirit of full transparency, and we commend them for that: For Jim Roos’s answers, click here and for Bill Sewell’s answers, click here.
Councilmember Davidson has not been responsive and has not disclosed his answers. Dawn Murdock and Gayne Brenneman did not answer the questionnaire (even though they have stated publicly that they support the PVE PD) because they are not seeking endorsements out of a concern over avoiding conflicts of interest. The PVPOA selected Jim Roos and Sandy Davidson for their endorsement, and the PVPOA placed ads and sent mailers as part of their $15,000 in contributions to their PAC in support of the two candidates (these funds were not received by the candidates and the candidates did not control how it was spent). So far, the POA PAC has bought two full page ads in the Peninsula News and done at least one mailer. The POA questionnaire specifically asked if the candidate was seeking an endorsement, financial contribution, or both. Roos’s response was "Endorsement only" and Sewell’s was “both.” We don’t know what Councilmember Davidson’s response was, since he has not cooperated by providing his answers. PVrrg contacted the PVPOA for comment on the reasons why they selected these two candidates, and so far, we have not received a response.
Q. Councilmember Davidson asserts in his campaign mailers that he “Founded the Financial Advisory Committee” which serves the City of Palos Verdes Estates.
A. This is an overstatement. PVrrg lobbied for the establishment of the FAC in 2017 after Measure D failed. See our research and presentation to Council by clicking here. You’ll see that Dr. Davidson did advocate for FAC during 2 council meetings. But he can’t claim that he “Founded” it, because:
PVrrg had actively lobbied for it, but the Council at the time was not interested. Council Members didn’t even want to acknowledge the City had a financial problem.
The Measure E consultant, Larry Tramutola, advised Council to have a “Financial Oversight/Advisory Committee” to help getting Measure E passed. Right after that it was put on the Council meeting agenda for discussion.
All 5 Council members at the time voted for its establishment. Davidson alone couldn’t have made it happen.
FAC agreed with PVrrg’s finding on the City’s financial problem from reviewing its previous audited financial statements.
Election 2019 voters selected 3 new council members, McGowan, Lozzi, and Kemps, who publicly spoke about the City’s fiscal problem and campaigned for finding ways to fix it.
For more information on the history and initial work of the FAC, click here.
Q. Councilmember Davidson asserts in his official bio on the City website that he “spent 2 years serving in the military during the Vietnam War.” Some veterans have taken issue with this statement. What are the facts?
A. This is mostly false (“veteran” not “military veteran”). Councilmember Davidson did an internship in San Francisco with the US Public Health Service (USPHS) which allowed him to call himself technically a “veteran”; but this is not a branch of the military and certainly not part of participating in a war. This is a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, overseen by the U.S. Surgeon General and the Assistant Secretary for Health. It is one of the 7 uniformed services of the United States but it is not one of the 5 Military Services (Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard or National Guard.) The USPHS employees are Non-Military uniformed service and employees are not trained in arms. And the mission of the USPHS differs completely from that of the Military, the Armed Forces (i.e., Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard) in that the focus is on delivering the Nation's public health promotion and disease prevention programs and advancing public health science. The website of the Commission Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service makes it clear that the Commissioned Corp “differs from the military” and is “non-military.”
The Mission of the Military is defined as “The United States Military branches exist to defend the United States against all enemies and to provide combat capabilities anywhere in the world in support of United States security objectives”.
Further upon retirement from the USPHS you are NOT eligible for a DD Form 214, which is "The Certificate of Honorable Release or Discharge from Active Duty”. It is a document of the United States Department of Defense, issued only to a Military service member upon retirement or separation or discharge from active duty in the Military, specifically and only by the Armed Forces of the United States, e.g., U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Marine Corps, or U.S. Navy. Davidson does not have a DD214 since he did not serve in the Military.
Simply USPHS is not a Military Organization. Davidson did not “serve in the “Military" during the Vietnam War” as claimed in his bio on the PVE Website and in various campaign literature. Claiming so is referred to as the Crime of “Stolen Valor” and certainly inappropriate.
This matter was investigated by a resident, who presents the evidence here.
Q. Councilmember Davidson asserts in his official bio on the City website that he is “a Professor of Ophthalmology at the UCLA Jules Stein Eye Institute where he has taught for many years.” What are the facts?
A. Partly True (“Assistant Professor” not “Professor”. Dr. Davidson was listed as an “Assistant Clinical Professor of Ophthalmology” under "Volunteer Faculty in Ophthalmology" in the Annual Reports of the UCLA Jules Stein Eye Institute in 2006 and then again every year from 2009-2017. He is not listed since then. In the 2017-2018 Annual Report, Dr. Davidson is one of 53 people listed as Assistant Clinical Professor of Ophthalmology under "Volunteer Faculty in Ophthalmology." In the same report there are 46 people listed as “Associate Clinical Professor of Ophthalmology” and 31 listed as “Clinical Professor of Ophthalmology.” Click here for the relevant page in the 2017-2018 Annual Report.
Q. Councilmember Davidson asserts in his official bio on the City website that he “served as an Admissions Committee Chairman at the UCLA School of Medicine for over 30 years.” What are the facts?
A. Not yet confirmed one way or the other. We could find no mention of Dr. Davidson on the UCLA School of Medicine Admissions Committee website. We have reached out to the Admissions Office, and will update this when more information is known.
Q. Candidate Sewell wrote in his bio “With a degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Illinois, I worked for the FAA…” Is this verifiable?
A. Misleading as originally written, but corrected now. This did not appear accurate because while Mr. Sewell took courses from University of Illinois, he did not graduate. When this was pointed out on Nextdoor, Mr. Sewell asked PVrrg to delete the reference which PVrrg did. He also provided this longer version explaining his educational background associated with his work experience:
To be clear, the BSEE from the University of Illinois previously listed in my bio was actually a cooperative equivalent certificate from the US Government based on study at U of Illinois and a decade of hands on experience in the field. Here is the chronology leading up to that event:
In February of 1970, I joined the USAF after a short stint at Armstrong State, part of the U of Georgia in Savannah.
The Air Force made me aware of the College Level Examination Program (CLEP) which was an all day (as I recall 50 years later) proctored examination. I sat for the CLEP and scored above 90 percent which gave me 1 full year of college credit.
In 1974, I left the Air Force and went to work for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
In 1975 I began taking courses at Oakton Community College in Morton Grove, Illinois under my GI Bill benefits and completed two more years there. Oakton is associated with the U of Illinois. I gained two more years of college credit there.
In 1977 I was one of 5 people selected world-wide for the FAA’s Cooperative Engineer Development Program (CEDP). This program took qualified technicians with at least two years of college and gave them a full scholarship to a university to meet the Federal requirements for an engineering position. This was full payment of tuition, books, supplies, lab fees, and travel from the FAA office (Des Plaines, Illinois for me) to campus and back. At the same time, I still received my full salary. This was a big deal. I attended the U of Illinois Chicago Circle for two years.
In May 1980, time ran out (there was a two-year limit) in the CEDP program and I was three courses short of graduating from the U of Illinois where I now had four years including Oakton plus one year CLEP which was accepted by U of Illinois. My official transcript from U of Illinois lists 225 quarter hours, 45 more than the 180 required for graduation.
The FAA reviewed my college courses and my experience and, on 9/21/1980, converted me from GS-856-11 Electronics Technician to a GS-855-11 Electronics Engineer (See attached) and I joined the engineering staff designing Radar, ILS, VORTAC, etc. for the FAA.
Over the next 40 years I held several engineering management jobs and was always careful to list my college as U of Illinois/CEDP. I was also very clear that I was not a PE and did not stamp and seal drawings as electronic systems didn’t require it. On those rare occasions in my career where stamps were required, I would look to a PE to review my work and furnish those stamps.
I retired from AECOM on March 15, 2019.
Q. Gayne Brenneman has in her bio “Harvard Business School, graduate courses with a focus on “Complex Negotiations and Strategic Planning”. Is this true?
A. True statement, but open to misinterpretation. Dr. Brenneman did take two courses at Harvard Business School: “Changing the Game: Negotiation and Competitive Decision Making” (October 27 - November 1, 2013) and “Strategic Negotiations: Dealmaking for the Long Term” (January 19-24, 2014). Here is documentation, and PVrrg has reviewed other photos taken of her at the course with professors. However, for clarification, she is not a graduate of HBS and does not hold a degree there. We’re providing this clarification for the absence of doubt even though we don’t believe there was any intent on the part of Dr. Brennemen to deceive in her original bio language. So her bio on the PVrrg.org website now says this:
Harvard Business School, graduate courses on “Changing the game: Negotiation and Competitive Decision Making” (2013) and “Strategic Negotiations: Dealmaking for the Long Term (2014)
Q. The spouse of one of the candidates has been telling people that Jim Roos “did not graduate from college” and “can’t hold a job.” Is this true?
A. Both are false criticisms. Jim graduated with a bachelor’s degree from the Lyle School of Engineering at Southern Methodist University and an MBA from its Cox School of Business. Here is a link to the documentation. As far as his work experience, here is his LinkedIn profile which show his career progression and the timing at each company.
If you have any questions relating to the truth of statements made by candidates in this election, send an email to info@pvrrg.org and we’ll see if we can check it out for you.