Half Moon Bay Review
TalkAbout Start a topic Login Create Login Forgot Password  
All Categories Around Town Elections Entertainment/Dining Schools
City Council Environment Sports Beyond the Coastside Catch All
Clay Lambert's Blog Mark Foyer's Blog Stacy Trevenon's blog Mark Noack's blog Bill Murray's Blog

How To Employ Disinformation To One's Advantage

Superintendent Tony Roehrick And A Teachable Moment For CUSD Students

At the May 8th School Board Meeting, agenda Item 14 B, which was a discussion about authorizing repairs and improvements at the HS track and football fields, contained this statement:

District staff has also been advised by the city of Half Moon Bay that the project will not require a Coastal Development Permit(CDP).

This was not true. Here is the proof:

I have checked with the City’s Planning Department and they have not found any record that the City approved a Coastal Development Permit Exemption for the field and track improvements referenced in the School District staff report, and none of the current planning staff have talked to the District about this issue.


Siobhan Smith

City Clerk

The above was a response was sent on May 7th to an information request.The DAY BEFORE the School Board Meeting.

So I asked Superintendent Roehrick to explain the discrepancy. Here is what he said: --

Web Link

As you may have noticed, I got handled quite well and didn't know it until well after I sat down. Hell I even thanked the Superintendent for the handling. The man is slicker than a used car salesman on a roll. I mean, damn, he really handled me.

Roehrick never explains why his staff is claiming something happened that HMB's staff claims did not happen. Instead he makes he shifts the conversation to the CDP process.

Now you might think this is the end of the story and it might very well have been. There was a problem though, just one. I didn't believe that the temporary City Manager would provide the kind of advice Mr. Roehrick claims Mr. Schillinger provided. So that very night, I sent an email to Mr. Schillinger. Here is his response:


I am out of the office tomorrow. I don't remember having this conversation with him nor do I remember an e-mail. I can check through my e-mails on Monday to see if I am forgetting something. I need to check with staff to see if something came from us to him.


On Monday, I called up the City Manager and told him that I found it difficult to believe he would offer the kind of advice Mr. Roehrick claims he offered, per his short tenure here. Mr. Schillinger said my assumption about him was absolutely correct.

So what the heck is going on? Why the subterfuge? Why would staff say they had been in contact with HMB officials when HMB officials say otherwise? Why would the Superintendent then double down on the misinformation by providing disinformation about what the current HMB City Manager said to him?

As for you kids, this is how things are done. Forget that crap adults tell you about being forthright and honest. The idea is to win. You all want to win don't ya? Well, telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth is for losers. Look at the example set by Superintendent Tony Roehrick, his staff, and the School Board.

They have shown you how to win. Don't waste this valuable life lesson. Look how far fudging the truth has taken Mr. Roehrick.

John Charles Ullom


You do know what you're really looking at right bmthotb?


Look into it and why it matters both there, and on the other side of peppervile.

This was posted on another thread, but it is appropriate to post here, too: Web Link

It is a link to the CDP exemption provided the CUSD by the City of HMB. You will note that the Interim City Manager's name and signature are not there. You may also note that no one from our outsourced Planning department's name or signature is on it either.

What you will see, however, is the signature of Dante Hall, Community Development Director for HMB along with his printed name and contact data.

I only mention this because somebody from the CUSD had to ask the City for the Exemption or Mr Hall would not have provided one to them. Further, Mr Hall is neither the Interim City Manager, nor is he in the outsourced Planning department.

The two dates are May 9th signed and dated by the CUSD Superintendent) and May 21 (received by County planning).

The web link provided was created from an email to me that I couldn't directly link, so I opened it in Safari so I could grab the address bar (copy and paste) to place here. If anyone has trouble opening the link, please let me know and I'll try another way.


I just received notice that the link provided, the CDP Exemption issued by the City, won't open. Thanks for the heads-up.

I'm working on resolving that by getting it again in a different format that is transferable. Hopefully, I'll have it shortly and post it here.

It was received in a PDF format in my Inbox and had no address bar to copy and transfer, so I tried to be clever and open the link (which will not allow me to simply copy and paste) with Safari, which opens but apparently won't when transferred.

I've requested a better format to solve that issue.

Thanks for the heads-up and I'll post it as soon as I get it again.

OK, let's try this way: Web Link

Yeah! I tried it and it works - good.

Now we can all see Dante Halls' signature, as described above. We can see the dates, as mentioned above. We can see the "Description of Nature, Purpose, etc, where it clearly has the ambiguous reference to drainage work with "modifications to underground drainage" - yet on the same form just below, under the heading of "Reasons why project is exempt from the requirements for a CDP" there is no mention of that direct but non-specific description just above regarding "modifications to underground drainage".

This whole thing is an example of one of two things: 1) very sloppy work on the behalf of both the City and the CUSD, or 2) an intention get around by both the City and the CUSD to get it done.

If it's #1, we have a problem. If it's #2, we have a bigger problem. Either way, we have a problem.

The Review has published a piece this morning (online) that states the project has been appealed and as a result, the CUSD has pulled the project and will wait one year and try again. Hopefully when they do, we will see a more transparent process and a better job at following protocol.

I just don't understand how it is that Agencies around here just can't seem to do things right the first time, why they appear to make the effort to lack transparency and therefor appear to be working at odds or in conflict with the constituents they were elected to represent. It is so frustrating. And they, those we've elected, seem to relish the drama of the gun to the head approach which always seems to lead to one of Murphey's Laws: there's never enough time to do things right the first time, but there is always time to come back and do it again.

What a waste of resources and effort, which translates to our money flying around like booze at a frat party.

It is so much easier to be honest, straightforward and determined to work with the public than against us. I just don't get it.

Oh, forgot the Review's piece link. Here it is: Web Link

Add a comment

Please login to comment on this topic.

Login Here

Create a Login

Powered by Podium