What constitutes "collusion"? The generic definition is "to secretly form an agreement for fraudulent or illegal purposes". There is growing evidence that the city administrators of Long Beach are secretly assisting Prevratil’s operation of the Queen Mary in violation of the Long Beach City Charter, the Brown Act and various other Charter and Constitutional articles, statutes and ordinances. In this report, I will substantiate my claims with excerpts from the Long Beach City Charter, correspondence with city officials, reports and documents from the city and from local publications.
Following is a brief history of the violations of article XVIII of the Long Beach City Charter by city administrators and tenant of the leased Queen Mary:
The Brown Act grants citizens prior notification of local government meetings and the right to attend and address such conventions. (Government Code 54950-54960 5). Read this document:
Furthermore, according to Article III, Section 302-C of the Long Beach City Charter, the City Manager must enforce a contract with a lessee.
For the sake of brevity, I am omitting Prevratil’s business dealings predating his operation of the Queen Mary, such as the Japanese Deer Park, Long Beach Convention Center and bankrupt hotel in Riverside.
LONG BEACH CITY CHARTER - These are the applicable sections from Article XVIII of the City Charter regarding contracts made by the City.
Section 1800 - Form and Execution:
The City shall not be and is not bound by any contract, except as otherwise provided herein, unless the same is made in writing, by order of the City Council, and signed by the City Manager or by another officer authorized to do so by the City Manager. The approval of the form of the contract by the City Attorney shall be endorsed thereon before the same shall be signed on behalf of the City. The City Council, by ordinance duly adopted, may authorize the City Manager, or any commission or agent of the City, with the written approval of the City Manager, to bind the City without a contract in writing for the payment of services, supplies, materials, equipment and labor or other valuable consideration furnished to the City in an amount not exceeding the limit established by ordinance of the City Council. The Board of Harbor Commissioners and the Board of Water Commissioners may authorize contracts, in writing or otherwise, without advertising for bids, for the payment of services, supplies, materials, equipment and labor or other valuable consideration furnished to the City in an amount not exceeding the limit established by ordinance of the City Council.
Section 1801 - Bids for Contracts to be Called:
All contracts, except as otherwise provided in this Charter, or by general law, for the City or any of the departments or public institutions thereof, must be made by the City Manager with the lowest responsible bidder whose bid is in regular form, after one publication of a notice calling for bids in a daily newspaper of general circulation in the City. Said notice shall contain a brief description of the services, supplies, materials, equipment or labor required, the amount of bonds required of the successful bidder, and state the hour and day on which said bids will be opened.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the Director of Library Services, in accordance with procedures provided by and with the written approval of the City Manager, and with such faithful performance bonds, if any, as the City Manager may deem reasonably necessary, is authorized to contract on behalf of the City, without advertising for bids, for the purchase of books, pamphlets, government documents, serials, continuations, periodicals, recordings, videotapes, films or an on-line acquisition system, and such other similar goods and services furnished to the City Library all in an amount not to exceed that set by the City Council each year in the annual budget for such goods and services.
The City Council, by resolution adopted by the affirmative vote of five members of the City Council, may authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract on behalf of the City, in writing or otherwise, without advertising for bids for services, supplies, materials, equipment or labor for actual emergency work.
Section 1804 - Opening of Bids:
On the day and at the hour named in the notice calling for bids, the City Manager, or his designated representative, shall publicly open and declare all bids received, and at that time, or at such time as the City Manager may determine, shall accept the lowest regular responsible bid, or reject all bids and return all deposits accompanying said bids. The City Manager, at his option, may abandon all proceedings, or re-advertise for bids in a like manner.
Section 1805 Collusion - Void Contracts:
If at any time it shall be found that any person, firm or corporation to whom a contract has been awarded has, in presenting any bid or bids, colluded with any other person, firm or corporation, then the contract awarded shall, if the City so elects, be null and void, and the contractor and his bondsmen shall be liable to the City for all loss and damage which the City may suffer thereby; and the City Manager may advertise for a new contract for such labor, material or supplies.
Long Beach's regulations governing lessees (such as RMS Foundation.)
Joseph Prevratil expects to go before the Long Beach City Council in June to demonstrate he has a viable plan for operating the Queen Mary for the next 66 years. In order to satisfy legal requirements, he must first have an analysis conducted of the project called an "EIR" (Environmental Impact Report).
This report for RMS Queen Mary Seaport, document SCH90031165, may have been compiled after the fact. This EIR makes reference to a discretionary permit, a Disposition and Development Agreement for a 66-year lease.
The following 6 items are questions I have raised about the EIR's veracity.
Disposition and Development Agreement for a 66 year lease. Has this document been drafted? I will try to procure a copy of this prior to the advisory City Planning Commission meeting on June 18, 1998.
It is stated that the Planned Development ordinance of 1987 requires "clear views to the Queen Mary". Given that, most of the development proposals would be in violation of (RZ-451-86). Five story parking structures, Quay Street and the waterfront restaurant at the Queen Mary's bow would all significantly interfere with clear views of the ship. There are no schematic diagrams reflecting building height in relation to the Queen Mary contained in the EIR.
Items 1 - 4. Are any of the additions to hotel accommodations or commercial office space (up to 900,000 square feet) planned on board the Queen Mary? This would potentially disqualify the Queen Mary from National Register (and possibly Landmark?) status because the interiors would be significantly altered from their original function and appearance.
Considering the validity of the information presented on pages 160 - 165 regarding the historic and cultural significance of the Queen Mary, it is notable that not one marine architectural firm, historic preservation organization or museum curator or archivist was consulted. Who is "HMS Queen Mary Foundation" (mentioned in the EIR, and probably confusing RMS Foundation and the Queen Mary Foundation)? If that refers to the Queen Mary Foundation, we have not been contacted.
Although HVAC systems are referred to in the report, there are no recommendations for improving the fire safety on board the Queen Mary. The structural condition of the Queen Mary is also not addressed.
The EIR recognizes the cultural and historic value of the Queen Mary but does not relate this to the ship's innate revenue potential. Many of the development proposals are incongruous with the Queen Mary and with maritime history in general. For instance, the creation of retail areas or restaurants on D-Deck would be destructive to the ship's historic integrity and ambiance.
Appendix to EIR critique:
As in the Grand Tour plan, none of the investors have been named and the development proposals are unsubstantial, irrelevant and even destructive to the Queen Mary.
The original scheme of acreage redevelopment was designed by Ehrenkrantz, Eckstut & Kuhn Architects, Inc. It is disturbing that no one involved in the preliminary studies are expert in marine structures.
It is noteworthy that of all the marine engineers, architects, surveyors, divers and maritime and historic preservation organizations, historians, curators, travel agents, dignitaries and shipbuilding firms we have put Long Beach and Joseph Prevratil in touch with, NOT ONE, has ever been sought for advice. Why?
Why has no structural survey been conducted of the Queen Mary since the Rados Report? Hull surveys, ultra sound testing or routine diving or monitoring of the cathodic protection system are not enough. It is time for a thorough structural survey.
Oversights in the EIR:
The final section of this 3-part chapter explores messages of fear and defiance - reactions to the poor attitude of the City Council towards its citizens.
ITEM A - Phone Message
On Tuesday, May 26, 1998, I received the following message on my answering machine:
Diane, I can’t tell you who this is - but I think you need to be at the city council meeting tonight. I think you’ll find that agenda item number 39 will destroy important records regarding the Queen Mary. Community Development now handles the Queen Mary lease. There’s information that Hankla and Mayor O’Neill do not want made public in that item. You need to ask them what’s going to be destroyed. I hope you can be there tonight and help us all out. Thank you very much, bye.
The council agenda item referred to in this communication was item # 39:
39. Approving and authorizing the destruction of certain records, papers and writings by the Departments of City Manager, Civil Service, Community Development/Housing Authority and Financial Management/Commercial Services. (City Clerk)
So, what documents were destroyed and why?
ITEM B - Maintenance
It is possible that Prevratil now writes his own maintenance schedules for the Queen Mary which are annually approved by the city. I have been told so.
In the past, when I have written to the city with concerns for the Queen Mary, I discover the city turns this correspondence over to its tenant, (RMS Foundation)! The city refers me to its TENANT!
I wrote this letter on May 25, 1998 and copied it to City Manager James Hankla, City Attorney John Calhoun, Special Projects Manager Ron Walker and Press-Telegram columnist, Tom Hennessy:
"I understand that the maintenance plan outlined in the 1993 lease agreement between the City of Long Beach and Joseph Prevratil is now obsolete. The amended lease agreement and maintenance schedule approved in July of 1995 is also apparently defunct.
I also understand that the RMS Foundation, Inc./Joseph Prevratil now drafts his own maintenance plan on an annual basis for city approval.
I am formally requesting a copy of the current maintenance plan/schedule, and all others used since this new procedure was put in place. I am also formally requesting all associated maintenance performance reports since January 1995.
You will recall that the original contract 22697, was deliberately stringent in its maintenance requirements to remedy what was judged to be a lax maintenance program during the Wrather-Port era.
I am sure you understand my concerns.
Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter".
ITEM C - Letter from Mayor Beverly O'Neill
My letter was as follows:
"April 5, 1998
Dear (Mayor O'Neill)
In the interest of Long Beach's greatest treasure, the Queen Mary, I am recommending that the proposal by RMS Foundation for a 66-year lease extension be denied and that provisions of the current lease agreement be properly enforced in the future.
Queen Mary maintenance concerns specified by the Port of Long Beach in 1992 remain unresolved and threaten the structural soundness of the Queen Mary. Decking, public rooms, hotel staterooms, fire protection
systems, plumbing and HVAC systems have not met maintenance standards or deadlines for replacement or restoration as outlined in both the 1992 and 1995 lease agreements. To our knowledge, there were no penalties for these failures.
A full utilization plan of the Queen Mary, including a maritime museum, maintenance schedule and inventory of artifacts was to be presented to the city for approval in August of 1996. This has yet to be submitted.
The historic integrity and value of the ship continues to be eroded by repeated auctions of the ship's archival artifacts.
Causes for RMS' failure to obtain investors during the past five years, include but are not limited to, the following:
2. The fact that the leasehold has been sub-leased, used as collateral and/or mortgaged for short-term cash.
3. Without expressed or implied permission from the city, Joseph F. Prevratil has acted in the capacity of agent for the City of Long Beach by negotiating with foreign governments with respect to the Grand Tour. In the lease agreements between Prevratil and Long Beach, he is named as tenant (or lessee). He does not have the authority to act as a representative or agent of Long Beach.
4. Joseph Prevratil has attempted to abridge individuals' constitutional rights of free speech and to compel those entering business or other contracts with RMS, to waive liberties and protections guaranteed to them under legal statutes. Some of these injustices have been published in the local press.
The second proposal to be brought before the council, is a development plan for the land around the Queen Mary itself. I am in favor of limited and regulated development of property around the ship. Projects under consideration should be compatible and enhance the historic character of the ship.
Structures and landscaping should comply with ecological requirements and not detract from the natural aesthetic appearance of the quayside and must not threaten the peace and safety of visitors to the ship or
hotel.
The consequences of supporting the status quo or in further extending the already long lease to RMS will, in effect, be communicating that the Queen Mary is the private property of Joseph Prevratil. The Queen Mary belongs to the citizens of Long Beach and is envied by others around the world. City officials, charged with the development decisions are stewards of this valuable asset. The City of Long Beach, as owner of the Queen Mary, needs to consider the long-term effects of a lease extension to the current management. Will such a lease extension benefit the City or primarily serve to increase the value of personal equity stakes in the operation?
I, as a concerned citizen and as president of the historic preservation society, the Queen Mary Foundation, urge you to make a conscientious investigation into the points I have presented.
Sincerely,
(Signed)
The Mayor replied as follows:
"Dear Ms. Rush,
Thank you for your letter of April 7, 1998 regarding the Queen Mary. I encourage you to work with Mr. Joseph Prevratil in regards to your concerns for the Queen Mary. It is clear that the Queen Mary has done well over the recent past and will increase its performance when the Aquarium of the Pacific and the entire Queensway Bay Development projects are completed. The City Council is supporting Mr. Joseph Prevratil in his efforts to develop the Queen Mary.
I strongly encourage The Queen Mary Foundation to work collaboratively with the R.M.S. Foundation. Indeed, it is in the best interests of The Queen Mary and Long Beach for all of us to work together to ensure that our City's icon remains prosperous.
Again, thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with me.
Sincerely,
(Signed)
Beverly O'Neill, Mayor"
1. Inability to maintain a working relationship with potential investors and advisors (such as RMS' initial financial backer, Dr. Robert Gumbiner).
These and other practices have created a credibility issue that has and will continue to discourage potential investors. He has alienated maritime preservation organizations and individuals who supported him in 1992 and have, in the past, provided valuable resources.
Diane Rush, President,
Queen Mary Foundation"
ITEM D - Letter to the Editor
Long Beach Press-Telegram published my letter in "Letters to the Editor" on May 14, 1998:
"Nate Brightman, in his recent letter, wrongly equates criticism of Queen Mary operator, Joseph Prevratil, with being "Anti-Queen Mary".
No one could have greater admiration for the Queen Mary and her history than I have yet I think otherwise of Prevratil and his operation. Why?
Prevratil has had five years to demonstrate his "vision" and competence. Look at his track record:
ITEM E - Hankla, Captain of Long Beach?
In May of 1997, this article appeared in the Los Angeles Business Journal calling Long Beach City Manager, James Hankla, "Captain Long Beach". Whether it's Hankla or Prevratil at the helm, it's time to mutiny!
Hankla endorsed Prevratil's ideas and even appears to have brain-stormed with him, "Hankla envisions Long Beach as the sight of a major amusement park and maritime museum".
Hankla was quoted:
"Mr. Prevratil is proposing an attraction called Future Port. It would consist of three components - the port of the future, the port of the past and a number of highly modern attractions, such as virtual reality, as well as a maritime museum and traditional amusement park attractions, like the Cyclone Racer.
One of the big things that differentiates Long Beach from Los Angeles is the entire management structure works for me. That means I can get this organization marching in the same direction at the same time with one phone call".
Reporter, Larry Kanter, asked, "Doesn't that leave the public out of the process?"
"We can have an endless debating society or we can move government forward and accomplish things. There is ample opportunity for the public to be heard. But you can simply have too much talk. You're never going to satisfy the most vocal opponents", said Hankla.
Here, Diane Rush (Turbine Tribune editor) addresses the council.
You may be right Nate, maybe Prevratil IS doing his best to make the Queen Mary a successful attraction. All the more reason to get someone else who can do the job right!"
City Manager's Budget Report:
The Queen Mary Fund's 'Lost and Found'.
Diane Rush
dianerush@compuall.net
Editor of the Turbine Tribune