Robles, Sandra
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Isaiah Ma
Friday, November 14, 2025 11:37 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Fwd: Open Letter Regarding Procedural Failures and Litigation Misjudgment in the UCLA/Rose Bowl Matter
Ma-Open Letter to Council-Misguided Litigation Strategy.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email fromLearn why thjsjs important [ ,1 ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.
-——— Forwarded message ———
From: Marc Ma
Date: Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 6:14 PM
Subject: Open Letter Regarding Procedural Failures and Litigation Misjudgment in the UCLA/Rose Bowl Matter
To: Victor Gordo <[email protected]>. <[email protected]>, <smadison(a)cityofpasadena.net>. <[email protected]>, <Th-lampton(a)cityofpasadena.net>. <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Michele Bagneris <mbagneris(a)cityofpasadena.net>, Frankie GudieL <[email protected]>, <cityclerk(a)cityofpasadena.net> Honorable Mayor Gordo, Councilmembers, and Executive Leadership, I am transmitting the attached open letter regarding the City's recent litigation strategy against UCLA and the Rose Bowl. Given the Superior Court's denial of the requested TRO, and the broader concerns now emerging around procedural judgment, fiscal stewardship, and transparency, I believe it is essential that the Council be fully aware of the risks and patterns outlined in the document.
My intention is not adversarial. It is civic. Pasadena residents rely on the Council to exercise disciplined oversight, adhere to statutory thresholds, and ensure that our institutions act with prudence and clarity—particularly when litigation, public funds, and long-standing regional partnerships are implicated. The issues raised in the letter reflect a growing concern among residents that recent actions have deviated from those standards.
I respectfully request that the Council review the attached material, address the questions presented, and provide a public explanation of the processes that led to this course of action. Pasadena's reputation, fiscal health, and institutional credibility depend upon 1 11/17/2025
Item A
transparent and well-reasoned governance, especially in moments when public confidence has already been strained.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your service to our community. I remain available should you require clarification regarding any portion of the attached record.
Respectfully,
Marc I. Ma
Pasadena Resident
a
Marc I. Ma
Public Integrity Analyst
B
Marc I. Ma
Public Integrity Analyst
2 Marc I. Ma
Public Integrity Analyst
278 E Colorado Blvd Ste 1626, Pasadena, CA
91101 626-235-3381
OPEN LETTER TO THE PASADENA CITY COUNCIL
Re: Public Outcry Over Misguided Litigation Strateev Against UCLA and the Rose Bowl Honorable Members of the Pasadena City Council,
I write today out of deep concern and civic obligation following Los Angeles County Superior Court's denial of the City's request for a temporary restraining order against UCLA— a request the Court found unsupported by any true emergency and procedurally insufficient to justify extraordinary relief. The implications of this denial extend far beyond a single hearing. They reflect a troubling pattern of reactive, adversarial governance that carries significant financial, reputational, and institutional consequences for the City of Pasadena and its residents.
A Preemptive Lawsuit Without a Public Crisis
The City's decision to initiate litigation against UCLA — based on speculative assumptions, closed-door interpretations, and an absence of confirmed action by the University — constitutes a profound miscalculation. UCLA has made no public statement indicating its intention to breach its lease. Yet the City elected to escalate directly to emergency litigation, invoking a public narrative of "irreparable harm" absent any verifiable or imminent threat.
This is not stewardship. It is panic dressed as policy.
A Wasteful Use of Public Dollars During a Period of Municipal Strain Pasadena residents, including myself, are currently documenting widespread procedural strain across multiple municipal departments — CPRA noncompliance, administrative lapses, miscommunication between departments, and chronic delays that undermine public trust.
Against this backdrop, the City has now committed itself to a high-cost litigation path:
Retaining outside counsel
Preparing for discovery
Pursuing preliminary and permanent injunctions
Consuming court time and municipal resources
Engaging in accelerated motion practice
•
Marc I. Ma
Public Integrity Analyst
278 E Colorado Blvd Ste 1626, Pasadena, CA
91101 626-235-3381
All for a dispute that the Court determined was not urgent, not factually substantiated, and not ripe for emergency intervention.
Pasadena taxpayers deserve better than strategic improvisation funded with public money.
Threatening a Historic Partnership Instead of Strengthening It The City's combative posture jeopardizes what has long been one of Pasadena's most valuable institutional relationships. The Rose Bowl is not simply a venue; it is a civic inheritance, its legacy intertwined with UCLA'S presence for decades.
The City's decision to deploy litigation — without exhaustive negotiation, transparent public discussion, or confirmation of any wrongdoing — risks inflicting lasting damage on:
Pasadena's regional reputation
The Rose Bowl's long-term viability
UCLA'S willingness to engage collaboratively
Future shared economic and cultural endeavors
No public benefit is gained from weakening the very partnerships that sustain our city's identity and economy.
A Pattern of Procedural Misjudgment With Growing Consequences This litigation failure is not an isolated incident. It mirrors a broader pattern of poorly executed administrative decisions within the City:
•
•
•
•
CPRA requests receiving unlawful or incomplete responses Tracking numbers inconsistently assigned or not assigned at all Determinations lacking statutory elements
Departments issuing contradictory or procedurally defective responses Complaint intake systems failing to follow state-mandated protocol Marc I. Ma
Public Integrity Analyst
278 E Colorado Blvd Ste 1626, Pasadena, CA
91101 626-235-3381
The City's approach to the UCLA matter — reactive, opaque, and insufficiently grounded in fact — follows the same trajectory that has now led to heightened resident concern and formal notices of municipal strain.
A Call for Transparency, Prudence, and Corrective Governance Pasadena needs disciplined, forward-thinking leadership — not reflexive litigation based on speculation. Before pursuing further injunctions or discovery, the Council must publicly address:
1. Why emergency litigation was initiated without a confirmed breach
2. How much taxpayer money has already been spent on outside counsel
3. What oversight processes failed before this action was taken
4. Whether UCLA was meaningfully consulted before the lawsuit
5. How the City plans to repair the reputational damage now done The residents of Pasadena deserve governance anchored in reason, not fear; in partnership, not antagonism; in transparency, not expedience.
Conclusion
The Court's denial of the TRO is not merely a procedural failure — it is a signal. Pasadena cannot continue along a path defined by opacity, premature escalation, and disregard for due process. If the City continues to litigate without grounding, residents and institutions alike will bear the cost.
I urge the Council to halt this posture, reassess its strategy, and recommit to responsible, transparent, and community-aligned governance.
Respectfully,
MARC I. MA
Pasadena Resident