Banners not being banned at schools

Advertising banners will still be allowed on the Laguna Beach High School baseball field, but in lesser quantity and in a different orientation than before.

A hotly contested debate over the district’s advertising policy came to a close Tuesday with a compromise by the Laguna Beach Board of Education, but some neighbors of the high school are still unhappy.

Baseball boosters use the banners to raise money for the school’s baseball program by carrying commercial advertising from local businesses.

Neighbors complain that the banners are unsightly and block their views; school boosters say they need the revenues generated by the banners to purchase equipment for the student athletes.

The district provides funds to cover basic needs, like transportation, uniforms and balls, but booster organizations typically provide extras — like updated equipment and off-season coaching — through advertising.

The deliberations ended in the board’s revamping the district’s general advertising policy for all facilities and grounds.

The changes to the general policy included narrowing the window of time that advertisements can be put up, and creating additional requirements for the advertising itself.

Rather than a 12-month term for a sign and a 30-day term for a banner, the policy now requires advertisers to only advertise from three days prior to an event or season to one day beyond the conclusion of the event or season.

Exemptions for events such as the Boo Blast and Lifelong Fitness Fair, both at El Morro Elementary School, may be made by the district superintendent or designee as needed.

School Board President Betsy Jenkins opened the discussion by saying that overhauling the policy would make it easier to apply on a case-by-case basis.

“What we intend by this policy is to make it broad and general enough,” Jenkins said.

Other new terms stipulate that the advertisements must support a school-related event, activity or season, must be “clearly in the best interests of students,” be discreetly placed and not have a negative impact on the community or immediate neighborhood, and be a size determined by the district to be unobtrusive and appropriate for the location.

The revisions were unanimously approved after a short discussion with no comment from visitors.

The issue then turned to whether banners should be placed on the high school baseball field, which the board allowed on a 4-1 vote.

“I am blatantly opposed to any commercial banners on this sports complex,” said Board Clerk El Hathaway, the only “no” vote on the issue. “The question before the board is larger than the banners.”

Hathaway said the district needed to find out how much money was needed by athletic programs, and work to meet the needs without resorting to commercial advertising.

“This school year, an effort was made for the principal and athletic director to poll the coaches,” he said. They were asked to come back with the costs necessary to provide every athletic program with the fundamentals.

Hathaway said that the “door is open” regarding those who wish to request more money from the district, but board member Ketta Brown questioned how such funds would, in practice, be accessible to the sports teams.

Hathaway cited an effort by football parents to raise money for new, safer helmets, noting that the parents paid the differential between the standard helmet cost and the newer helmets. “I think it’s wrong that the parents had to pay for it,” he said.

Hathaway also argued that the topography around the high school means that hundreds of neighbors either look down upon or at the banners, rather than unobstructed ocean views.

“I think we have a major responsibility to protect the view window,” Hathaway said. “To introduce banners into that environment just to raise six to nine thousand dollars, I think, is blatantly wrong. I think there’s a much better solution to that kind of thing.”

Leo Arena, who lives near the field, later complimented Hathaway on his stance. “I love this guy—we’re engaged, I think,” he quipped.

Board member Jan Vickers, who does not live near the high school, said that the banners don’t offend her, especially during a particular sport’s season.

She then called for more of an effort to differentiate wants versus needs by the teams.

“The culture has changed,” she said, describing the increasing importance of both pre- and post-season play.

She also described an environment in which if a competitor has a certain piece of new equipment, other schools immediately feel they need it as well.

Board member Ketta Brown echoed Vickers, saying that she didn’t see any way around fundraising for teams.

“I’m hoping to look at the policy on advertising and make it compatible with the district’s mission and values,” said board member Theresa O’Hare.

Describing herself as the “queen of fundraisers,” O’Hare said she is well aware of what the money means to the sports teams.

“I am not opposed to some banners going up,” she said, so long as they meet all of the policy guidelines.

Jenkins then proposed a compromise on the baseball field banners: fewer banners in total, from 32 down to 24; and new locations — some would be left of center field, in a single tier six inches from the ground.

The remainder would go at an entrance near the track that she said is relatively concealed from neighbors’ views.

High school neighbor Richard Doidge said that he could tell based on the initial board member comments that the vote was going to be 4-1, and encouraged the board members to live in his house for however long it took for them to understand his plight.

Jamie Crawford, another neighbor, said that when the field was built, they were promised by Hathaway that there would be no banners.

“We’re putting our home on the market and leaving Laguna after 34 years,” Crawford said tearfully.

Crawford’s husband Stephen said he agreed that the new fields look attractive, but was disappointed by how little opportunity the residents were given to discuss the design and height of the fences.

“It was like adding insult to injury when those poles went up,” Jamie Crawford said.

Stephen Crawford, who said two baseballs have hit his Volvo, with no follow-up made from the coaches, asked who would enforce the banners’ removal at the end of the season.

“Where do all these promises stop and when does some action start?” he asked.

Baseball Boosters President Wendy Pierce promised that the boosters would take responsibility for taking the banners down the day after the end of the season.

“What I tried to reach here was a sense of compromise,” Jenkins said, before requesting a motion to allow the baseball banners on the field, subject to the policy provisions.

All but Hathaway approved the motion.

“I hope you can be reasonably happy,” Jenkins said to the audience.

“We’re not,” said Doidge.