“DAMN YANKEES” in a excellent revival at the Rose Center Theater in Westminster in 2017 (RCT photo).
By Jim Tortolano
Orange County Tribune
After nearly two hours of discussion and questions, the Westminster City Council on Wednesday night voted to direct city staff to begin negotiations with TLC Inc. to assume operation of the Rose Center Theater complex.
The vote was 4-1 with Vice Mayor Carlos Manzo dissenting.
In the rankings submitted to the council by a staff committee, the top-rated proposer was the Latin-Asian Hospitality Group (of Campbell, California), whose score of 43 was nearly twice as high of those of Friends of the Rose Theater (the current operator), TLC and Coffee Whipped.
Manzo termed the process of choosing a new operator “a dog and pony show,” adding “You are throwing away the advice of the experts.”
But the rest of the council disagreed with him on the choice for converting the theater, meeting space and more to a “multi-cultural center” that better “reflected the community.”
Councilmember Amy Phan West was especially impressed by TLC’s stated willingness to put up $500,000 toward the arrangement. “This is the business model that I really like,” she said.
The Rose Center has a 416-seat theater and banquet facility located in the Civic Center area. Ground-breaking for the center was in April 2001 with the official grand-opening on July 21, 2006.
Categories: Westminster
The Community Spoke. Did the Council Listen?
After watching the Westminster City Council meeting regarding the future of the Rose Center Theater, I was left with one overriding question: Was the community’s input ever seriously considered, or had the decision already been made before the public was given its opportunity to speak?
The community showed up in force to advocate for the Friends of the Rose Center Theater. Residents shared personal experiences. Supporters presented analysis and thoughtful arguments. Even students came forward to explain what the Rose has meant to them and the impact it has had on their lives.Yet, watching the proceedings, it was difficult not to feel that much of that testimony fell on deaf ears.
If the Council had already made up its mind, then why put residents through the exercise of spending their time preparing presentations, attending meetings, and standing before their elected representatives? Public participation should be more than a procedural requirement to check a box.
Councilmember Carlos Manzo deserves recognition for asking difficult questions and attempting to get his colleagues to slow down and seriously reconsider what they were about to do. His frustration was understandable. Unfortunately, it appeared that the majority had little interest in revisiting the decision.
In the end, the Council selected a group that presented a business model and offered to put up $500,000. Certainly, $500,000 is significant. But is the highest financial commitment automatically the best choice for the Rose Center Theater and the residents of Westminster? That is the question the Council needed to answer convincingly.
There are also legitimate questions about the selected operator’s experience. Publicly available business records indicate that TLC Group LLC was established on August 13, 2026. If that information is accurate, the Council should have thoroughly examined the company’s operating history, experience, financial capacity, and ability to successfully manage a facility of this importance.
There are also questions circulating about potential relationships between individuals associated with TLC and the Mayor’s family. I am not alleging wrongdoing, and those questions should not be treated as proof of anything. But when a public asset is involved, transparency is not optional. If relationships exist that could reasonably raise questions about impartiality, the public deserves a clear explanation.
The Staff Report also deserves serious scrutiny. To me, it did not provide the level of transparency I would expect from a process involving such an important community asset. Was the scoring process truly fair, balanced, and objective? The public deserves to know exactly how each proposal was evaluated and how the final recommendation was reached.
I also understand that the presenter was approximately 40 minutes late to the meeting, which reportedly caused frustration and further delayed the proceedings. If accurate, that is difficult to characterize as a professional presentation for something being used to help determine the future of a major city asset. Combined with the technical difficulties, slides presented out of order, and lengthy pauses, it raises legitimate questions about the overall quality and preparedness of the process.
These aren’t unreasonable questions. They’re basic questions of public accountability.
The presentation of the study was also troubling. Technical difficulties, slides presented out of order, and lengthy pauses did not inspire confidence in a process that was supposedly providing the Council with the information necessary to make a major long-term decision.
Perhaps my standards are too high. But when the future of the Rose Center Theater is at stake, I don’t think expecting a thorough, objective, transparent, and professional evaluation is asking too much.
The Mayor stated that part of his responsibility is to generate revenue for the City. I understand that. But the Rose Center Theater is not simply another line item on a spreadsheet. It is a community asset. Its value cannot be measured solely by how much money it can generate.
If the new operator succeeds, I will gladly acknowledge it. I hope they succeed spectacularly. I hope the theater thrives, generates significant revenue, provides opportunities for our community, and remains a place where students, performers, families, and residents can come together.But success in the future does not erase questions about the decision-making process today.
Westminster residents deserve to know that when they speak, their elected officials are actually listening. They deserve to know that major decisions involving public assets are made through a fair, transparent, and objective process—not simply presented to the public after the outcome appears to have already been determined.
Elections are ultimately about accountability. I hope the residents of Westminster remember this process when November comes. They should pay attention to who listened to the community, who asked the difficult questions, who demanded transparency, and who simply went along with the majority.
And I want to personally thank Councilmember Carlos Manzo for having the courage to question the process and advocate for what he believed was right for the Rose Center Theater and the community.
The community spoke. Now the voters get to decide whether the Council listened.
The contract was NOT awarded to TLC Inc, the Major and City Council (4-1, Carlos voted No) only voted to authorize city staff to open negotiations with TLC.
Further, there are many questions surrounding TLC Inc. who is not nearly experienced as the Friends of the Rose. More to follow…
The Community Spoke. Did the Council Listen?
After watching the Westminster City Council meeting regarding the future of the Rose Center Theater, I was left with one overriding question: Was the community’s input ever seriously considered, or had the decision already been made before the public was given its opportunity to speak?
The community showed up in force to advocate for the Friends of the Rose Center Theater. Residents shared personal experiences. Supporters presented analysis and thoughtful arguments. Even students came forward to explain what the Rose has meant to them and the impact it has had on their lives.
Yet, watching the proceedings, it was difficult not to feel that much of that testimony fell on deaf ears.
If the Council had already made up its mind, then why put residents through the exercise of spending their time preparing presentations, attending meetings, and standing before their elected representatives? Public participation should be more than a procedural requirement to check a box.
Councilmember Carlos Manzo deserves recognition for asking difficult questions and attempting to get his colleagues to slow down and seriously reconsider what they were about to do. His frustration was understandable. Unfortunately, it appeared that the majority had little interest in revisiting the decision.
In the end, the Council selected a group that presented a business model and offered to put up $500,000. Certainly, $500,000 is significant. But is the highest financial commitment automatically the best choice for the Rose Center Theater and the residents of Westminster? That is the question the Council needed to answer convincingly.
There are also legitimate questions about the selected operator’s experience. Publicly available business records indicate that TLC Group LLC was established on August 13, 2026. If that information is accurate, the Council should have thoroughly examined the company’s operating history, experience, financial capacity, and ability to successfully manage a facility of this importance.
There are also questions circulating about potential relationships between individuals associated with TLC and the Mayor’s family. I am not alleging wrongdoing, and those questions should not be treated as proof of anything. But when a public asset is involved, transparency is not optional. If relationships exist that could reasonably raise questions about impartiality, the public deserves a clear explanation.
The Staff Report also deserves serious scrutiny. To me, it did not provide the level of transparency I would expect from a process involving such an important community asset. Was the scoring process truly fair, balanced, and objective?The public deserves to know exactly how each proposal was evaluated and how the final recommendation was reached.
I also understand that the presenter was approximately 40 minutes late to the meeting, which reportedly caused frustration and further delayed the proceedings. If accurate, that is difficult to characterize as a professional presentation for something being used to help determine the future of a major city asset. Combined with the technical difficulties, slides presented out of order, and lengthy pauses, it raises legitimate questions about the overall quality and preparedness of the process.
These aren’t unreasonable questions. They’re basic questions of public accountability.
The presentation of the study was also troubling. Technical difficulties, slides presented out of order, and lengthy pauses did not inspire confidence in a process that was supposedly providing the Council with the information necessary to make a major long-term decision.
Perhaps my standards are too high. But when the future of the Rose Center Theater is at stake, I don’t think expecting a thorough, objective, transparent, and professional evaluation is asking too much.
The Mayor stated that part of his responsibility is to generate revenue for the City. I understand that. But the Rose Center Theater is not simply another line item on a spreadsheet. It is a community asset. Its value cannot be measured solely by how much money it can generate.
If the new operator succeeds, I will gladly acknowledge it. I hope they succeed spectacularly. I hope the theater thrives, generates significant revenue, provides opportunities for our community, and remains a place where students, performers, families, and residents can come together.
But success in the future does not erase questions about the decision-making process today.
Westminster residents deserve to know that when they speak, their elected officials are actually listening. They deserve to know that major decisions involving public assets are made through a fair, transparent, and objective process—not simply presented to the public after the outcome appears to have already been determined.
Elections are ultimately about accountability.
I hope the residents of Westminster remember this process when November comes. They should pay attention to who listened to the community, who asked the difficult questions, who demanded transparency, and who simply went along with the majority.
And I want to personally thank Councilmember Carlos Manzo for having the courage to question the process and advocate for what he believed was right for the Rose Center Theater and the community.
The community spoke. Now the voters get to decide whether the Council listened.