As the election day deciding the fate of the Malibu Bay Company Development Deal nears, both supporting and opposition groups tear into each other’s statements regarding Measure M.
By Jonathan Friedman/Staff Writer
The controversy surrounding a Measure M (the Malibu Bay Company Development Agreement) opposition group’s argument that will go on the ballot for the Nov. 4 election might be resolved soon, however, several new accusations of campaign dishonesty have arisen from both sides.
Mark Gold, Heal the Bay’s executive director, became enraged last month upon discovering a quotation attributed to Heal the Bay was placed in Malibu Community Action Network’s (CAN) argument against M, suggesting the organization is against the measure. He said Heal the Bay is neutral and the statement was taken out of context from a private e-mail between Gold and CAN member Ozzie Silna. The full e-mail states, “The likelihood of us opposing the DA (development agreement) is slim and supporting the DA is none.” However, CAN only used the latter portion of the e-mail. Gold requested the statement be removed. Heal the Bay discovered the statement was going to be on the ballot before it was printed, and filed a complaint with the city within the legal timeframe. However, neither the group nor the city took any legal action, which is required to have it removed.
Also, Malibu resident Delores Walsh, who originally signed CAN’s argument against M, and later asked that her name be removed, did not take legal action. She has since voiced she is in support of M.
So the statement and Walsh’s name remain part of the argument.
Showdown at City Hall
A showdown took place at the Oct. 13 City Council meeting at which Gold furiously stated his disgust for the situation and CAN President Steve Uhring defended his group’s actions with equal passion. Uhring said the statement was not false and that the e-mail from Gold to Silna was not private.
In addition, a letter was sent from Heal the Bay to CAN attorney Jan Chatten-Brown demanding CAN make a retraction. The two groups have been working to form a statement to clarify Heal the Bay’s neutrality that would appear in next week’s issue of both local papers.
In response to Heal the Bay’s accusations, Uhring said the Measure M proponent group, Yes on Malibu (M), has acted far worse by claiming Planning Commissioner John Sibert as a supporter. His name appears as a supporter on one of the group’s flyers and Councilmember Jeff Jennings named him as a proponent at an Oct. 14 debate in Point Dume. All this was done despite Sibert never having taken a public stance.
“They made it up,” Uhring said. “At least I got a document that says here’s what Heal the Bay said.”
Yes on Malibu member Lloyd Ahern laughed upon hearing Uhring’s statement, calling it preposterous to compare the two situations.
“This is like comparing a misdemeanor jaywalking to a felony assault,” said Ahern, who added that it was an honest mistake for Sibert to be mentioned twice as a supporter.
Mayor Pro Tem Sharon Barovsky told The Malibu Times she had received a call from Councilmember Joan House that Sibert had agreed to support the measure. His name was then placed on the flyer. However, she said he then later decided he wanted to remain neutral. But she had already placed his name among the supporters on about 200 flyers that had already been sent out. However she said his name has been removed and has not appeared on any campaign literature since then.
“We regret the error,” she said. “But we do not want to claim somebody as being for our argument who is not, unlike the opposition.”
Sibert had flown on a business trip to China since Barovsky’s statement, so he could not be reached to confirm its validity.
However, Jennings said Sibert sent him an e-mail in which he wrote he plans to avoid a public statement, but he would be voting for the agreement. Sibert said Jennings misinterpreted the e-mail.
“I said, ‘I am inclined to vote for the agreement,'” Sibert said. ” And I wish he wouldn’t have said anything about it.”
Another accusation made by CAN is that Measure M supporters are afraid to debate. A debate was scheduled last Thursday at Serra Retreat, but only a few proponents attended. Some asked questions during what became an anti-Measure M forum. Uhring and other Measure M opponents said this proved the Measure M proponents were not prepared to challenge the opposition.
However, Ahern said the reason for he and other supporters not showing up to debate was because they will not attend anything that is videotaped by CAN member Bob Purvey. Purvey has taped previous CAN functions, and Ahern said he edits to skew the final product in CAN’s favor prior to the final product appearing on television. Somebody did tape the Serra Retreat event, although it was not Purvey. At least two debates are scheduled for this week, and proponents are expected to be at them.
Where’s the money?
A final controversy involves CAN’s financial disclosure statement, released on Oct. 13. Turned in more than two weeks after the deadline, it does not disclose how much the group has raised and says it has spent $3,000 for the year up to Sept. 20. Yes on M Treasurer Les Moss said the statement is unacceptable.
“They apparently are operating on the basis of osmosis,” he said. “They spent $3,000, they claim… but nobody gave them any money. They are blatantly in violation of the FPPC (Fair Political Practices Commission) regulations.”
Moss further added he finds it impossible to believe CAN has only spent that amount of money for the calendar year. However, CAN only listed its spending since Sept. 12. Moss said that is also unfair, since the group has existed since October 2002.
Uhring, who admits the group was wrong for missing the Sept. 25 deadline, said he does not know why CAN did not disclose how much it has raised. But he said CAN, although it spent money, did not use any for the campaign prior to Sept. 12.