The request comes after a group filed a lawsuit asking that candidate Sharon Barovsky be declared ineligible to run in the election. If she is ruled ineligible, the city attorney wants others to be able to run.
By Jonathan Friedman / Assistant Editor
City Attorney Christi Hogin has requested that if a Los Angeles Superior Court judge rules Councilmember Sharon Barovsky ineligible to run in this year’s City Council election, the nomination period be reopened for five days so others can enter the race.
Hogin’s reasoning was that city law requires a five-day extension for people to enter the race past the nomination deadline if an incumbent chooses not to run. Frederic D. Woocher, the attorney representing a group of residents suing to remove Barovsky from the race, said there is no legal justification for Hogin’s request.
A group of residents led by former Planning Commissioner Richard Carrigan filed a lawsuit last month charging that Barovsky is not an eligible candidate because she would be running for a third term. A city law based on a measure approved by Malibu voters in 2000 limits council members to two four-year terms. Barovsky served a partial term from 2000 to 2002, and will complete her first full term in April. But the anti-Barovsky group says the measure approved by voters limited council members to two terms, regardless of whether the entire four years of the terms are served.
Although Hogin said Barovsky is a qualified candidate, she wrote in her brief to the court, “Petitioners waited until after the close of the nomination period to raise any question of her eligibility to run. Had Councilmember Barovsky not filed her papers, the nomination period would have been extended five day… In fairness to those who may have filed had they known the incumbent was not running… the court should order the nomination period re-opened.”
Woocher responded to Hogin’s request in his reply brief that was sent to the court. He wrote that Superior Court Judge Dzintra Janavs had no authority to honor Hogin’s request and that there was no law that gave her the ability to do so.
“There are several candidates who have qualified to run for the two council seats that are up for election on April 11, 2006, and there is no reason-and no legal justification-to reopen the filing period for those races,” Woocher wrote.
Hogin said in an interview this week that although there might not be a law that allows the court to do what she has asked, she said Janavs could declare the nomination period be reopened anyway because “the court generally has the authority to fashion a remedy that would give a just result.”
The controversy surrounding Barovsky’s candidacy centers on an impartial analysis written by then-interim City Attorney Richard Terzian of the term-limits measure that voters approved in 2000. The analysis appeared on the ballot and said that a partial term counts as a full term. The actual proposal presented to the voters said council members would be limited to two terms, without specifying any length for the terms. However, the city code states that council members are limited to two four-year terms and makes no reference to partial terms.
Janavs will hear oral arguments on the suit Friday at 9:30 a.m. at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles. She is expected to make a ruling on that day. A decision is urgently needed because the ballot must be printed by Feb. 10, and it will need to be known if Barovsky’s name should appear on it.
Also this week, the candidates met for the first time in the same room. On Tuesday, after The Malibu Times went to print, the five council candidates had an informational session with Robert Stern, who has been hired by the city to serve as the ethics consultant during the campaign.
Besides Barovsky, the other candidates running in this year’s race for the two seats up for grabs are Mayor Andy Stern, Public Safety Commissioner Ryan Embree, Chamber of Commerce Board member Ed Gillespie and activist John Mazza.
There will also be a measure on the ballot in April asking voters if they want to increase the maximum number of terms a council member can serve from two to three. Arguments for and against the measure that will appear on the ballot were submitted to last month. Rebuttals to those arguments, which will also appear on the ballot, must be turned into City Hall this week.
Look for coverage of the Barovsky lawsuit decision ballot measure rebuttal arguments, the candidate informational session at www.malibutimes.com.