Barovsky case closed


The Impartial Analysis, the only other writing that appeared in the April 2000 election regarding term limits, eliminated all ambiguity as to what the citizens of Malibu were voting for. “A council member who is elected or appointed to serve less than four years of a term will only be eligible to serve one other term.” It couldn’t be any clearer and that condition exactly describes Sharon Barovsky’s situation.

Whether that was, or was not, the intent of the City Council or whether the interim city attorney or staff had screwed up should not be relevant to the current city attorney. The outcome of the vote of the citizens of Malibu is the only thing that should be relevant.

Since 64 percent of the voters voted to limit the terms as described in the ballot writings, the city attorney should have represented their will and not spent city funds defending Barovsky’s desire to extend her term beyond law with another Christi Hogan boondoggle.

All she should have done was to notify the city clerk that Barovsky was termed out.

Ozzie Siln