The critics say the city attorney should not have gotten involved in the suit in which plaintiffs claimed that incumbent Sharon Barovsky was ineligible to run for another council term.
By Jonathan Friedman / Assistant Editor
Several people verbally attacked City Attorney Christi Hogin at Monday’s City Council meeting because of her role in defending the city’s right to place Councilmember Sharon Barovsky’s name on the ballot for this year’s council election. They said it was inappropriate for Hogin to be involved in the case because she was not representing the city’s interest, but rather Barovsky’s. All the council members defended Hogin.
After Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Dzintra Janavs ruled Feb. 3 that the city’s term limits law prohibited Barovsky from running for another term, Hogin appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal without consulting the City Council. A three-judge panel later ruled in Hogin’s favor.
“Is this the standard operating procedure of this City Council-not to vote to direct the city attorney to file the appeal?” asked Lawrence Weisdorn, who lives in Malibu but does not vote because he is not an American citizen. “If so, this is a clear violation of the City Council’s legal duty to oversee all operations of the Malibu city government, and a clear conflict of interest by the city attorney in that she’s in effect deciding when to pay her own law firm for appellate work under the terms of her city contract with Jenkins and Hogin [Hogin’s law firm].”
Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich later read the city code’s definition of the city attorney. It does not specify that the attorney be required to wait for council instruction before making a legal decision. Hogin said she decided to file the appeal on her own because there was not a council meeting scheduled between the day that Janavs ruled Barovsky was not an eligible candidate and Feb. 10, when the ballot was scheduled to be printed.
Other public speakers questioned whether taxpayer money should be used to fund Hogin’s defense on the suit. They suggested Barovsky should pay for it because the suit was about her and not the city.
“King Louis XIV once said, ‘I am the state,'” said attorney Frank Angel, as he addressed Barovsky. “Is it your position that you are the city? Is it your position that what is good for you is good for the city and what is bad for you is bad for the city?”
Although most of the speakers were in opposition to Hogin and Barovsky, some spoke in their favor. Activist Lloyd Ahern said the opponents were displaying their “political tone deafness” by complaining about Hogin defending a suit that they had brought.
“It’s a simple case of Christi Hogin and [City Clerk] Lisa Pope were sued by these people,” Ahern said. “She [Hogin] went out and defended the city in a very timely matter. She won. It’s like the Menendez brothers saying, ‘You’ve got to feel sorry for us, we’re orphans.'”
Mayor Pro Tem Ken Kearsley said the council opponents were discussing a “phony baloney, political-babble issue.”
“This is a fake issue… it is a generated issue because they know Mrs. Barovsky is not going to defend personal attacks,” Kearsley said. “She is going to run on the issues. And so, they have no issues… what it becomes is politics.”
Former Planning Commissioner Richard Carrigan, who leads the group that filed the suit, said on Tuesday, “Ken Kearsley has had negative things to say about anyone who criticizes the council over the last two years. I don’t know what’s happened to him, but I’m not surprised by his comment.”
Several gasps were heard from the audience on Monday when Malibu Park resident Marshall Thompson compared Barovsky’s appointment to the City Council in 2000 following her husband’s death to Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos’ joint dictatorship of the Philippines.
“There should be no right to inheritance for a publicly elected job,” Thompson said. “We established this democracy so that we would not have divine right of kings or something like that.”
Barovsky did not respond to Thompson directly, but during the council comments, she said, “If you want to go after me, that’s fine. But you leave my husband alone and you leave my husband’s name alone.”
DeButts appeal denied; Point Dume residents concerned about Safe Routes trails program
At Monday’s meeting, the council voted 5-0 to reject council candidate John Mazza’s request for the Planning Commission to hold a hearing on a permit application for the construction of a second-story addition to a home on DeButts Terrace. The planning manager had already approved the application. But Mazza unsuccessfully argued that the Local Coast Program required the project be given more scrutiny because it was located near a ridgeline.
Former Planning Manager Mike Teruya did not challenge Mazza’s interpretation of the law when he first voiced his concern in April. But Teruya said the application was for “a very small” project and would not affect the surrounding area, so he believed further review of the project was unnecessary.
Also at the meeting, the council instructed Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich to research information for the possibility of creating an ordinance that would limit retail stores coming into Malibu. However, not all the council members were enthused about the idea of approving such an ordinance.
Additionally, several Point Dume residents came to the meeting to express concerns about the planned Safe Routes to Schools program. The program includes the creation of trails in Point Dume that children can use to walk to school. More public meetings will take place before construction of the trails will begin.