The activist who tried to remove Councilmember Sharon Barovsky from the 2006 City Council election said the appellate court’s decision was poorly written and poorly thought-out.
By Jonathan Friedman / Assistant Editor
In a 2-1 decision, an appellate court ruled last Wednesday that Councilmember Sharon Barovsky is an eligible candidate for this year’s City Council race. The ruling by the three-judge panel from the Court of Appeal’s 2nd District overturns Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Dzintra Janavs’ decision that Barovsky could not run.
In the majority decision written by presiding Justice Paul Turner, the court rejected a citizens group’s argument that Barovsky would be running for an illegal third term.
“She [Barovsky] was elected to serve a remaining 17-month term, from November 2000 to April 2002, pursuant to a special election,” Turner wrote. “Ms. Barovsky was elected to serve one four-year term, from April 2002 to April 2006. Because she has been elected to date to serve only one four-year term, she is eligible, under [the] Malibu municipal code to [run for] a second four-year term.”
The citizens group’s lawyer, Frederic D. Woocher, had argued that the term limits law was ambiguous. He further argued that because of the ambiguity, one must look for clarity from the impartial analysis written by then-interim City Attorney Richard Terzian that appeared on the ballot in 2000 when voters approved term limits. It stated that a partial term counts as a full term. The appellate court did not address this issue in its decision.
However, in the dissenting opinion, Justice Richard M. Mosk wrote that because of the impartial analysis, one must assume it was the voters’ intent that a partial term be counted as a full term.
“I believe we must here follow the voters’ intent in enacting the [term-limits] ordinance,” Mosk wrote.
Former Planning Commissioner Richard Carrigan, who heads the group that is challenging Barovsky’s candidacy, said he would have to speak with Woocher further before deciding whether to petition the state Supreme Court to hear the case.
“We believe in the correctness of our decision,” said Carrigan, who optimistically pointed to the fact that two out of four judicial officers have ruled in his favor. Even if the Supreme Court were to agree to hear the case, Barovsky’s name could not be removed from the ballot because it was printed last week. However, a Supreme Court decision to hear the case, followed by a ruling in the citizens group’s favor, would mean Barovsky would be removed from office if elected.
Carrigan added that he felt Turner’s decision was “poorly written and very poorly thought-out.”
The appellate panel agreed the afternoon of Feb. 6 to hear the case after receiving a petition from City Attorney Christi Hogin that morning requesting the appellate process be accelerated because the ballot needed to be printed at the end of the week. That process usually takes more than a year
“I was impressed with the ability of the court system to respond and set this situation right before it was too late,” Hogin wrote in an e-mail to The Malibu Times The right to run for public office, as the court pointed out, is a fundamental and important right of citizenship. It should only be limited when a valid law has clearly done so.”
There are five candidates running for two council seats in this year’s election. The other candidates are Mayor Andy Stern, Ryan Embree, Ed Gillespie and John Mazza. Election Day is April 11.
There will also be a measure on the ballot asking voters if they want to increase the maximum number of terms a council member can serve from two to three.