Malibu citizens were sadly divided on the poorly negotiated and ambiguous Measure M that Mayor Kearsley aptly described as “misunderstood” (although not by the voting majority). The City Council immediately initiated an equally embarrassing act by gutting the Planning Commission on December 15. This letter will bring closure to this issue for me.
The commission’s goal on Dec. 1 was to place on its agenda a discussion of how a citizen can address a land use grievance, regardless of timing. It had nothing to do with permit revocation, something I would never support. If our process was flawed, it was because we received no Brown Act guidance or direction from the assistant city attorney who also actively participated in crafting the discussion item’s language. The videotape makes this quite clear.
The authors of the Brown Act knew how easy and often government officials could stray into “Brown territory.” This is why the Act allows correcting any mistake so easy and liberal. After consulting with California’s most respected municipal legal scholars, state commissioners, and other city officials, all of whom have watched the Dec. 1 tape, without exception they concluded there was no Brown Act issue and the city was never in any “jeopardy.” One expert stated, “If the action taken by your city council was appropriate, there would be no functioning municipal governments anywhere in California.”
In early December, the political rancor over Measure M continued. Andy Stern had already floated a name for my replacement after I wrote a letter to the papers about Measure M, and the Dec. 15 action was nothing more than a continuation of the politically transparent Council anger. Even many of the Council’s longtime supporters were, and continue to be, privately outraged at their action.
Mayor Kearsley noted that volunteers make this city function and that we owe a lot to them. As a volunteer, I spent hundreds of hours reading documents and trying to understand a myriad of complex land use principles. My decisions were always guided by my conscience and the law. But there was no thank you, just a one-way phone call with an hour notice to be fired or to resign. The latter was ethically unacceptable. Personally, Andy needs to know that I was insulted and hurt. This was no way to treat a volunteer, let alone a friend.
Robert Adler
Former Chairman, Planning Commission