Recently, some of your editorials have been printed on the first page under the title, a “reporters opinion.” In my experience, this is generally where actual news appears in other papers. Clearly, you are not just a “reporter,” but an editor-owner with a financial investment. Your “opinion” is sometimes incorrect at the basic factual level.

For instance, in both of your “news” stories and your “opinions,” you refer to “the action against Gil Segel by the state Fair Political Practices Committee (May 27) and the “FPPC v. Gil Segel and a group known as the ‘Malibu Citizens for Less Traffic on PCH’.” This statement was misrepresented in several editions of your paper. Arnold, there is no such action. To the contrary, it is Gil Segel and the Malibu Citizens who are the plaintiffs suing the F.P.P.C., not the other way around. The correct title of this suit is of course, “Malibu Citizens for Less Traffic on Pacific Coast Highway and Gilbert Segel v. Fair Political Practices Commission of the State of California.”

I would prefer to believe, Arnold, that these are just examples of repeated, honest mistakes. However, given that you are an attorney, a member of the Malibu Bar Association, and in addition, have copies of all of the court papers, your erroneous representations are not just simple mistakes. I leave it to you and to your readers to evaluate the degree of fairness or bias in The Malibu Times, its editor-owner and the “reporter” who writes his “opinion.”

I request that you print retractions of the misleading references and that you correctly refer to this lawsuit in the future.

Gilbert N. Segel

Editor’s note: The state Fair Political Practices Commission brought an action against Segel and the “Citizens Committee” for violation of state law relating to election campaigns. Then, Segel and the Citizens Committee brought an action in Superior Court to attempt to block the discovery requested by the FPPC, which Segel and the committee lost and which is now on appeal.

On a regular basis I drive all over Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Ventura counties. Occasionally I take the time to stop in various grocery markets for food items, while I am on the road. Recently, I stopped in the new Ralphs market at Olympic and Cloverfield in Santa Monica. I was totally blown away by the size of the market, by the huge selection of deli products, bakery products and food throughout the store. That night I returned to my neighborhood Ralphs in Malibu for food items and was brought back to reality by the size of our cubbyhole market in Malibu. I took the time to speak to the manager of the market in Santa Monica, and I remarked how beautiful his market was, and I asked him why his market was so large and well-stocked compared to our market in Malibu. His response was simple: Your City Council refuses to allow us to expand to match this market. I asked the same question of a market clerk at the Malibu market, and I was told the same thing.

Why is there so much opposition to expanding our Ralphs market in Malibu. Is the hillside west of the market going to be destroyed? Is the auto tow yard going to become polluted by the fresh food in the market?

I sometimes wonder why the petty agenda of some of the city councilmen overrides the good of our community. Don’t we deserve a well-stocked and upscale market? Sometimes I feel that an inertia of insanity has overtaken the brain cells of some of our elected representatives. Didn’t our local manager, Lee, receive a Dolphin Award? He must be a legend in the community to receive such a reward. I recently saw Councilman Hasse bragging on cable television that more building permits have been issued in 1998 than in 1997. So what? Can’t we let our little market in Malibu expand to become a really sensational market to compare with the Ralphs market in an industrial area of Santa Monica?

Malibu is no longer an island cut off on all sides from the real world. People are actually moving to Malibu from Beverly Hills, Pacific Palisades and other areas. Wake up and smell the roses, City Council.

J. Patrick Maginnis

Whether it’s “Sirens” in The Malibu Times or MSN’s “Sheriff’s Report,” both Malibu newspapers consistently exclude vital information about local crime and other news of serious community concern. Withholding this information threatens the public welfare. It makes such coverage much less relevant to the vast majority of readers. It also makes for a much lower standard of journalism.

Every community needs good crime coverage, and not just to stay informed. By refusing to publish the details, both newspapers make it much harder for the public to come forward with information which might help local authorities. While Malibu fortunately has little serious crime, many such crimes go unresolved because authorities need information which only the public can provide. Unfortunately, without the details we readers are prevented from doing more to help.

For instance, it’s just not enough for us to know that the night manager and employee of a “mid-Malibu” or “Cross Creek” restaurant were attacked on May 29. If you’d told us which restaurant, someone who might have been driving by might be able to provide a suspect’s description or license number.

That’s why stripping stories of their details also strips them of much of their relevance. We’re justifiably concerned when these crimes occur, but it’s difficult to gauge that concern without more detailed information. When you give us more about who was involved, you also give us a chance to express our concern: the people who work and/or live here are the same people we all run into every day.

We’re also told that the basics of journalism are “who, what, where, when, and why.” We may not always know why, but when you withhold the names we never really know the “who.” You may tell us what happened or when, but without an address you’re not really giving us the “where.”

This policy can also blind a publication to the some of the real stories this community is all about. Witness the recent tragic double suicide of two local surfers. More than a month after both newspapers provided the limited, sketchy details, the L.A. Times came out with a much more moving, detailed examination of who these men were and what caused them to take their lives.

Obviously, we can’t expect either local paper to compete against a publication with all the resources of an L.A. Times. We readers are also fortunate that both newspapers are as good as they are. But as an avid reader, I ask the editors of both newspapers to reconsider this policy and determine whether they could do an even better job of serving this community.

Scott Tallal

It’s sort of like waiting for the other shoe to drop. You know it’s going to happen, but you don’t know quite when, and when it finally does happen, it always catches you by surprise.

It started quietly enough at the opening of Monday’s City Council meeting. Malibu City Attorney Christi Hogin announced in a most ordinary voice that she was resigning her post after nine years of service, that she was sadly taking leave of Malibu and that this Friday, June 18, would be her last day. Then, Walt Keller, Carolyn Van Horn and Tom Hasse dutifully thanked her for her years of dedicated service and wished her good luck in her future endeavors.

It wasn’t until it got to Joan House and Harry Barovsky to make a comment that evidence of the tremendous battle that had been waged for months by Keller, Van Horn and Hasse to get rid of Hogin spilled out into the open.

When House said, if this is a “resignation,” it gives a new definition to the word, the council audience perked up. It was clear something was up, and this choice by Christi Hogin may have been more like a push than a voluntary jump.

But it was Barovsky who insisted they announce that this departure was costing the city a $227,000 package and that it was anything but unanimous, because both he and House had voted against it.

At that point, Keller began to get agitated, Van Horn patted him on the arm and he stopped, and the three just stared blankly off into space as if this was all new news to them.

It was actually very old news. I first heard rumors about this move to remove Christi Hogin before the last council election, in April 1998. The Kellers, for reasons known only to the Kellers, wanted Hogin gone and the sooner the better. But they didn’t have the votes, and to get the votes, talk was, they cut a deal. Supposedly, first Keller and Van Horn agreed to support Hasse, and Hasse only, in his bid for the council, which is what Hasse wanted. He, in turn, supposedly went along with the deal for their sole support. Van Horn also had something she wanted desperately and that was to run for council next time as the sitting mayor. I was told she was absolutely obsessed with the idea, and the only way that would happen is if they shortened everyone’s mayoralty term to eight months, which they ultimately did, and she was in. They had the three votes to oust Hogin.

But then something happened. The campaign investigations began. Perhaps the three were fearful of inquiry, so they temporarily backed off firing her but kept the pressure on. The intention was, I suspect, to make life unbearable in hopes that ultimately she would quit. But Christi Hogin was made of sterner stuff. Despite an orchestrated campaign, continuous round of assaults at the council meetings, hostile letters to the editors, continuous adversarial personnel evaluations meetings, moves to require her do things like keep time records and trying to block her vacation, she didn’t break.

Somewhere along the way, the word “harassment” began to appear, and the Keller-Van Horn-Hasse axis began to realize that it might be vulnerable, so it brought in help. The three hired an attorney, Nancy McClelland, from the firm of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, to give them help, initially without consulting either House or Barovsky. McClelland is by profession an employment lawyer but by inclination a firewoman, and apparently quite a good one, because her job was to come in and put out the fire before it turned into a conflagration. That meant she had to negotiate a deal with Christi Hogin before this turned into very nasty and expensive litigation. That’s what she did. The price was $227,000, which is the price the people of Malibu are paying to give Walt Keller, Carolyn Van Horn and Tom Hasse a city attorney they get to hand pick.

The urgency wasn’t just that they didn’t like Hogin. I’m guessing it was tightly tied into these campaign investigations and the prosecution by the city of Malibu of Remy O’Neill and the Road Worriers. Keller, Van Horn and Hasse want this city prosecution ended. Look for them to pick a new city attorney whom they know and trust to do just what they want done. The case against Gil Segel and the Malibu Citizens for Less Traffic on PCH is something else altogether because it’s being run by the California Fair Political Practices Commission, and their reach may not extend that far.

I think there was also a fear that they’d better make the deal now, hunker down and take the flack, and it will be ancient history by the next election. The fear was, if it continued on, it might spill over into the next council election in April 2000, when Keller, Van Horn, and Jo Ruggles are rumored to be running, along with House.

This battle is far from over. You can see lawsuits in the future and other governmental agencies sniffing around.

Stay tuned for the next installment, which, I’m guessing, will happen sooner rather than later.

“Children’s children are the crown of old men, and the glory of children is their father” (Proverbs 17:7).

Contrary to popular misconception, Father’s Day was not established as a holiday in order to help greeting card manufacturers sell more cards. In fact, when a “father’s day” was first proposed there were no Father’s Day cards!

William Smart, a Civil War veteran, was widowed when his wife died in childbirth with their sixth child. Mr. Smart was left to raise his six children on a rural farm in eastern Washington State. One of his children, Sonora, realized, once she grew up, the vigor and selflessness her father had shown in raising his children as a single parent. She wanted a special day to honor her father and to let him know how special he was to her, so she first proposed the idea of a “father’s day” in 1909. It was her father that made all the parental sacrifices and was, in Sonora’s eyes, a courageous, selfless, and loving man. Mr. Smart was born in June, so Sonora chose to hold the first Father’s Day celebration in Spokane, Washington on the 19th of June 1910.

At about the same time in various towns and cities across America other people were beginning to celebrate local “father’s day.” In 1924 President Calvin Coolidge supported the idea of a national Father’s Day. Finally in 1966 President Lyndon Johnson signed a presidential proclamation declaring the 3rd Sunday of June as Father’s Day. Roses are the Father’s Day flowers: red to be worn for a living father and white if the father has died.

Father’s Day is a day of commemoration and celebration of dad. It is a day to not only honor your father, but all men who have acted as a father figure in your life — whether as stepfathers, uncles, grandfathers, or “big brothers.”

It is a time of cold coffee and breakfast in bed, family gatherings, crayon scribbled “I Love You” notes and, of course, that exquisite new Father’s Day tie!

Tom Fakehany