It is a good thing that the city attorney has resigned, and also a good thing that the city has provided reasonable severance pay to a civil servant of nine years tenure.

These moves clear the air in our community for open and honest debate and discussion on the urgent issues confronting us. Regrettably, the city attorney had fallen into the appearance of an over-zealous prosecutor of alleged political offenses, and a politically polarized position with respect to City Council members, past and present. The situation was clearly brought into focus by the lengthy investigation of Remy O’Neill, but has a longer history.

The (apparently) politicized prosecutor seems to be a regular and menacing theme of our times. The citizens of Malibu, in whose name the local election campaign law was drafted, certainly never intended such draconian procedures be applied to what is evidently a minor record-keeping error by an outstanding and politically active citizen. And once an appointed official, in whom discretion is vested, becomes politically colored, a conundrum is created for the whole community — a log jam in which everyone regrets to act for fear of taking on the appearance of improper partisanship.

But ultimately it is up to the legislators — in this case the council — to adopt laws that are less subject to misinterpretation and trivial misapplication. In the bigger picture, it is essential that citizens and their representatives be forever vigilant to avoid giving to officials and employees too many levers of power, too many well-meaning rules of all kinds that can be easily used as tools against individuals. I urge the City Council to consider that our election campaign laws need revision to pass Constitutional muster, as well as “the rule of common sense” (i.e., that it is an uncommon virtue).

Francis Jeffrey

This letter concerns the recent story in your publication about Malibu wineries and vineyards. In my opinion, it seems quite astounding that an entire article could be written on the subject without even a mention of George Rosenthal, who is the person most responsible for putting Malibu wineries on the proverbial map. However, the author devoted a large portion of the story to a viticulture “expert” who does not appear to have produced a single bottle of wine. Additionally, I am curious as to whether your reporter actually visited the site “adjacent to” (actually belonging to) Saddlerock Ranch where Mr. Schaefer has supposedly planted 7,000 vines. Although I have not been up there for a couple of months, there certainly was nothing approaching 7,000 vines when last I looked. Additionally, as a former vineyard owner myself, I do have an idea of how much land would have to be devoted to 7,000 plants. The area that was cleared for Mr. Schaefer’s endeavor could not accommodate that number — 7,000 grapes, yes, 7,000 vines, no, unless they are to be planted within a foot or so of each other; hardly standard practice, and the water source (a well, I believe) would be hard pressed to provide the vast quantity of water required by so many plants.

It is unfortunate that people’s statements may not always be completely accurate, and that actual legwork is required to confirm their veracity. If, indeed, The Malibu Times is the hard hitting newspaper you seem to wish it to be, it should hold itself to a higher standard of publishing than that required by a “local rag,” and make fact checking a requirement of good reporting, not an option.

A. Lipman

Amazing. A district blessed with citizens who have never turned down a bond measure — and in fact have approved two local bonds in the 1990s alone, can claim to find their purse unexpectedly empty. And that’s not even taking into consideration the state modernization monies it will soon be receiving from Sacramento or FEMA monies resulting from the Northridge earthquake. One would think that most school districts somehow manage to pay the bills and maintain their facilities without the benefit of such generous citizens, and indeed they do.

In fact, of the 47 unified school districts in L.A. County, none have been as richly supported as SMMUSD, but 43 manage to spend a greater percentage of their funds in the classroom. SMMUSD joins Compton and El Segundo at the very bottom of the country for dollars actually spent in the classroom. One would think that the bonds would free up monies for the general fund and classroom use, but apparently not so.

The good news is for the administrators. Already among the highest paid in the country, district administrators were recently rewarded with pay raises averaging 9.55 percent for the year (teachers received a 3 percent raise in February, and support personnel recently accepted 2.5 percent for each of the next two years). Odd that the people who ran the district into the red, who were already among the best paid in their profession, were the big winners in the salary race, isn’t it? And if they’re so good, why is Lincoln’s pool still empty? Why is Barnum Hall still out of service? Why is the district settling lawsuits, paying contractors hundreds of thousands of dollars, while lighting fixtures fall from the ceilings of our elementary schools’ cafeterias onto the tables below?

Why does SMMUSD rate 44th out of 47 districts in classroom spending, but first (or nearly first — the data isn’t available yet) in administrative salaries? Why were the administrative salary increases so generous if money is so tight (which is hard to buy with all those bonds we’ve passed)? Why are teachers now being told during negotiations for next year that the cupboard is bare? If district administration is so deserving of such largess, why aren’t we in the black?

Not too hard to figure out, is it?

Marc J. Sanschagrin,

SMMCTA Executive Board

“I always knew I wanted to have children,” says Webster PTA co-president Chet Horn. Perhaps he knew it even in the lazy summer days of his Pasadena childhood.

For Horn, the third of six children, summer was the easy extension of a simpler life in simpler times. “None of us went to camp,” he says. “Our swimming pool was the focal point of the neighborhood.” Between his pals and those of his siblings, pool games never lacked players and Marco Polo lived until Labor Day.

“Mom didn’t work. Little League was two blocks from the house. We all walked to high school.” And no kid was driven to hell and back for a playdate or a lesson.

In the evenings, Horn was set a pretty good example of what hard work could accomplish. “When we were very young, Dad was in law school. We’d see him studying every night.” Howard Horn’s children saw him become an administrative law judge for the state Employment Development Dept.

“My father was very active in our education. I remember when he bought one of those early speed-reading machines and taught us all how to speed read. To this day, I still read very fast, although I don’t use that particular method.”

It’s a handy skill for an attorney to have. Horn works for the California Dept. of Justice, representing the Attorney General’s office in matters regarding charitable trusts, foundations and not-for-profit corporations. He has spent the past three years overseeing all sales of non-profit hospitals in the state and conversions to for-profit institutions.

Even with extensive administrative experience, Horn says there’s always more to learn about running an organization effectively. At a statewide PTA convention in Sacramento last month, he attended seminars on management issues, on how to build consensus among board members and on parliamentary procedure.

Beginning early last year, when Proposition X was under consideration, Horn sat on a facilities advisory committee to the school board. The committee developed a budget for structural and maintenance projects for each campus in the district, including gym, track and field improvements for Malibu High. The total price tag: $42 million.

With former co-president Colleen O’Beirne Brydon, Horn also sat on a political advisory committee to determine the likelihood of passing the bond. Voters approved Proposition X last November.

The soccer referee with six years on the Malibu AYSO board has much to say on fatherhood. “The biggest challenge is you need to know how to pay for it all.” Horn has four kids.

“Managing their time so it doesn’t have enormous impact on your time,” is another challenge. Horn should know. Between Girl Scouts, chorus, three months of rehearsal for the high school musical, softball, Little League and four kids in soccer, Horn and his wife average six trips each day.

Horn, who is on the job downtown at 6:30 a.m., ferries the kids to afternoon activities. Kathy Horn, an office administrator for Coldwell Banker in Malibu, takes them to and from school.

“Seeing your children turn into wonderful little people, and wonderful big people, is a great reward,” says Horn. “When they get good report cards, when they do well in an essay contest and you attend the awards ceremony, when they join the math club and excel, that’s the real joy.”

According to Horn, family life is about “day to day things. That’s the important stuff. It’s not promising big rewards every five years or every two years, but what you do every single day. That’s how you stay connected to your kids.”

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