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

I am writing to express how ridiculous and appalling the county sheriffs are for their vigilance in cracking down on topless sunbathers on Malibu beaches.

For years I have known to avoid going topless on certain beaches. I’ve seen the sheriff helicopters, the horses and the teams of sheriffs ticketing topless women on secluded beaches. A few weeks ago I found, what appeared to be and was rumored to be, a beach where the sheriffs don’t bother topless sunbathers. This past weekend I went there with my boyfriend. This beach is secluded. It is a long walk from the parking area and one must crawl through two caves to get there. There were less than 10 other people on the beach, all adults. I was discreet and took my top off. We found a spot that was out of the view of most others and generally removed. We placed our belongings just next to me to block off the view further. One really had to work to see me. Furthermore, most of the time I laid on my stomach. We had not been there more than 30 minutes and two sheriffs arrived and ticketed me. They explained that, even though they saw me lying on my stomach, earlier a “spotter” disguised in beach wear had seen me sit up. They also said that they must ticket topless women because the people living in multimillion dollar homes up above object to topless women. These people don’t want to see it and they worry that (God-forbid!) children might see topless women.

First, this seems like an incredible waste of taxpayer resources! With sheriffs and undercover agents collecting double time pay for weekend service, their horses and helicopters, a lot of money is being spent to please these folks who object to topless women. Over the years living in this area I have been robbed at gunpoint, had my home burglarized and had my car broken into. I have never witnessed such spic-n-span efficiency out of law enforcement. The sheriffs should spend their time on real crimes. If they don’t have any real crimes to work on, they should look for someone to help, perhaps a senior citizen who needs help crossing the street. Remember, their purpose is supposed to be to “Protect and Serve.”

Second, I really object to their police state tactics. Undercover agents to catch topless women?!!! Give me a break! People go to the beach to enjoy the sun, the water and peacefulness. We don’t want to hear their loud helicopters (unless really necessary) or see sheriffs harassing people who are minding their own business. And we certainly don’t want to have to think that a spy might be watching.

Third, the beach is public. Why do these rich folks who can afford the homes on the cliffs deserve better treatment than others on the beach. I really think most people don’t mind. If they mind, they can look the other way or go to another beach. The beach is no more theirs than anyone else’s.

Last, this is all about a cultural hangup. In Europe women go topless on most beaches and no one thinks anything of it. What is so offensive about women’s breasts? And so what if children do see it? Why are we raising them to believe that breasts are dirty or evil? If children grew up understanding that breasts are natural they might grow up with more mature and respectful attitudes towards women.

The sheriffs should not be wasting resources and employing Gestapo tactics to bust law-abiding citizens because some rich folks are culturally stuck in the Victorian age and want to impose their way of life on everyone else! Certainly the city of Malibu has more pressing needs to spend money on.

Due to the nature of this, I won’t sign my real name. Just sign me —

Criminal for Being Topless on a Secluded Malibu Beach

I am enclosing two photographs of road construction signs, one traveling from Zuma toward Santa Monica, on the ocean side, just before John Tyler Drive, and one traveling toward Zuma, on the land side, just before Malibu Canyon, just below the Pepperdine University hill. [The signs read, “Road Constructoin.”]

As the saying goes, “a picture worth a thousand words.” I only hope that the workers on that construction site know their job even if they can’t spell. Which reminds one of all the people in America who still can’t read or spell. I shudder to think what might happen if computers didn’t have spell check (or if the cash register computer malfuctions — can they count the change?). Interesting, where one sign is posted — right below a university! Let’s all support education in any way possible.

Or maybe the sign means that the constructoin will keep on goin’ and goin’ and goin!

A. DeClario

The judges certainly had a variety to choose from at the final round of the Third Stotsenberg International Classical Guitar Competition Sunday night.

Among the five finalists, there were the pure technicians and the soulful artists, the domestic and the exotic, the introverts and the extroverts, the near silent and the near cacaphonic, the unexpectedly post modern and the imperatively traditional.

International it was. But classical? Some of the repertory was so “out there,” the musicians did everything to the guitar but smash it on the ground.

After the five finalists each performed 30-minute programs, the judges did choose. But no one was saying exactly how. One of the 22 participants who didn’t make it to the finals said the decision was political. One of the finalists also said the decision was political.

Denis Azabagic of Bosnia & Herzegovina took first place with his inner-directed performance of an extremely quiet, modern repertory that included Leo Brower’s “El Decameron Negro” and Asencio’s “Tango de la Casada Infiel.”

Englishman Graham Devine also opted for an atonal, arrhythmic program, winning fourth place.

Emmanuel Sacquepey took third with the most “traditional” repertory, yet the Parisian not only made eye contact with the audience but winked and joked.

Although Evan Hirschelman, the sole American of the finalists, displayed the warmest tone and most soulful musicality of the evening, he was awarded fifth place. “I was happy with the way I played, so I didn’t care about the results,” said the obviously audience-directed musician.

Second-place winner in the 1997 Stotsenberg Competition, the Brazilian-born Aliksey Vianna returned and was once again the competition’s bridesmaid. He didn’t seem too disappointed, suggesting he had won the $10,000 first-place cash prize — $5,000 at a time.

Although Azabagic has won a multitude of competitions, he said he didn’t know he had won the Stotsenberg until his name was announced by the competition’s sponsor, Ed Stotsenberg. “You spend it before you earn it,” Azabagic did admit.

Because the competition allowed a “free” program, Azabagic’s strategy for winning was to pick his best pieces — all modern — and to play some of the same pieces in the preliminaries and in the finals. “I also just played the music, trying to block the fact that this was a competition,” he said.

Vianna had a different strategy. One month ago, he decided he couldn’t play the same program he played at the previous competition. “So I learned the Ginastera,” he said. “10 hours a day. That was my strategy.”

While the judges deliberated, Dorothy Stotsenberg took the stage “to present what Winnie-the-Pooh called ‘a little something.'” Each of the nonfinalists received an envelope, to be filled next morning at Smothers.

As the rest of the competitors, judges and audience headed for the reception at the nearby Weisman Museum of Art, Azabagic headed for a telephone to report his good news.

Judges: Eli Kassner, Ian Krouse, John Schneider, Scott Tennant and Kenton Youngstrom

Awards:

1st Denis Azabagic Bosnia/Herzegovina $10,000

2nd Aliksey Vianna Brazil $5,000

3rd Emmanuel Sacquepey France $3,000

4th Graham Anthony Devine England $1,000

5th Evan Hirschelman U.S.A. $1,000