The City Council made the following appointments to the Malibu Trails Master Plan Advisory Committee. Each council member was permitted two appointments.
Councilman Tom Hasse:
Judy Pace, Ted Vaill
Councilman Harry Barovsky:
Ralph Waycott, Diane Everett
Mayor Pro Tem Carolyn Van Horn:
Edward Albert, Larry Gray
Councilwoman Joan House:
Robert Arey, second to be announced
Mayor Walt Keller:
Sherman Baylin, Gina Merz McCloskey
The investigation by the Malibu city attorney’s office of the alleged violations of the Malibu Municipal Code campaign finance ordinance, ongoing since the April 1998 election, took a new and radical change last week.
Remy O’Neill and the Road Worriers, a political action committee, were charged by Malibu city prosecutors with five criminal misdemeanor counts of violating the Malibu campaign ordinance. The violations charged relate primarily to the defendants’ alleged collection of sums in excess of the $100-per-person limit allowed by the ordinance. The misdemeanor complaint does not specify who issued those checks.
Attorneys for the defendants filed a legal challenge to the complaint– a demurrer — arguing, among many things, that the law is unconstitutional; that the statute of limitations has run making it too late to file the charges; and claiming numerous other legal defects in the complaint.
The matter has been set for hearing June 7 in the Malibu courtroom of Judge Lawrence Mira.
According to the Malibu Municipal Code: “any person … who knowingly or wilfully violates any provision of this title is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction is punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000 or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.”
O’Neill lives in Malibu, has been active in city politics for several years and was the campaign manager for Councilwoman Carolyn Van Horn in her successful run for re-election in 1996. She was a leader in the formation of Road Worriers, a political action committee whose stated legal purpose was to defeat Jeff Jennings and elect Tom Hasse. The attorneys representing her are Brad Hertz, who also represents Gil Segel in the action against him by the state Fair Political Practices Committee, and Attorney Bruce Brown. Attorney Paul Fix of the firm of Dapeer, Rosenblit and Litvak, of Huntington Park, are the contract prosecutors for the city of Malibu. The investigation was conducted by Malibu City Attorney Christi Hogin.
Attorney Brad Hertz and council members Van Horn and Hasse were called Tuesday morning, and messages were left on their answering machines offering them an opportunity to comment personally or to fax The Malibu Times their comments on the criminal filing for this article. Hertz’s written response on behalf of O’Neill and the Road Worriers is printed in its entirety. (See “And the response . . . .”) Hasse responded with a faxed statement: “There is a legal process in place to handle such allegations and I remain confident that the legal process will produce a just result. It will remain my policy, albeit not one required by law, to continue to recuse myself and to withhold comment on this matter until that time . . . .”
There is a battle in progress regarding the removal of the Ringe Dam on the Malibu River. We should stop for a moment and consider the basics of this debate.
The first and foremost issue should be public safety, and the safety of those living below the dam. As the dam is currently filled with sediment, it acts in no way to control the river and its occasional flooding. The river has flooded several times since the dam was completed, as the long term residents of the Serra Retreat area have attested. If the dam were partially or completely emptied, and allowed to maintain a lake, would this add to the danger for the people living below it (by providing a flow contributor to the heavier materials during a failure)?
Did the Northridge earthquake compromise the structural integrity of the dam? The dam has not been thoroughly inspected, to my knowledge, since the decommissioning of it several decades ago. As it stands now the Ringe Dam is a liability to the state parks department. Should the builders of the dam (the Ringe family) carry the responsibility for maintaining the dam, or the financial responsibility of repairing any damages caused by the dam’s eventual failure?
A feasibility study is in development that would review all aspects of the dam. This includes maintaining the dam, as well as removing it. This would provide scientific information to all people interested and allow an intelligent debate to continue, or possibly even eliminate the debate all together. Comprehensive information on the dam would enable us to resolve this issue and focus our efforts on improving other areas of Malibu including the river.
Although there are many factors contributing to the decline of the steel-head population, there is the potential to rebuild the wild trout run in this watershed. Removing the dam will provide these fish greater access to their native waters; this will only aid in their recovery. Eliminating or reducing the other threats, including but not limited to; pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, farm and ranch waste such as horse manure, general trash and street run-off, unnatural excess water flow (Tapia), and industrial wastes will not only help the steel-head, but will aid in protecting the health of the children, surfers and general public who use the beach and lagoon area where the river empties.
If the Ringe family would like a namesake, wouldn’t it be much nicer to have a pristine canyon as a remembrance rather than a destroyed section of the canyon and river?
I close with but two questions: Would you rather live next to a stream that may over flow once in a while, or below a 100-foot wall of mud, dirt, rock and water that will eventually collapse? Does Mr. Ringe live below the dam? No.
Wes Merrill
In last week’s edition of both papers appeared a letter critical of the City Council members for failing to attend the music festival at Malibu High School. Arnold gave the letter a title reaffirming his personal animus toward the mayor and Anne gave it a somewhat more neutral title.
Whatever criticisms anyone may have of those of our fellow citizens who have given up time, money and privacy to serve as our elected representatives in this town a complaint that our council members do not participate in town affairs is totally unfair. As an example, four of the five council members are also members of the Optimist Club of Malibu. All four contribute their time and money to that club. All four have contributed the time and money that make it possible for the club to donate the $16,000 in college scholarships the club will pass out the week I hope this letter is published. They do not donate the money to the club from the $300 before tax that they receive for their official, city duties.
The council members do not always agree with each other. They certainly do not always agree with me. They certainly do not always agree with those whose sole joy in life seems to be to complain about them. However, all persons who have served on the council, from Larry Wan to the two Jeffs to the present council, are deserving of our praise for serving Malibu and undeserving of our condemnation because they failed to appear at a particular event. All council members put in countless hours of unpaid time attending a variety of community events plus their official time. I am sure the writer enjoyed the event. I hope she will attend the pancake breakfast in July where the aforementioned council members will, I am sure, cook for her and for the deserving high school seniors of the class of 2000.
Bill Sampson
What part of “Thou Shalt Not …” don’t our kids understand?
I know that there are youthful Malibuites who do not love their fellow man, and I am distraught by youth like that! Likewise, the Lilly’s Cafe 8 a.m. coffee assembly is distraught. These citizens of Malibu are in their 60s, 70s and 80s with an occasional youthful visitor to the group, me. Shaking hands with a member of this group is like touching the past. These Malibuites are still industrious men and women and a treasure of knowledge. Growing up was a challenging experience for them. It was a quest.
The theme of their contemporary coffee chitchat has to do with the shootings at our educational institutions, the lack of respect for authority and the family unit. This is their allegory not mine. It is something that they wanted me to share. They said “Tom, you can write. So tell the newspaper what we think.”
Let’s see, they think, as I recall, that it started when Madelyn Murray O’Hair complained that she didn’t want any prayer in our schools, and folks said, OK.
Then someone said you had better not read the Bible in school — the same Bible that says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal and love your neighbor as yourself. And again folks stated O.K.
They remember Dr. Benjamin Spock, who said we shouldn’t spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem? And folks said, OK, we won’t spank them. They relate that Dr. Spock had us spend so much time putting our kids on the pot, we can’t get them off it.
Then someone said that teachers and principals better not discipline our children when they misbehave. Our administrators said whatever, no one in this school better touch a student when they misbehave because we don’t want any bad publicity, or want to be sued.
Someone said, let’s let our daughters have abortions if they want, and we won’t even have to tell their parents. And folks stated that’s a grand idea. Then someone else said, let’s give our sons all the condoms they want, so they can have all the “fun” they desire, and we won’t have to tell their parents. And folks said that’s another great idea. So now we’re asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don’t know right from wrong, and why it doesn’t bother them to kill.
Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, Malibuites can figure it out.
Tom Fakehany
A bill that would set statewide regulations for individual septic systems in the coastal zone passed the Assembly last week in spite of objections by city officials.
While the city supports the purpose of AB 885 — protection of coastal waters from leaking or poorly functioning onsite sewage treatment systems — there is no consensus on what allowable levels of contaminants should be.
The bill, sponsored by 35th District Assemblywoman Hannah Beth Jackson, D-Ventura/Santa Barbara, and the California Association of Environmental Health Administrators, will now go to the state Senate.
According to legislative counsel analysis, the bill would require the state Department of Health Services to adopt by regulation statewide performance standards for all onsite sewage treatment systems within the coastal zone and to include specified provisions for prescribed inspections and enforcement by local agencies.
The legislative intent would encourage the State Water Resources Control Board to make prescribed loans to private-property owners who incur costs as a result of the implementation of the statewide performance standards. Compliance would be required no later than Jan. 1, 2003, or three years from the date of adoption, whichever is earlier.
Opponents say the major problem is in the numbers given for maximum contaminant levels — less than 240,000 mpn total coliform bacteria, 2.2 mpn for fecal coliform bacteria counts and 10 ppm or mg/L for nitrates.
Environmental Health Specialist Larry Young and Senior Building Inspector Craig George, who went to Sacramento for discussions with the bill’s author earlier this month, say the total count is too high, the fecal count is too low and the nitrate level is about right.
Even Heal the Bay Director Mark Gold, a solid supporter of the bill, agreed the numbers were skewed.
City lobbyist Anthony Gonzales was hoping for amendments to the bill while it was still in committee. Gold said the bill might be passed by the Assembly and the Senate without the inclusion of specific numbers, which could be added by regulators afterward.
The criminal charges against Remy O’Neill and the Road Worriers arose out of the last election campaign, in April 1996, when the three major candidates for city council, then-Mayor Jeff Jennings, Planning Commissioner Harry Barovsky and Planning Commissioner Tom Hasse, running for the two open seats, clashed in a heated campaign . Hasse edged out Jennings by 29 votes amidst charges by the Jenning’s camp of multiple campaign violations by the Hasse group. Hasse’s group countered that the complaints were just that, the complaints of a disgruntled loser unhappy with the people’s decision at the polls.
Following the election, the Malibu city attorney, responding to complaints, opened an investigation to determine if the campaign laws of the city of Malibu had been broken. At about the same time, the Fair Political Practices Commission of the state of California was reported to have begun an investigation to determine if there had been any violation of the state of California campaign laws. Both investigations were conducted simultaneously, one by the FPPC and the other by Malibu City Attorney Christi Hogin.
The battle over the city investigation broke out into the open in June 1998, when Hogin went to the Malibu City Council and asked for permission to hire an outside lawyer to investigate allegations of fraud in the previous April’s municipal election. The city investigation concerned a Political Action Committee (PAC) called the Road Worriers, run principally by Remy O’Neill, a Malibu resident and political activist and a former campaign manager for Councilwoman Carolyn Van Horn. Because this investigation related to his council campaign, Hasse recused himself and said he would not participate in any decisions relating to the investigations. His withdrawal on the issue left the council split, with Keller and Van Horn on one side and Barovsky and House on the other. Since it took three votes for any action, the council was effectively deadlocked on the issue.
Keller, Van Horn and their supporters charged that the investigation was a witch hunt and were incensed that Hogin would neither give them the details of the investigation nor reveal who was being investigated, Hogin stating it would be unethical for her as a prosecutor to do so, nor could she give them a date for completion of the investigation. Finally, in a 2-2 vote, they refused to let Hogin hire outside counsel, which meant she had to continue on without outside help or drop it. She chose to continue on.
In June and July 1998, at council meetings and in the letters to the editor in both local papers, the battle raged. Hogin was regularly trashed by Keller and Van Horn and their supporters at the council meetings and in the press.
In early July, Keller tried to block Hogin from going on vacation until she finished the investigation, but the motion failed in a 2-2 vote in the deadlocked council. A second Keller motion to make Hogin report to the council five days before she left on vacation also died in a 2-2 vote.
Later in the fall, Keller, Van Horn and Hasse began to scrutinize Hogin’s work habits, and Keller made a motion, which passed, requiring Hogin to prepare and turn in time records every week. Keller said he was not singling out Hogin for selective treatment; however, it was pointed out that she was the only city department head required to do so.
Meanwhile, there were persistent rumors that state investigators were in town and looking into the activities of another group, “Malibu Citizens for Less Traffic on PCH,” run by Gil Segel, who also had been active in Malibu city politics.
In November, Hogin was given a performance evaluation by the council, which normally happens every six months, except that this evaluation began in November, again in January, three times in February and several additional times before concluding in May. When asked about this, Keller said, “It’s not a plot” and “It’s unrelated to any investigations.” The term “harassment” was used by some about the way Hogin was being treated, and the situation grew noticeably tenser.
In March it took another turn, and the City Council hired an outside lawyer from the tony law firm of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, a $420-per-hour specialist in representing defendant companies and municipalities in job-related lawsuits, including claims involving employment discrimination, sexual harassment and wrongful termination. House and Barovsky protested they didn’t know why the lawyer was being hired and what she was supposed to do, and Van Horn accused them of essentially grandstanding.
Next, in late April, a five-count criminal misdemeanor complaint was filed by attorney Paul Fix with the firm of Dapeer, Rosenblit & Litvak, the city contract prosecutors who try city cases. The defendants are Remy O’Neill, an individual, and the Road Worriers, a California campaign committee. The matter is now headed for court.
Dear Sally Brooks:
This is not a slam on your letter last week about where was Walt & Co. because I agree with you that our political leaders should be involved in local functions. As it turns out, in a city there maybe more than one event going on at the same time that would make it impossible for someone to be in both places at the same time.
On May 20, I had an event for children called Kids Day America that was in the planning stages for eight weeks. I had gone to the city council meeting in early April to ask that the mayor make a proclamation for this event and that he and the other members of the city council were invited to this free event for children.
As it turns out Mayor Keller did attend my function and if it weren’t for the political bias of some editors you may have seen pictures of Mayor Keller at my event.
As for the rest of the City Council I’m with you. Why are they not getting involved more and meeting the voters to see how we feel about issues? Maybe Malibu has to wake up and vote for people who want to be involved more with special events. Whatever the call, I want to thank Mayor Keller for helping make my Kids Day America event a success.
Dr. Steven I. Sherwin
With all the talk about early intervention after last month’s Colorado high school massacre, one usually doesn’t think about an 8-year-old. But a Calabasas father was concerned when he caught his son stealing from family pockets. He asked the Lost Hills Sheriff’s Station Juvenile Intervention Team for help and brought his son to the station Friday night.
“It’s pretty rare that we deal with kids that young,” said Dep. Mark Borges, one of six Juvenile Intervention Team (“J-Team”) deputies. “He’s a smart kid. He just doesn’t realize the consequences of his actions.”
Showing the boy the consequences is exactly what Borges did. He showed him the station, including the jail, before grilling him in a conference room. The interrogation went something like this:
Borges: Why do you think these prisoners got here? Some probably stole stuff. Why do you think your dad brought you here? Is it your birthday, a special day or a party? Or did you take something from your dad?
Boy: I forgot what I took.
Borges: You should tell the truth. Was it some money?
Boy: I didn’t see; maybe it was nickels and dimes.
Borges: To buy stuff?
Boy: I just took it because I wanted it. My brothers take my baseball cards.
Borges: Do you like that? Do your parents give you toys?
Boy: I have Nintendo.
Borges: What if I went to your house and took that, would that be good, is that right?
Boy: No, unless I had a right to it.
Borges: So taking money wasn’t good? Do you know that’s a crime? It’s called stealing. Do you know that kids who get caught stealing get put in jail.
Boy: Do they go to school?
Borges: Yes, but they’re not with their families, and it’s not a fun place.
Boy: Can you watch TV?
Borges: Yes, but only what the probation officer says. You don’t have a room to yourself. Cameras are watching you. Everyone can see you go to the bathroom. Kids have to do what the guards tell them, like scrubbing the floors with a toothbrush and cleaning toilets.
Father: Can you imagine doing that? I think you need to realize how serious this is. When you come to jail, you are all by yourself. There is no one you know. You can’t hug anyone.
Borges: It isn’t good to do anything wrong. You have to listen to your mom and dad. They’re the bosses. Think about what you did. Was it a good thing? Your mom and dad work hard; they buy you Nintendo. You can watch good TV shows. What if your mom and dad said you couldn’t play baseball because you stole? Do you understand what you did is wrong? Parents tell you to do something for a reason.
Boy: My brothers don’t listen to me, but they have to listen to parents or relatives.
Borges: Will you take stuff again?
Boy: No.
Borges: Why?
Boy: Because it’s bad.
Borges: You don’t want to talk to me again, because I’ll put you in handcuffs like these. How many kids do you know who steal stuff?
Boy: None.
Borges: Right, so you won’t have to see me again, except when I visit your school, right? I talk to the SANE [Substance Abuse Narcotics Education) deputies all the time. They won’t tell me you’re stealing, right? And you’ll do what what your parents ask you without asking why?
Boy: (Shrugs his shoulders.)
Borges: Another thing. Your dad tells me that you lied about the money.
Boy: I told my mom I found it on the floor.
Borges: It’s not good to lie, even if you do something wrong. Your parents won’t trust you. What if your parents lied to you about giving you a birthday present? So now you know two things you shouldn’t do: don’t lie and don’t steal. Those are two biggies.
After the hour-long questioning, Borges said, “Lots of kids we talk to are with the wrong peer group. Peers are a big influence around 13 or 14. Kids want strict supervision, they want someone to tell them what to do.”
Besides offering parental support and resource material, the J-Team goes to schools to interact with students at lunch and at breaks. They also lecture on topics like search and seizure. “We’re there if the kids want to vent. We want to break down tension,” Borges noted.
“Often kids will ask when police can be brought in to break up parties. Or they’ll complain about a traffic violation. We’ll try to explain from a law enforcement point of view. We want the kids to see it’s not just us against them.”
The team also meets with administrators and teachers at Malibu High and Middle schools to share information. Last Thursday, a coalition of community leaders met at Malibu High School to identify student problems, Borges said. They want to know what students need to feel safe. In future meetings, they want to come up with solutions.
Once a month, the team also teaches a “Parental Resource Program.” Parents are told about juvenile narcotics trends, and youths are given a tour of a local juvenile probation camp. The next programs are slated for June 26 and July 24.
The team also works weekend nights to talk to kids at their hangouts and monitor juvenile activity. Although Valley and Malibu teens don’t intermingle, Borges says, Malibu parents should be concerned because kids will be going to the beach soon.
For copies of parental resource materials, including a “Teen Assist” wallet card with organization names and phone numbers, and a State Bar of California booklet “Kids and the Law: An A-Z Guide for Parents,” call the J-Team at 310.456.6652 or 818.878.1808.
House of the rising daughter
There is great satisfaction in seeing a virtuous man overcome the cruelty of his world. There is even greater satisfaction in seeing a woman do the same.
“The Heiress,” by Ruth and Augustus Goetz, in production at Westchester Playhouse, follows a brief romance in the life of Catherine Sloper, the ungainly spinster daughter of a wealthy widower living in Washington Square in 1850s New York.
She lacks artificiality, from which her fellow women derive their physical beauty. She lacks guile, from which others derive their social manners. And so she seems, as her father terms her, a “mediocre and defenseless creature.”
He compares her unfavorably with her deceased mother, whom he repeatedly describes as perfect, until Catherine finally can tolerate no more. So when Morris Townsend comes to call, the sudden romance consumes her.
One may remember a previous stage or film version of this play, but director Gail Bernardi gives us a totally different slant. She has made Morris a fairly likeable and seemingly decent chap, leaving ambiguous whether he was truly after Catherine’s money. This version does what good theater should do — after the play, audience members actually discussed the story as they walked up the aisles, out the door and to their cars.
As Catherine, Susan Gordon moves smoothly from youthful innocence and awkwardness to a Victorian Amazon, adept at both ends of her character’s arc.
Margie Bates as Lavinia, Catherine’s aunt and companion, is the only lead who does not use an 1850s New York accent, but her joyous support of Catherine is so true we overlook this.
Augustus Truhn is a comfortable, likeable Morris Townsend, with a handsome but not vain physical presence. Rebecca Winston also does superior work in her very few moments onstage as Mrs. Montgomery.
Nearly always the most interesting actor to watch, however, is Jack Rubens as the father. He has given his character a lifetime of experiences, and despite the deliberately old-fashioned dialogue and accents, his lines seem improvised.
In their scenes together, Rubens and Gordon show a shift in energy as the balance of power shifts between their characters — as she becomes spirited, her father visibly weakens.
The cast also includes Jeanne Bascom, Catherine Campbell, Steve Keeley and Cynthia Manous.
Sheldon Metz designed the substantial, workable and visually satisfying set, decorated by Michael Cohen with attention to the period.
“The Heiress” plays through June 12 at Westchester Playhouse, 8301 Hindry Ave. For information and schedule, call 645-5156.
All in the family
“Leftover Hearts” has some heart to it, as a young man reveals his loneliness and searches for the meaning of family.
But some forced exposition and cumbersome dialogue, as well as occasionally hollow acting, mar the effort of this “first work,” in production at the Studio Stras Theatre.
Sebastian and Jennifer meet in the reception area of a “doctor’s” office. Inside of a few seconds, she tells him, “I’m beginning to like you.” He reveals he was adopted and is now trying to locate his natural mother. She is pregnant and deciding what to do with herself. The two quickly decide to become roommates.
Jennifer soon reveals she is pregnant by her adoptive father. She wants an abortion, but Sebastian wants her to keep the baby so they can raise it together. He then wants to believe she is his natural sister because they both were born in Caracas.
In production by the Lee Strasberg Creative Center, this one-hour work written by Sasha Krane is not beyond repair. The dialogue needs pruning — lines like “I got so caught up in this conversation I forgot to ask you your name” add nothing except time to the piece. Scenes need smoother endings — “Do you want me to leave?” is no curtain line.
And most importantly, the characters need to grow or otherwise affect the audience. By the work’s end, Sebastian has changed not at all, leaving us to wonder whether anyone has ever told him he’s lonely and perpetually in search of love because he’s demanding, self-centered, closed-minded and obnoxious.
Director Don Eitner does well with the more background scenes, including one in which Sebastian relives his birth.
Josh Karch plays Sebastian, and Jill Simon plays Jennifer. Karen Tarleton does creditable work in dual roles of mother and doctor.
“Leftover Hearts” runs through May 28 at Studio Stras Theatre, 7936 Santa Monica Blvd., West Hollywood. Tel. 323.650.7777.
