The mystery of the high-priced outside counsel continues.

Members of the City Council who voted to retain employment attorney Nancy McClelland were pointedly asked Monday why they hired her. The three council members who cast the vote — Mayor Walt Keller, Mayor Pro Tem Carolyn Van Horn and Councilman Tom Hasse — offered no reply.

Keller previously said McClelland was needed to assist the council in performing evaluations of the city’s high-level personnel. But her hourly rate of $420 as a partner in the top-notch law firm of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, combined with her usual practice of representing employers in job-related lawsuits, has prompted speculation that she was hired to handle far more serious matters than personnel evaluations.

Keller’s explanation apparently still does not satisfy Councilman Harry Barovsky, who previously proposed another top law firm, O’Melveny and Meyers, to perform the evaluations for substantially less money. At Monday’s meeting, he asked the three council members to explain their reasons for hiring McClelland.

“I think it’s incumbent on those council members who voted to spend $420 an hour on an attorney to state their reasons to this community . . . why they’re willing to spend that kind of money,” he said.

Resident Marissa Coughlin also asked the three council members to explain their reasons and to justify the expense.

“I used to work for Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, and I know the quality of the law firm and the lawyers,” she said.

The hiring of McClelland resurfaced as an agenda item because Councilwoman Joan House said she wanted to ask McClelland about her career history and her work for other clients. But House said McClelland had answered most of the questions in closed session on Monday and planned to answer the others in a second meeting on Tuesday.

Rather than answer Barovsky’s and Coughlin’s questions, Keller moved on to the next agenda item, over the vocal objections of Coughlin, who called out, “Mr. Mayor, Don’t I get an answer?”

Keller rapped his gavel, and proceeded, but Coughlin got the last word.

“Oh great, that’s why my dad left Yugoslavia and its socialist government.”

As part of its investigation into possible campaign finance violations during last year’s City Council race, the state Fair Political Practices Commission recently subpoenaed financial records and donor lists from a local anti-development group that is now attempting to block the subpoena in state court, The Malibu Times has learned.

During last year’s election campaign, the group, Malibu Citizens for Less Traffic on PCH, placed advertisements in The Surfside News indicating how different council members cast votes on proposed development projects, the now-abandoned Civic Center Specific Plan and zoning law changes. The four ads, mostly cartoon maps of a Malibu crammed with traffic and new, large-scale developments, emphasized the voting record of former Councilman Jeff Jennings.

The state commission, which has a policy of not commenting on any case under investigation, apparently regards the ads as campaign-related and therefore subject to its regulation. City Attorney Christi Hogin, acting in conjunction with the commission, said the city and the state are seeking the list of contributors to the Malibu Citizens group as part of their enforcement of campaign disclosure laws. Those laws protect the long-standing right of the public to know who is donating money to elect or defeat a political candidate.

The city is also seeking the financial and bank records of the group, which is headed by Gil Segel, in an effort to determine whether local campaign contribution laws were violated. The Malibu Municipal Code limits individuals’ political contributions to $100 per City Council candidate.

The Malibu Citizens group last week filed a motion in state court challenging the subpoenas on grounds that the ads were only educational and did not advocate a particular result in the April 1998 election. Since the ads were not political, Malibu Citizens argued, the group is not subject to the commission’s regulation, and, based on privacy protections in the First Amendment, they may withhold the identity of its contributors.

“. . .[T]he issuance of the subpoenas is in violation of the rights of [Malibu Citizens], who, having never injected themselves into the political campaign process, are not properly within the purview of the FPPC’s subpoena power,” attorney Bradley Hertz argued in the court filing.

While the ads did not use expressions such as “vote for,” “vote against” or “defeat,” they did highlight Jenning’s votes, and they clearly reflected the group’s anti-development position and their position that Jennings was pro-development. The top of most of the ads read: “Jeff Jennings supported these 9 major projects. Carolyn Van Horn and Walt Keller opposed. These projects would add 30,000 trips per day on PCH!”

Next to some of the nine possible developments caricatured, a box refers to Jenning’s votes. For example, next to a drawing of a new, expansive Civic Center as developed under the abandoned Specific Plan, the box reads: “Voted for Fast Tracking Without Decreasing Density.” On land adjacent to Bluffs Park, the cartoon depicts a four-story hotel, and the box reads: “Voted for Commercial Zoning of Crummer Bluffs Property. First Step Necessary for Crummer 150-Room Hotel.”

While express statements, such as “Vote For,” are not required for regulation, advertisements are considered political and therefore subject to the commission’s regulation if, taken as a whole, they unambiguously urge a particular result in an election. It is this question that is pending before the judge.

The city’s and state’s replies to the motion are due April 17. A hearing on the matter is set for April 23.

There may have been an iffier start for a Little League season, but no one around Malibu can remember it.

With renovation of the ball fields at Bluffs Park running way behind schedule and rerouting of the annual Opening Day Parade (ultimately called because of rain Saturday), league officials are exploring all options to let the games begin.

Parade and festivities aside, the most compelling problem is the condition of the two main baseball diamonds. Coaches say they are concerned for the safety of their players even more than the shortening of the game schedule.

After inspecting the fields last week, city and Little League officials decided the fields were unplayable and opening games would have to be postponed.

Malibu Little League Commissioner Rick Holben said volunteers were ready to step in and do what is necessary to make the surface safe, but the city has refused, expressing concern about signing off on the contract and legal issues with the contractor.

“We have a punch list of the things we could do in a couple of days that at least would make the fields safe for the kids,” Holben said Tuesday.

“We have a legal contract, so until the city signs off on the contract, no one else can have access to the field,” said Catherine Walter, the city’s Parks and Recreation director. “I think by this weekend, unless we have more rain, the job should be done. If there needs to be some adjustments, we’ll require the contractor to do it.”

First on Little League’s punch list is filling in the seams of the sod, which is now rooted to about two inches, deep enough so that it wouldn’t be damaged by playing on it. “A kid’s cleats can get stuck in the gaps and cause them to break an ankle,” Holben said.

Coaches and parents have also expressed concern about the toxicity of silica sand, used by the contractor to top the sod. “It’s toxic if the dust is inhaled or comes in contact with mucous membranes. We need to take off what we can and cover the rest with decomposed granite,” Holben said.

Walter maintains that silica was called for in design specs by Purkiss.Rose RSI, the landscape architect and park and recreation planning firm that was awarded the design contract.

“Baseball specs call for that,” Walter said. “The contractor, Y.KO Construction, is just following those specs. If it was put in there in error, we’ll have to take it up. But the grass should grow in and cover it. Every day there’s less showing.”

Landscaper Paul Major, a Little League board member who headed the fields committee for three years, said the group spends between $6,000 and $12,000 every year to keep the fields in playable condition. The money is raised through fund-raisers and revenue from the snack shack.

Major said the sod used was Bermuda grass, which is dormant in winter. “We used a fescue blend that grows in cool weather,” he said. “It would usually take 30 to 45 days for sod to fill in, but Bermuda doesn’t grow until it gets warm.”

Major said people noticed problems as early as January and asked him to look at the field. “I told them someone needed to oversee the project and make sure the specs were followed,” he said. “We haven’t been privy to all aspects of the contract, including additional cost items such as the sand to fill in the gaps. I believe the taxpayers are getting ripped off on the whole project.”

Parents and coaches are also concerned that if games are delayed much longer, there will be no Little League season this year. Parks and Recreation Commissioner Dermot Stoker, who also coaches Little League, told the City Council Monday, “For some of the kids, the 12-year-olds, this will be their last opportunity to play Little League. We need to get the fields open right away or we’re looking at not having a season at all. Malibu may lose its Little League status if they have not played their full amount of games.”

There were 20 games scheduled and play would have started Feb. 22 if the fields had been ready.

City Manager Harry Peacock was scheduled to meet Wednesday with Walter, City Attorney Christi Hogin, Holben, and one or two other Little League officials.

The council Parks and Recreation Sub-committee will meet at 1 p.m. Friday at City Hall.