Our City Council will be facing a moment of truth Monday.

Actually, it’s council members Walt Keller and Carolyn Van Horn who are on the hot seat. They must vote Yes or No authorizing the hiring of an independent counsel to assist City Attorney Christi Hogin in her inquiry into campaign law violations in the last City Council election.

The campaign violation allegations are against some supporters of Tom Hasse, many of whom are also the supporters of Keller and Van Horn. Because this investigation grows out of his election campaign and concerns several of his supporters, Hasse rightly recused himself from both the debate and the decision, leaving the four council members to decide. It also created a problem: Because it takes three votes to take action, either Keller or Van Horn must go along or the council is deadlocked 2-2. At the last council meeting, both House and Barovsky agreed with the city attorney and wanted an independent council hired to assist in the investigation. Keller and Van Horn raised a number of questions and reservations and appeared opposed to the hiring. The final decision was put off to Monday’s council meeting.

Hiring an outside attorney is not unusual. The city does it all the time because it frequently needs a lawyer with special expertise. In fact, at the same council meeting where they balked at hiring an independent council for the campaign investigation, they agreed to hire an outside attorney for eminent domain matters. The arguments against the hiring of the special counsel are, in my opinion, pure politics, obvious to every one at the council meeting. It’s politics — with a twist.

Normally, questions of politics are decided at the ballot box, with one large exception: when it involves an investigation of a possible crime. This is an investigation to decide if a crime (campaign law violations) has been committed and, if so, to prosecute those violations.

In connection with a possible violation of law, the city attorney and the City Council have totally different responsibilities and legal obligations.

A city council can pass laws, like campaign laws, to make certain things a crime. Once the council has made a law and it’s been signed, the council’s function is over. The council does not decide if the law has been violated. That begins with the prosecutor, and in the city of Malibu that’s the city attorney– Christi Hogin decides whether or not to file a criminal complaint, and if she does, it becomes “People of the State of California vs. Someone.” City Council members not only have no right to try to influence that decision but if they tried to obstruct the prosecution, that could become a separate crime called “obstruction of justice.”

You begin to get a sense of how dicey this could get.

If Keller and Van Horn hold firm and refuse to fund the help that the city attorney is asking, is that a legitimate political decision, or are they trying to derail the investigation, and is that an obstruction of justice?

Even if they vote No, is the city attorney obligated to use whatever resources are necessary to complete the investigation, whether the council supports her or not?

If they refuse but the city attorney goes ahead anyway and gets the help she needs, can they fire her for exceeding her authority?

Since Hasse has recused himself in any decision concerning the investigation, can he participate in any debate or vote about the retention or firing of the city attorney, as she is involved in the investigation?

If they fire the city attorney or even threaten it, is that an obstruction of justice and a crime?

There are certainly historical antecedents. Richard Nixon fired several independent counsels in the well-known “Saturday Night Massacre,” which ultimately ended up in his resignation.

All this doesn’t mean anyone is necessarily guilty of anything. The city attorney could complete her investigation and decide that no one has committed a crime. But in the course of that investigation, she might have to interview Hasse, Keller or Van Horn as possible witnesses, which could be one of the reasons Hogin wants to bring in independent counsel.

Alternatively, she could decide to file a criminal complaint and then prosecute it herself or bring in a special prosecutor, which seems most probable. Ultimately, the question of whether or not a crime has been committed is up to a judge or jury to decide and not a prosecutor or city council. But the investigation process and a trial, of course, has all sorts of political fallout, whether in Washington D.C. or Malibu, which is probably why it fascinates us all.

Whatever the decision Monday, this confrontation will not end at that City Council meeting. Of that we can be sure.

I had a really, really bad experience today. I am writing after having just driven through Malibu Canyon. On the dirt shoulder of the road, on that flat stretch below HRL, I saw a man dressed in dirty tan pants and a camouflage-patterned shirt, leaning against a sign post with a small bag and a hand saw at his feet. No car. Up ahead, no vehicle, but another man dressed identically, using binoculars to scope the hills across Malibu Canyon — the slope above Serra Retreat.

I pulled my car onto the shoulder where, with my binoculars, I could see both men clearly. What are they up to?

The one that was scoping the canyon began walking away. The other, the one with the saw, lit up a cigarette and began scanning the hills with his binoculars. Minutes later, he flicked the cigarette to the ground. That was it! I decided to report what I was seeing to the sheriffs.

The sheriff’s operator took my information and advised me that indeed it was deer hunting season in the Santa Monica Mountains (Zone A). My heart sank. Could I have been mistaken? The sheriffs arrived within a few minutes but not in time to see the blue truck that had driven off with both men inside. The officers were pleasant enough but said that there was nothing they could do, the men were within their rights to hunt. And about the cigarette — it’s only an infraction, and an officer would have had to see it happen. “What? What about arson,” I thought. I thanked the officers for responding and drove off in a stupor of helplessness.

I’m struggling with a few issues here. One, I’m not all that opposed to hunting — not altogether, if the life taken is held sacred and its body made use of for food. But, killing deer, here, in our hills? Knowing that men with weapons are lurking in the hills, on our hiking trails, stalking deer and coyotes and bobcats and raccoons — killing, for recreation, the wildlife we love and receive such joy from. Two, the burning cigarette butt being tossed to the ground is careless, disrespectful behavior that threatens the lives of all canyon dwellers. That there are these strangers out there, strangers in mind and in domain, who treat our land and its life with irreverence. That one ember from one of these careless person’s cigarette could ignite our hills and threaten our homes, our lives and our wild places.

I am truly at a loss. Is there something that we, the people of Malibu, should do to protect our hills and wildlife? From what I’ve been told, hunting in this area is restricted to private land. Hunters must get permission from these landowners. Maybe we could talk to local landowners and ask they adopt a no-hunting policy. Maybe we should band together in deer season and run into the hills with horns and noise makers, pushing the deer into the safety of deeper canyons. We love our wild headlands and the creatures that live in them. We love our deer. Help.

Name withheld

Editor’s note: Fish and Game officials said that in the Santa Monica Mountains, hunting is limited to bow-and-arrow use on private property only.

There has been a positive side effect to the recent closure of PCH. If we are to believe our local newspapers, many businesses were severely impacted by the loss of tourist dollars. Much hand-wringing and moaning ensued. Perhaps this will silence once and for all the minority in our community who advocate more commercial development (read “shops”) for the Civic Center while at the same time asking us to believe that they are there for the locals. Please — we weren’t born yesterday — and the recent PCH closure has proven that “the locals” can’t even support the businesses we already have. In order to attract the number of tourists needed to support more shops, restaurants, high-priced hotels, etc., we would need to make the PCH a six-lane freeway and install multilevel carparks. But! — Here’s the irony — If we did that, Malibu would lose its rural, open space character, its very reason tourists come here in the first place. The minute Malibu looks like Santa Monica, the visitors will stop coming, the businesses will go bankrupt, the strip malls will be empty and the developers will be sitting alone in the cinema multiplexes watching their favorite movie , “Urban Blight, The Sequel. “

Graeme Clifford

It’s the 21st century, Malibu. Wake up.

Throughout the years the city of Malibu has faced many traumas, none that has been so continuous as that of the traffic on Pacific Coast Highway. Whether during the rainy season or when the sun is shining brightly the traffic nightmares remain. Sure at many City Council meetings the subject is presented, however for some reason or another especially when any major problems are history the subject of traffic congestion is put on the back burner, only to simmer until another situation presents itself.

I believe its time to face this issue and address it thinking 21st century.

I propose we request directly, from the private sector to rebuild the Malibu Pier and by so doing give them the rights to initiate a hydrofoil transportation service between Malibu and Santa Monica. This type of service is currently in use between Kowloon, China, and Macao and running very smoothly as well as lucrative to the provider.

The benefits to our city would be through a use tax, the benefits to the merchants would be increased tourists reflecting on net profits and the benefit to Malibu residents would be convenience in their commute.

Let’s use our natural resources, specifically the waterways to our benefit, while continuing to eliminate air toxins by reducing automobile congestion on Pacific Coast Highway. We can then, and rightly so in the 21st century say to our offspring, “We believed in your future.”

Tom Shotke

I am responding Chenoa Ellis’s letter to the editor in The Malibu Times last week, stating that she found it hard to accept PCH being closed has made business suffer significantly. As the Malibu Chamber of Commerce president, I have spoken to a number of businesses that vehemently dispute the unsubstantiated statement by Mrs. Ellis. Also, the chamber office has been deluged with calls from business owners re: the drastic negative economic impact, with the following information:

Business was down 30-100 percent.

Employees had no transportation into Malibu, thus experiencing financial/psychological strain.

In order to stay open, employers had to work 16-18 hours a day, adding to their own physical/psychological/financial strain.

Transportation being almost impossible, there is low incentive for employees to stay.

Malibu businesses are an integral part of this community, made up of a group of people from all walks of life, many of which are not rich but trying to stay afloat. They risk their own capital, create jobs and support local charities, schools and religious organizations. In addition, 36 percent of the city’s revenue is generated from the businesses. On behalf of the chamber, the business community wishes to be looked upon as a partner with the Malibu residents, and now we need your support.

Mrs. Ellis, as you shop, dine and contract locally, ask the business owners how well they faired during this most recent PCH closure.

Jeff Peterson

I am a longtime resident of Zumirez Drive and, as everyone knows, today was the day my neighbor, Barbra Streisand, was married. It is unfortunate that the media found it necessary to hound this woman throughout her preparations for her big wedding day. Needless to say, talented people should be recognized for their extraordinary gift. However, a one-day press conference should be enough.

Even after the media were requested to keep their distance, the helicopters kept flying around, boats were “parked” in the ocean at our private beach, and the press (and “friends”) were mobbed along our street. Another neighbor and I looked at each other at one point and said “and these people are getting paid to do this!” All day and night for three days our street was filled with press and other vehicles, tons of people and the helicopters buzzed way into the evening.

As we enter the 21st century, I would hope that the human consciousness would be in a more raised condition. It is sad that people find it necessary to pursue those of fame even at their own residence.There will always be fans, but let’s keep it respectful. Remember the expression, “Get a life?” Well, we are all talented in our own way. It is nice to admire someone with great talent, but when so much attention is given, the admirers may forget their own worth or what they are capable of doing.

Ironically, today is also the day that would have been Princess Diana’s birthday — another woman pursued while she was just trying to live her life. Her life ended tragically and unnecessarily, due to the same sort of media madness. Today there are those profiting from her death, selling tickets and trinkets. Of course, we unfortunately live in a defiled and off-balanced world, with little regard for remembering or respecting the spiritual side of life.

The other day I was flipping through the TV channels and I came to a station that was playing the film, “Imagine,” about John Lennon. No matter if we like or dislike Mr. Lennon, while watching this film, I could not help admiring his awareness. At one part, when he and Oko were doing their famous peace demonstration, the press began making negative remarks about how and what John and Oko did, and John said something like, “Well, the press is going to be following us wherever we go, whatever we do, so we might as well do it for peace!” Indeed, a smart man.

So I have an idea, since there are many famous people who use their fame for good causes such as AIDS, MS, animal rights, the environment, etc., why not use events such as the fiasco of the (what should have been a private home) wedding of Ms. Streisand to push a good cause. Ms. Streisand has been supportive of the arts, AIDS benefits and has shown her support of women (especially abused) in many of her films. Imagine at this event a representative of Ms. Streisand publicly speaking about some good cause. At least the time spent would create some value.

John Lennon reminded me about this. In his short lifetime, he demonstrated for the greatest thing of all — peace. Today, we have the spiritual parts of life to cultivate. We have the environment to think about and the many animals, suffering unnecessarily and slowly becoming endangered and extinct, and the many diseases to cure, the homeless, abused children and on and on.

So imagine, people, a world where you can have talent and fame and be respected enough to have your privacy and where everyone values their own life, where the spiritual side of life is cultivated helping to eliminate the suffering — and the world will be as one.

Zumirez neighbor