• The Publisher’s Notebook •

In Malibu: Always Read the Fine Print

BY ANNE SOBLE

All of the attention being heaped on the former mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, population 7025, has prompted some musings on forms of local government. For example, Wasilla’s municipal government consists of an elected mayor and a six-member city council. The mayorship is an independent executive.
The City of Malibu, with almost double the population, is a general law city that operates under what is commonly referred to the council-manager form of government. The five-member city council is elected at-large to serve four-year terms.
The local mayor’s office is rotated among all council members and is essentially ceremonial. The mayor presides at council meetings and serves as a public face for the city in times of crisis, but the mayor has no authority not shared equally by all of the other council members.
However, one now has to wonder whether the current city council is consciously, or subconsciously, subverting its design to be closer to that of Wasilla’s, especially on the issue of new laws to regulate local paparazzi. Are the powers of the city council being diluted?
The mayor ostensibly has no authority to unilaterally oversee the drafting of legislation, but that is exactly what has been done if one looks through the files of what is supposed to be solely research on paparazzi regulation now available for public review at City Hall.
This is material, judging from the council member comments at Monday night’s meeting, that the mayor didn’t bother to tell her colleagues even existed. But perhaps that’s not so surprising, since the mayor has repeatedly stated there “are no draft ordinances.”
We have already noted that faculty at the Pepperdine School of Law who worked on this material thought they were performing a city service, not a personal one that essentially was a citizen’s request. But again, as also has been noted, when the title of mayor is used in an unofficial capacity, it gives the impression of official sanction, especially among those who may not realize the specific nature of the Malibu mayorship.
Is this the way potential municipal legal conflicts with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be undertaken? Especially since these ordinances are appended with fine print stating they are “not intended to be legal advice [and] no representation is made as to the accuracy of the information.”
Sometimes, the smallest size type is the most important of all. The “Mayor’s Update” on this issue and others also comes with its own fine print: “It should be noted that the above is provided for information only. The opinions and views expressed by the mayor do not necessarily reflect the views of the entire city council or the City of Malibu.” Is another title in order?
Perhaps Malibuites could be issued official municipal magnifying glasses to guarantee that they don’t miss any of the fine print. The expression “caveat emptor” becomes “caveat voter” at Malibu City Hall.