Ventura May Seek Easier Ouster of Port Appointees : Government: A state law needs to be changed. Council members are displeased with Commissioner Robert (Nick) Starr, who failed to inform the city of a 1968 bribery conviction.

The Ventura City Council today will consider lobbying to change state law so the council can more easily remove members of the Ventura Port District Commission.

Some council members have been unhappy that it would be difficult and costly to remove port district Commissioner Robert (Nick) Starr from his position.

Starr was convicted in 1968 of taking bribes while he was a Los Angeles Harbor commissioner. The conviction was overturned two years later. Starr did not tell council members about the conviction when he was appointed in June.

Since the case became public in August, some council members have pressured Starr to quit. He has refused, saying he has done nothing wrong. Starr, who cannot be legally compelled to resign, still sits on the five-member commission.

The law prohibits the council from ousting a commissioner after he or she is appointed for four years unless it is shown that the commissioner did something that was detrimental to the port district.

In that case, an investigation and a public hearing similar to a trial must be conducted, and at least five votes of the seven-member council would be needed to remove the commissioner. In October, the council decided that the estimated $250,000 that it would cost to try to oust Starr was too high.

If a new law is passed, the council would have a better chance of ousting Starr, Mayor Gregory L. Carson said.

“They would truly serve at the pleasure of the council,” said Carson, who favors amending the law so that no reason would be needed for removal.

“Let them do their thing,” Starr said Friday. “They must have a lot of time on their hands to play these games.”

If the council approves a recommendation to change the law, Ventura officials would ask Assemblyman Jack O’Connell (D-Carpinteria) to sponsor the bill in the upcoming legislative session, Carson said.

Kris Kuzmich, O’Connell’s administrative aide, said the legislator has already received about 50 similar requests from residents--including council members--to change the law because of the Starr case.

“It’s still under consideration,” she said. “He has a self-imposed limit of introducing 20 bills a session in order to give the attention to the legislation and the proper advocacy.”

Starr’s attorney, Kirk Grossman, said that even if a new law is passed, it would not apply to Starr, because he was appointed before the change. “Why don’t they just let sleeping dogs lie?”

But Ventura City Atty. Peter D. Bulens said it is unclear whether Starr could be removed if the proposed legislation was passed.

“It would depend on whether it specified if the current commission is affected,” he said.

Commissioner Ernest Thorpe said he was afraid that the proposed change would encroach on the independence of commissioners. “We’re appointed, and then we’re supposed to be independent of the city,” Thorpe said.

Councilman James Monahan, who supported Starr’s appointment, said he was against the idea.

“I don’t see the need for it,” Monahan said. “I think what they’re trying to do is put these guys under their thumb. We should really thoroughly scrutinize the people we appoint, and that should be enough.”