Smack Down at the County? From the BOS Agenda...

From the County Agenda for February 17, 2009 -- is County Executive Officer Mike Brown being taken down a notch? Read on....

On March 1, 2005 the Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance amending Chapter 2, Article X of the County Code which established the duties, responsibilities and authorities of the County Executive Officer. The Board letter premised the recommended action upon the goal to strengthen organizational effectiveness and to establish an organizational culture that would improve operations.

The ordinance that was adopted on March 1, 2005 transferred direct oversight and control of most County Department heads from the Board of Supervisors to the County Executive Officer. Specifically and most pertinent to the current recommendation, Section 2-71 (f) provided the CEO with “full authority of the Board to select, appoint, evaluate, suspend, terminate and retain those department directors except the directors whose appointment or removal is otherwise expressly provided for in statute.”

The language adopted by the BOS did not require the CEO to inform, brief or seek the input of the Board of Supervisors regarding such actions. Section 2-71 (f) provides only that “the County Executive Officer may, from time to time, consult with the Board of Supervisors regarding the execution of these responsibilities.”

Concerns have been raised regarding the organizational effectiveness of this structure including the absence of required direct consultation with the elected Board of Supervisors on the appointment of department heads. Further, several contradictions seem inherent in Chapter 2, Article X. For example, Section 2-69 contains the statement that “As the legislative
body of the County, the board of supervisors is responsible for its efficient and effective management….and the Board has ultimate authority and control over County policy, budgetary matters and strategic direction.”

Because of these concerns, and a concern that the Board meet its legislative responsibilities, we believe that now is the appropriate time to reevaluate this aspect of the County organizational structure and to consider amending section 2-71 (f) to return the authority to the Board of Supervisors to “select, appoint, evaluate, suspend, terminate and retain” department directors who are not elected or appointed by the courts.

We hope through objective review of the ordinance including a comparison to similar aspects of duties and powers of the CEO/CAO position in other Counties, this Board will have the opportunity to establish and define its responsibilities as well as the overall county structure.

Dr. Dave Endorses Pappas

From a press release -- an announcement from Dr. Dave Bearman. -- Sara

Ever since the closely fought Wallace-Chamberlin race in 1992, the 3rd District has been very evenly divided. This divisiveness has not been good for County government or appreciated by the voters of the 3rd District. In fact, the incumbent Brooks Firestone ran as a uniter. Unfortunately like George Bush, Firestone turned out to be a divider. The voters’ displeasure in his perceived failure to act even-handedly was reflected by the 3rd place showing of Firestone’s hand-picked candidate, David Smyzer in this year’s 3rd District primary.

There are many reasons to support Steve Pappas for 3rd District Supervisor. Not the least of which is that he is a true independent (he is registered as Decline To State). He will make decisions on what is best for all of us in Santa Barbara County, not what is best for North County or South County, or the Republicans or the Democrats. An added bonus is that of the two candidates for this office, he has the most experience in elected office(6 ) years to (0 ) and has the most business experience.

We are all Santa Barbara County residents. Pappas being an independent allows him to act in the best interest of Santa Barbara County without hewing to any particular party line. The vast majority in the 3rd District want to see open space preserved. They want ag zoned lands to remain ag zoned. They want Ag to prosper and want what development does occur, to occur in urban settings supported by adequate infrastructure. So does Steve Pappas. He is not tied to special interests. As our Supervisor Steve Pappas will be the more effective in representing the whole of Santa Barbara County and the Third District.

Santa Barbarans want a County that supports business while requiring these businesses to act responsibly, not leak oil over pristine land, tear up scenic freeways, or bully politicians with plans for building mega resorts. Steve’s work in fighting development in the Santa Ynez Valley, his experience in public office and business acumen, give him the tools to effectively protect the environment without creating a hostile business environment. Steve Pappas will implement safeguards that both protect the beauty of Santa Barbara’s unique natural gifts while not unduly hamstring business.

Steve Pappas has stood up to developers. He worked creatively to prevent a 15 acre farm in Los Olivos from being turned into 150 condos. He has tried to work with the Chumash to hold them accountable for the environmental impacts of their development and to require them to act at least as responsibly as a normal developer.

We need someone who has the savvy and experience right now to use every avenue to fight the Naples development and development on the Bishop Ranch. Steve Pappas is that person.

A person with the business experience of Steve Pappas has a much better chance of working out a transfer of development rights (TDR) arrangement than the relatively inexperienced Doreen Farr. Her own supporters, in their campaign material, have damned her with feint praise. They characterized her as a nice lady who is a hard worker and is willing to learn. That is all well and good, but we should demand a candidate with a solid track record of experience and results in work ,community activism and public office.

Of the 5 candidates who ran in the primary there was no argument that Farr had the least elective office experience, whereas Victoria Pointer and myself had the most, followed by Steve Pappas. Pappas can hit the ground running. He is in a unique position to represent the best interests of both the Santa Ynez Valley and the Goleta Valley. The Independents said we need someone who can communicate with the ranchers. Pappas has strong backing from this element of the electorate.

While Farr has some impressive endorsements, it is not they who will be serving us as Supervisor. Let’s look at Ms. Farr’s track record. According to her campaign material, she served on the Planning Commission for 2_ years, was active in PANA and before that got a stop sign put up. That’s about it, folks. Just because an ad shows her standing next to Lois Capps, no one is confused that Farr is Capps.

• Goleta Decision
The policy decisions Doreen Farr made as a community activist are cause for concern about her judgment. Farr has made some poor public policy decisions and has yet to publicly acknowledge these errors in judgment. She supported the city of a third of Goleta even though the County’s fiscal analysis and the LAFCO required independent fiscal analysis of this truncated city of Goleta pointed to a high potential for a financially marginal city. Farr still insists she made the right decision.

• Revenue Neutrality Agreement
When asked about the Revenue Neutrality Agreement (RNA) Doreen Farr has consistently said she had no hand in developing what has been deemed the worst RNA in the state. Somehow she thinks that excuses her support of the city of Goleta at the time of its formation. The fiscal underpinnings of a city are one of the most important aspects to consider in forming a new city. Goleta’s political leaders are now clamoring for a dramatic revision of that RNA. In my mind Farr should have been aware of the fiscal implications of the RNA before throwing her support to the boundaries of the current city of Goleta.

• Isla Vista Governance
Her position on Isla Vista governance is hard to comprehend. Her supervisorial campaign literature says she supports some vague sort of self-government for Isla Vista. What does she mean by that? Most analysts believe that a freestanding city of Isla Vista would be even less financially viable than the present abbreviated city of Goleta.

When there was a real chance to give Isla Vista self-government and have it be a part of Goleta, Farr opposed IV’s inclusion in the city. This is even though the independent fiscal analysis showed a city of Goleta including Isla Vista would have had 14 million more dollars in surplus at the end of 10 years than a city with the boundaries approved by LAFCO. And this is not counting the 25 million dollars Goleta West bank account, plus the 1.5 million per year in ad valorem property tax which goes to the Goleta West Sanitary District. The city of Goleta would have gained these assets if the Goleta Now proponents had included Isla Vista within their boundry. This would have allowed this larger city to absorb the functions of the sanitary district and dissolve the Goleta West Sanitary District.

• The Environment
Farr and many of her supporters made a flawed fiscal, political and environmental decision in choosing the current boundaries for what is now the city of Goleta. The Goleta Now organization correctly reasoned that support for their new city would go down in Goleta if they included Isla Vista. What they did not calculate was that the overwhelming support out of I.V. would have led to an even larger favorable vote than the current city received. More importantly this larger city of Goleta would have been more financially viable and have been more environmentally conscious than what we got. We would not be facing the prospect of 900, 1200, 3000 – who knows how many – new houses on the Bishop Ranch and the rezoning of other ag lands within Goleta.

Steve Pappas, Victoria Pointer and I represent the emerging less partisan trend in government. We must move away from confrontation between Republicans on the right and Democrats on the left and look to leadership in the middle, a leader who has the best interests of the people at heart, rather than the interests of one political party or another. If that’s what you want, Steve Pappas is your man.

I support Steve Pappas for Third District Supervisor. I urge Third District voters to study the two candidates. After doing so, I believe most of you will join me in going to the polls to vote for Steve Pappas for Third District Supervisor.

Peace,



David Bearman, M.D. (Dr. Dave)

Oil Drilling Politics Brings Lots of Political Action

50 environmental organizations are opposing reopening our waters to oil drilling. Our Governor continues to oppose it as well. I received under separate cover from this EDC advisory a letter from three former County Supervisors opposing the current majorities support for drilling....now the City of SB will likely be opposing it as well. -- Sara

PRESS ADVISORY
Santa Barbara City Council to Vote On Oil Moratorium

WHAT: The Santa Barbara City Council will consider a resolution (attached hereto) in support of the State and Federal Moratoria on New Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing off the Santa Barbara Coastline

WHEN: Tuesday, September 9, 2008, 6:00 p.m.

WHERE: City Council Chambers, Santa Barbara City Hall, De La Guerra Plaza, Santa Barbara, CA

WHY: According to the Memorandum issued by Mayor Marty Blum and Council members Helene Schneider and Das Williams, the proposed Resolution is intended to re-emphasize the City’s support of the oil moratorium, which has taken on new significance in light of the national media surrounding the August 26, 2008 Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors vote against the moratorium. The resolution notes that “City of Santa Barbara residents have long opposed new oil and gas drilling off their coastline” and that “the City of Santa Barbara is the site of the devastating oil spill of 1969 that led to the forming of the modern environmental movement and Earth Day worldwide.”

On Medical Marijuana: Judge Candidate and Senior County Prosecutor John MacKinnon

Again thank you for the allowing me to answer this question... it has been asked of me several times during the campagain.

In response to your question about medical use of marijuana..... in 1996 voters in California passed the Compassionate Use Act. This act is now part of section 11362.5 of the Health and Safety Code which states in the statute that its goal is:

"To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraines, or other illness for which marijuana provides relief."

As to the legalization of marijuana in general... that is also a decision to be made by the legislature or by the People of California. A Superior Court Judge or Appellate Court Justice does not decide on whether a stature is "good law" or "bad law", so long as it is Constitutional.

As a Judge of the Superior Court, my mandate and duty is to follow the law as it is written...... again so long as it does not violate the Constitution. The decision to make the use of any substance legal or illegal, and/or the permitting of marijuana dispensaries is to be made by the Legislature, the city council, or the people by way of Propositions. Therefore, a Judge must respect and follow the law regardless of whether he personally approves or disapproves of the policy being made by our lawmakers.... all while being detached and neutral. The People of the State of California have declared the medicinal marijuana use is not a crime under state law if a medical doctor has recommended its use. The Compassionate Care Act also stated that recreational use of marijuana shall continue to be illegal. This is the law that I am required to follow.

Let me say though that marijuana is not an epidemic facing our county and community the way that methamphetamine and other drugs are. I have served for the last 18 months in our Substance Abuse Treatment Court where we see the ravages of substance abuse. We see pregnant mothers who inject methamphetamine, college students who are addicted to heroin, and young people who are look as if their very life force is being drained from their bodies. I have worked in this therapeutic system to help people get their lives together. I have seen first hand the miracles that can occur.... the former pregnant mother who gives birth to a clean baby, the parent who gets her children back from CPS, the young man who re-enrolls himself back into school and his life on track. These are the stories of hope and change that I am able to see..... as well as the tragedy.

When I first came to the Substance Abuse Treatment Court we only had approximately 20 people in the treatment program. In less than two years we have been able to get those numbers to almost 80. In Santa Maria we also have over 300 drug users in our Prop 36 treatment program. I am proud that former addicts/turned counselors ask me for bumper stickers, yard signs, ect.... These former addicts want to see me on the bench to continue to work that we do everyday. That really is the greatest endorsement.... recovered drug users who are supporting a D.A. for Judge.... I think it really shows that you can be a D.A. and still be compassionate and care for people in our community.

Respectfully,

John MacKinnon
Candidate for Superior Court Judge