Ballot MeasureS

[ From Taking Full Measure By Cheri Rae, Daily Sound, Sept. 24, 2009 - see original article for full text and comments]


With all the talk about Measure B, voters might assume that the citizens’ height limit initiative is the only ballot measure to consider in the upcoming election.

But lost in the discussion about who loves Santa Barbara the most by the way they stand on B is an alphabet soup of ballot measures, known as C, D, and E, placed there by City Council.

... since each measure would amend the City Charter, voters ought to have some idea about them, especially since in this city-run election, not a single argument, much less a rebuttal, against any of these measures appears in the voter handbook or on the City’s website.


Measure C: Parks and Recreation Commission

Measure C seeks to create a new seven-member Parks and Recreation Commission by combining the five-member Board of Park Commissioners and the five-member Recreation Commission—who now serve concurrently. It also provides for the appointment of a “youth member of age 16 or older” to the new commission. According to the argument for Measure C, signed by Council Members Das Williams and Roger Horton, the consolidation will “save money and staff time. It will also mean there are seven citizens that can hold city staff accountable for the condition of our parks and the results of our senior and youth recreation programs.”

There is no argument on the ballot opposing the measure. But the question remains: as admirable as the notion is to add a “youth member of age 16 years or older,” how does that square with the membership requirement “members must be qualified electors of the City.” Can someone who is too young to vote actually, legally, serve—and vote? The City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis does not address the question, but does offer, “The manner of appointing the youth member and the term of office for the youth member would be established by an ordinance to be adopted by the City Council.”

Would the terms then depend on the age of the youth at appointment? An 18-year-old, for example, would age out of the youth division pretty quickly. Do we really want to amend our City Charter with an age requirement?


Measure D: Harbor Commission

First proposed back in 1999, Measure D seeks to expand the membership of the Harbor Commission from five members to seven, and allows a non-city resident to serve. The argument signed by Mayor Marty Blum argues that a larger membership will facilitate the work of subcommittees; allow them to more effectively handle increased responsibilities at the waterfront; commissioners could consult with two other members; and, “Since the harbor is the only port in the County, it is reasonable to allow individuals from neighboring communities the right to have a voice in its administration.”

Again, there is no argument on the ballot opposing this measure. But on May 21, in their discussion to advise City Council on their position, the Harbor Commission voted 4-0 “not to approve the Charter Amendment proposal to expand the Board of Harbor Commissioners from five to seven members, but allow for appointment of one member to be a non-city resident.”

Along the lines of “if it’s not broke, why fix it,” harbor commissioners agreed that they already run an efficient operation with five members; “lean and mean; actually quite pleasant,” was one commissioner’s description. It should be noted that longtime proponent of the measure, Commissioner Ken Owen, was absent from that meeting.

But it’s clear that the Harbor Commission advisory vote meant little to City Council. And by the time commissioners learned the ballot measure had been placed, it was too late to write an argument against Measure D.


Measure E: Architectural Board of Review

Measure E seeks to reduce the membership of the ABR from nine members to seven — and allows up to three members to be residents of the county, not just the city. The argument in favor of the measure notes, “These changes will improve the efficiency and cohesiveness of the ABR, and make it easier to recruit talented contributors to one of the city’s most important volunteer boards.” The signatories to the argument in favor of Measure E are Mayor Marty Blum, and two former ABR chairs: William Mahan and Bruce Bartlett. They further argue, “These sensible and prudent changes to the membership requirements of one of our most important volunteer review boards are long overdue.”

There is no argument against Measure E on the ballot; I can’t imagine any good one that could be made — unless by architects seeking to add even more members. As anyone who has followed a project at ABR, nine members can be very unwieldy; absences sometimes create inconsistency in how a project is reviewed, depending on which members are in attendance on a given day; allowing individuals who are not city residents to apply could bring a fresh perspective to the Board.

One of the spoils of victory, sometimes lost on the voting public, is the opportunity for City Council to appoint members of boards and commissions to carry out their common vision. These powerful positions are often a steppingstone to higher office, so voters are wise to pay attention to candidates and their appointments—as well as any and all changes that are made to these advisory bodies...