“NO” ON MEASURE P

By Justin Shores

Create the Problem, Charge Taxpayer to Fix it

Santa Barbara City College Board of Directors has been working for years on a strategy to sell the local taxpayer on a huge bond or tax burden on the local community. The bond is being sold as an infrastructure bill but as we have seen with multiple local boards the money rarely is used for its intent but instead is spent on the current board’s agenda. This is possible due to loose regulation and lack of community oversight.

Over two years ago one of the some of the more influential board members were caught on a hot mic at a board meeting discussing strategy on how they would sell this bond to voters: make it about “safety” to scare the voters into it and have around ten local politicians come out to voice support of it.

Passage of Measure P should be an “easy win,” they believe, due to two things: 1) lack of community involvement and oversight at SBCC, and 2) the loyalty of the local Democrat voter.

Assemblymember Gregg Hart is possibly one of the chosen politicians as he has written the argument in favor of the bond. His very first line is misleading as he states in bold “WITHOUT INCREASING TAX RATES.” This debt will have to be paid by taxpayers until it is paid off. They can push the debt out for a few years and then craft misleading statements like this.

The proposed $198 million tax burden on local homeowners will not only impact them directly but will also lead to an increase in rents, further burdening renters. This type of financial strain on taxpayers should raise red flags, especially considering the current economic challenges faced by many, such as high housing costs, rising expenses in essentials like food and healthcare, and overall economic uncertainties.

Bloated Administrative Salaries

One of the major issues highlighted is the disproportionately high percentage of the budget allocated towards salaries and payroll at SBCC, standing at a staggering 90%. This figure far exceeds the average of 60-70% seen in other community colleges, leaving a mere 10 cents of every dollar for other essential expenditures. With declining enrollments not justifying such excessive spending on salaries, there is a pressing need for the college to reevaluate its budget priorities and explore more efficient ways to allocate resources. Bloated California school administrations have cost taxpayers billions of dollars and have diverted funds from school supplies, teacher salaries, and classroom aid.

Furthermore, the call for a tax increase should prompt a serious reconsideration of the college's financial management practices. Rather than solely relying on taxpayers for additional funds, SBCC must explore cost-cutting measures and seek out alternative revenue sources. Fundraising efforts should be directed towards specific projects, ensuring transparency and accountability, instead of issuing a blank check in the form of a bond measure.

The actions of SBCC after they received a substantial donation of $25 million from Makenzie Scott raise questions about the college's financial decision-making.

The failure to allocate these funds towards promised infrastructure improvements, and instead using a portion for advertising purposes related to the bond measure, is a clear misallocation of resources.

Taxpayers deserve transparency and responsible stewardship of their funds, which includes holding institutions like SBCC accountable for their spending priorities.

It is imperative to closely monitor SBCC's budget and spending decisions, especially considering the proposed tax increase. Residents should actively engage with college meetings, ask critical questions, and push for greater financial accountability. Blindly approving another blank check in the form of Measure P without addressing the underlying budget concerns would be a disservice to taxpayers and the local economy at large.

By approving this bond measure, what you’ll really be doing is simply giving another pay raise to the horde of overpaid administrators at SBCC. If you want to vote for even higher compensation packages, that’s one thing, but passing a $198-million bond measure to “improve and upgrade aging facilities” is a joke. That money – as far as I can tell – will simply be passed along to hire more “administrators” and other useless personnel at way-above-average salaries.

With total compensation packages for top SBCC administrators nearing the $500,000-per-year level (transparentcalifornia.com), no doubt passing this bond measure will ensure SBCC officials will continue to pad the administrator payroll and – break out the champagne – pay raises for everyone!

In conclusion, the community must advocate for prudent financial management, demand transparency in spending, and hold SBCC accountable for their budget priorities. It is time to rethink the approach to funding higher education and ensure that taxpayer dollars are used wisely and effectively to benefit the entire community.

Time to limit staff increases contingent with growth (or decrease) in the number of students being served. And, perhaps layoffs, or at least “disappearing” administrative positions as retirements kick in to bring them back in line with student body needs.

Time then to vote against “Measure P.”

Justin Shores is founder of StandUP Santa Barbara. Justin and his wife met while attending SBCC. They have two children.

SB Current is a reader-supported publication. If you enjoy receiving our mix of daily features please consider upgrading to a paid subscription.

If you’d rather not tie yourself to a monthly or yearly contribution, a one-time donation would work too.

Whatever you choose, your encouragement and patronage is greatly appreciated.