Public Servants vs. Politicians

By Mike Stoker

I've often said the difference between a public servant and a politician is that for the politician the position is the best-paying job they have and don't have a real job to go back into the private sector when they lose. The public servant position is the worst paying job they've had, and they do have a real job to go back to the private sector anytime, win or lose.

After watching Tuesday's Board of Supervisors hearing regarding Sable Oil Company's attempt to have the names on its permits changed from Exxon (the prior owner) to Sable (the current owner) it became clear the distinction goes much deeper to the fiber of the character and principle of the elected official.

I think we can all agree that a politician is driven less by principle or by doing the right thing and more by doing what makes him or her look good with more voters at the time. A politician is driven by the polls and what the vote means in the polling; the public servant lives by the well-known quote in Shakespeare's Hamlet, "To thine own self be true." (Translated: you should do what you believe is right, not what others want you to do.)

So, with that in mind, I return to this past Tuesday's Board of Supervisors meeting. The Board had to decide whether to approve a name change on the permits with the county moving the prior owner and changing it with the current owner. That seems pretty much of a 'no brainer' right? I mean the Assessor's Office will acknowledge the owner is Sable. That's who they send the property tax bill to and that's who pays the property tax bill. You would think this would be something routine that shouldn't even need to go to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. It would be something you should be able to do 'over the counter.'

But not in Santa Barbara County. Since this county is – depending upon who makes up the majority of the Board of Supervisors – so anti-oil that a special ordinance was passed singling out oil companies and denying them the right to do a name change without demonstrating the financial ability to deal with any adverse conditions that occur from operations...like an oil spill.

Fair enough.

So, Sable went through the process. They applied for approval of the name change. They provided county staff with all the information regarding their financial ability to respond to adversity, provided their insurance information insuring against calamities and covering should there be any, and provided information showing the net worth of the company to back it up at 2.5 billion dollars. Based on county requirements that Sable clearly complied with, county staff recommended approval as the matter went first to the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission. At the commission, the approval was passed on a 3-1 vote with one of the planning commissioners (appointed by Supervisor Laura Capps, who is known for being anti-oil) supporting the name change acknowledging this was not a vote for approving an oil project but a vote dealing with a process issue for an existing 'vested rights' oil operation that the county had a duty to deal with in 'good faith' or face a lawsuit that they would surely lose and subject the county to significant financial exposure. Kudos to that planning commissioner and the planning commission for doing the right thing. So far so good. The process at this point is working the way it should.

Then comes the Environmental Defense Center filing an appeal which automatically brings it to the Board of Supervisors. This is where the system breaks down and we get to see in action how public servants vs. politicians respond.

The EDC sends out notices and urges all their anti-oil constituents to come to the Board of Supervisors hearing to oppose the name change and 'stop Sable Oil from producing oil.' Their followers – believing the call to action – show up at the hearing, all believing the vote to oppose the name change means they stop oil production. A couple hundred strong having been misled by their own leaders testify against the name change. The hearing went on for six hours with Sable and their supporters responding.

In my capacity as President & CEO of the Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Advocacy Center, I testified that the hearing was a sham. I told the board that this wasn't about whether to approve an oil project, it was about approving a name change for an oil company that had bought another oil company that had their operations approved decades ago, had legal 'vested' rights, and that every Supervisor knew that even if they disapproved the name change they would do nothing to stop Sable from producing oil because they knew they legally were dead in the water if they did.

At the end of the day, the Supervisors voted. Supervisor Lavagnino and Nelson acknowledging the same points I've raised, voted yes to uphold the Planning Commission, and approve the name change. Supervisors Lee and Chairwoman Capps, wanting to look like heroes to the environmentalists who attended the hearing and who like lambs believed their attendance would matter, voted no. In their reasoning, Chairwoman Capps even mentioned the vote was nothing more than symbolic and acknowledged they could not stop Sable from producing oil, meaning the oil Sable will soon be producing will be produced on county permits that say the owner, operator, and guarantor is Exxon. (Is that absurd or what?)

Here's where I get to play Nostradamus. Supervisors Lee and Capps, perhaps because County Counsel didn't in executive session advise them strongly enough that the county still faces significant risk of a lawsuit they would lose, believed it all ends with the hearing ending Tuesday. After all, why would Sable file a lawsuit when they can do what they want anyway and start producing oil? Why in the world with a company with a net worth of 2.5 billion dollars care if their permits are in the name of the company that sold the oil operations to them? Why would Exxon with a net worth way beyond 2.5 billion dollars care if their name stays on the permit as the owner and operator when it is a completely different company?

Nostradamus time and news flash. I predict the county still gets a lawsuit slapped on it by one of the two companies, and that in the near future County Counsel will take the matter into executive session and strongly recommend the county settle and approve the name change or subject the county to substantial financial exposure, and the supervisors will come out of that executive session and at least three supervisors, hopefully four, will vote to approve the name change. The same name change that two voted against last Tuesday.

What a waste of time for so many people. What a waste of taxpayer money for so much staff time spent on this matter and still to be spent. What a disappointment. Only in Santa Barbara County.

Welcome to what happens when public servants act like politicians.

---

Unleash Your Inner Sleuth with Team D.O.G.E Santa Barbara Current!

Who’s ready to dive into an exhilarating mission to shine a spotlight on Santa Barbara County? We’re assembling a crack team of volunteers for our own D.O.G.E (Department of Government Efficiency) to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in public and nonprofit organizations across our great county. This is your chance to bring transparency and accountability to our sleepy, intransparent community—while having a blast doing it!

We’re on the hunt for:

• AI-savvy researchers and writers to decode data and craft compelling, honest and accurate stories.

• Accounting and legal whizzes to sniff out financial shenanigans and legal loopholes.

And here’s the kicker: we might even spin up a rogue subgroup—F.A.F.O. (F—K Around and Find Out)—to track down how well our local elected leaders and administrators are implementing their new guidance out of Washington D.C.

If you’re up for some serious fun wrapped in meaningful public service (the free type, not the greedy Board of Supervisors type) , this is your moment. Join us, and let’s make waves together!

Drop me a line with a bit about yourself and your contact details at JamesFenkner@gmail.com