The Measure P Con Job
By Mike Stoker
You Must Vote “NO” on Measure P.
Why?
Because a yes vote would be a vote for fiscal malfeasance.
If you live within the boundaries of the Santa Barbara City College (SBCC) district, you should review this link before you vote.
The preceding link lists the salaries of all SBCC employees from 2012-2022. What it clearly establishes is that if you vote yes on Measure P you are voting in favor of monetary mischief in the most extreme degree.
The link proves this in two ways.
To understand this, we must go back in time. Through 2010, SBCC was considered the gem of the city college system nationwide. Shortly after 2010, there was a coup – financed and supported by retired teachers – to get trustees elected that would give the teachers’ union a blank checkbook for whatever they asked for in raises and benefits. The teachers succeeded in stacking the board and the blank checks were forthcoming. Instead of spending money on students and maintenance for the school, the trustees spent the money on employee raises and benefits.
What you will find in that link is astounding. The first seven pages are filled with the names of hundreds of employees making $200,000 or more per year. You will then find that a total of 30,947 employees (some were counted twice )were employed from 2012-2022 . Look at all those salaries and you will find that you would probably be happy if you made what most, if not all, of those employees made.
That was the money trustees spent on employees rather than on students and/or maintenance of facilities.
Why is that important when considering which way to vote for Measure P?
Keep in mind the coup of the trustees in 2010. Significantly, in 2008 SBCC went to the voters with a bond measure under the same pretenses as Measure P: that they needed the money for the maintenance of facilities.
At the time, I supported that bond, as the trustees in charge in 2008 would have spent it on maintenance as promised. However, the trustees who took over in 2010 had no intention of honoring the promises of the 2008 trustees. They instead spent it on bloated salaries for unneeded employees (keep in mind that those salaries don’t even take into account benefits and other perks).
So now, 16 years later, these same trustees – beholden to the teachers’ union – are asking for more money again, saying it is for maintenance just as we were told in 2008. Well, burn me once shame on you... burn me twice, shame on me. The current trustees' catering to teachers and their demands for increased salaries and benefits vs. students and maintenance should not be awarded with your vote to once again give them more money for more increases in salaries and benefits.
The same trustees that put teachers above students and maintenance used COVID-19 as an excuse to turn SBCC into a virtual college. As a result, enrollment has dropped from 20,232 in 2009 (a year before the coup) to 13,427 in 2023. That's a decrease of 33.6%. Additionally, on the virtual front, by 2023, 39% of the classes SBCC students were taking were online; students didn't need to step foot in a classroom.
Given a drop in attendance of 33.6% and the decreased enrollment with only 61% of the students needing a classroom, I must ask:
Q.) What have the trustees done to adjust to these changed circumstances?
A.) Absolutely nothing.
No reduction in staff.
No reduction in the number of buildings being used.
Nada.
In the private sector, you would significantly cut back your staff and you would downsize your operating footprint.
But not these trustees.
To respond to a reduced demand for teachers by a reasonable cut in teachers would run counter to what the union wants, so it doesn't happen. Anything other than a “NO” vote on Measure P would reward the current trustee's fiscal incompetence and would give them even more money to waste.
Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the con job the yes on Measure P folks are perpetrating on the public. In their support literature they use the Taxpayers Association and Tom Wildroe and Lanny Ebenstein as yes supporters, suggesting a well-respected pro-taxpayer association supports Measure P.
The fact is the SB County Taxpayers essentially ceased to exist four to five years ago. Since that time, there has been no board of directors meeting, no annual meetings, no meetings of any kind. When it ceased doing business, Mr. Wildroe was Executive Director and Mr. Ebenstein the President. Since then, the two men have paid the Secretary of State (SOS) the annual filing fee for a 501 C 4, so they have allowed it to 'legally' exist solely with the SOS. Consequently, when you see their endorsements, keep in mind those “endorsements” are nothing more than two guys who’ve hijacked the name of a once honorable association to serve their own personal agenda.
And for that, they should be ashamed.
I served for many years as the President of the Taxpayer Association. For decades, the Taxpayers Association was a well-respected association with hundreds of members. Prominent public servants served as President. People such as Joe Grey, Bob Kallman, Jack Pellering, Jean Blois, Joe Olivera, Don Oaks, Darwin Sainz, and Carl Engel served as President.
These fine people are all deceased.
What Mr. Wildroe and Mr. Ebenstein are doing does the legacy of those former presidents a disservice. They would be so disappointed by how these two individuals have lifted the name of the Taxpayers Association to support Measure P, something the founders never would have supported.
Hopefully, voters won't be fooled by this con job. After the election, I will make it my personal priority to honor all those who served the 'real' Taxpayers Association to have this defunct association formally dissolved so that Mr. Ebenstein and Mr. Wildroe can never commit this fraud on the public again.
For me, the choice couldn't be clearer:
Vote “NO” on Measure P.
•••
Mike Stoker currently serves as President & CEO of the Santa Barbara County Taxpayer Advocacy Center. Stoker is a land use, environmental, and business law attorney. He has previously served on the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, was Chairman of the CA Agricultural Labor Relations Board, Majority Counsel to Congress, CA Deputy Secretary of State and served as the Southwest Administrator of the US EPA overseeing a population of 75 million people.
Join Us for the 2024 Election Eve.
Santa Barbara Current (www.SBCurrent.com) is organizing an Election Eve Get-Together at Cody's Cafe (4898 Hollister Avenue, Goleta, CA) on Tuesday night, November 5th, from 7pm to 10pm. We would very much like you to join us.
For your admittance pittance, you’ll be privileged to enjoy a Cash Bar, Heavy Appetizers (provided by Cody's Cafe), Mutual Nose-Rubbing, Friendship (real and imaginary), multiple television coverage,and a chance to be among friends and mutual acquaintances as you root for your favorites and against your nemeses.
Will Donald J. Trump become our President-in-Waiting? Will Republicans Sweep the House, Senate, and White House? Will Santa Barbarians defeat the unwanted and unnecessary school bonds? Will common sense school board members and city council members be elected? If the answer to most of these questions is YES, this will be THE place to celebrate. If things go south, you’ll have company drowning your sorrow in a stiff drink.
Please invite your friends. The results of this Presidential Election– from the top of the ballot all the way down –is sure to be pivotal for Santa Barbara, America, and the world. Tickets are $20/in advance (or $30 at the door if still available). Only 150 tickets will be sold, so to ensure your place please order well in advance.
Click here to reserve your tickets.
Santa Barbara Current’s Endorsement List (Nov 5, 2024 Election)
Thank you, Mike and everyone else who has written on this scam. There's something else shocking to me about how this misuse of funds has gone on as long as it has: where have our local newspapers been during this? Why didn't The Independent do an investigation into this? Did the News-Press?
At one time, Santa Barbara had Tom Stork. I have my own quibbles with Stork's legacy, but he was a newsman. He did investigations. We've only really had a rah rah paper for the Left here for far too long.
The recent overturn with the owners of WaPo, USA Today and the LA Times refusing to endorse Kamala Harris is a victory that I personally have been celebrating. It's as huge a take back of American values as Trump's victory would/will be. And Trump is a major part of this media awakening, in fact without Trump and without the TDS that those newspapers became guilty of enflaming, it wouldn't have happened, the public wouldn't have become suspicious of the media.
We need this on the local as well as national level. How great it would be if Marianne Partridge suddenly did a Jeff Bezos and wrote in her paper as he did in WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/10/28/jeff-bezos-washington-post-trust/
So thank you to Jim Buckley and James Fenkner and the columnists for Santa Barbara Current. I hope you all already see a victory, whatever the outcome on November 5th is. And that's you helping to make American journalism great again. It's always had its flaws, but what it became during the last eight years is simply garbage and propaganda.
Thank you Mr. Stoker for laying out some of the relevant history on this Measure.