With the Nov. 2 general election just around the corner, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors passed on taking official positions on the ballot measures during its regular meeting Oct. 12.
It was revealed the county’s six-member Legislative Program Committee voted to take stances on three initiatives: propositions 19, 25, and 26. Still, the supervisors voted 4-1 to withdraw the item indefinitely.
Fifth District Supervisor Joe Centeno opposed making his stances known on the measures, explaining that voters could call his office to find out where
he stands.
“In each and every one of these propositions, as much as I would like to sit here and tell each voter how to vote on that, I’m just not going to do that,” Centeno said. “I’m going to leave it up to each voter in Santa Barbara County to make up their own mind.”
First District Supervisor Salud Carbajal, who is also a member of the legislative committee, made the motion to strike the item from the agenda and recommended the board conduct a future discussion about the process for taking official positions.
“It’s not worth the consternation,” he said. “I’m willing to withdraw or table this item to avoid a long protracted discussion on our approach to this.”
Carbajal added that the action shouldn’t be viewed as a change to the board’s existing opposition on Proposition 23, which would suspend AB32, the global warming solutions act, until unemployment levels rise.
During the meeting, officials announced the county’s Legislative Program Committee voted to oppose Proposition 19—the initiative that would legalize recreational use of marijuana for adults age 21 and older. The committee also opposed Proposition 26, which would require a two-thirds majority approval from voters to approve local levies and charges. Additionally, the committee voted to support Proposition 25, which would change requirements for passing a state budget from a two-thirds vote to a simple majority.
The legislative committee took no position on Proposition 21, which would increase vehicle license fees to fund state parks, and Proposition 22, which would prohibit the state from taking local tax dollars during times of fiscal emergency.
Third District Supervisor Doreen Farr argued those measures should be discussed by the board and found fault with the lack of details on the initiatives made available to supervisors.
“It’s frustrating for me that there are a number of these here that we’re not even talking about,” Farr said. “We should have had a lot more information on these if we were going to be asked to make a vote on them.”
The board’s only dissenting voter, chairwoman and 2nd District Supervisor Janet Wolf, said there might not be time to revisit the issue in future meetings.
“It’s disturbing to me because we are the leaders in the community,” she said. “We should be studying these items. It’s vital we take a position.”
News Briefs is compiled by Sun staffers from staff reporting and local and national media. Information should be sent to the Sun via fax, e-mail, or mail.
This article appears in Oct 14-21, 2010.