It’s difficult to be such a small animal and have to come down on the side opposite of big powerful business interests, or government entities. But it’s kind of my job, and though it might be tough at times, it’s the right thing to do.
We’re a land of oil and ag. In North County, much of the economy is driven by oil, or else by wine grapes, broccoli, strawberries, or some form of farming. Being a bird of inquisitive nature, and keen smell, I know this very well. I understand that the middle-class status of many people in North County is made possible because of those industries.
Yet on the opposite side is the health of the environment, a pristine resource that isn’t renewable, and one in which I spend most of my time. So it’s often difficult for a little feathered gal like me to come down on one side or the other. Do I root for the health of the planet or the health of our economy?
This is likely the very position the county Planning Commission found itself in recently when commissioners voted to delay a decision on an Orcutt oil project that a study found would create adverse impacts on the environment that would outweigh any economic benefit.
The project may not come to fruition and I feel like I have to applaud that decision, though the decision comes at the expense of economic growth. I’m a little less pained at feeling that way however, as it seems I’m not the only one of that opinion. Several community members spoke out against the project during the commission’s June 29 meeting citing consequences like the risk of oil seeps.
However, there were some in favor of the project. During public comment, concerned citizen Ed Hazard urged the commission to approve the project. “This is oil country,” he said before expounding on the industry’s economic benefit to the community. The commission didn’t make an actual decision but instead put it off until its next meeting this month. For now, I’m keeping my feathers crossed.
At least this issue is being discussed out in the open, for better or worse. That’s not always the case.
Why is it so hard for government officials to maintain transparency? Maybe it’s the coastal fog but Lompoc’s officials have had some difficult times being transparent with their actions. This isn’t anything new. Community members have long spoken out for the need for transparency at City Council meetings. Candidates for public office have run on campaigns promising a more open government. In recent months, City Councilman Jim Mosby even started holding transparency meetings, giving Lompoc residents a chance to ask him directly about issues that relate to the city.
However, the City Council got a warning from Kelly Scott with the District Attorney’s Office for discussing an issue during closed session in 2015 that should’ve been discussed during a public meeting. It was the second warning. The first was for a different meeting in 2014.
It’s not just the City Council either. A Santa Barbara County grand jury investigation revealed several complaints about the operations of the Lompoc Unified School District. Chief of those complaints is in regard to “perceived conflict of interest” involving a board member Bill Christen and his spouse, Tina Christen, who is a district employee. The grand jury found that some of Christen’s votes as a board member may have violated a government code prohibiting school board members from having financial interest in contracts made by their board. Read: He benefits from voting to give his wife a raise. Other findings included that the jury was “unable to determine exactly how expenditures of the LUSD’s general fund are being allocated and tracked.”
Some things should be kept behind closed doors; issues that affect taxpayers in a big way should not be. It’s pretty simple.
The Canary is open about everything. Send her comments at canary@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in Jul 7-14, 2016.