Op-Ed: Measure P Is Not Just Necessary, It Is Long Overdue

By Jonathan Abboud

Santa Barbara City College is at a critical crossroads. As president of the SBCC Board of Trustees, I’ve had the privilege of seeing firsthand how deeply this institution impacts our community.

From training nurses and first-responders to shaping the local workforce by providing affordable education for nearly half of our local high school graduates, SBCC is a vital resource for the economic, workforce and social fabric of Santa Barbara.

The reality is that many of our buildings are obsolete, more than 50 years old, and in desperate need of repair and replacement.

That’s where Measure P comes in. On Nov. 5, voters have the opportunity to extend an existing tax rate — approved by voters in 2008 — to make critical repairs, modernize facilities, and provide our community and students top-notch facilities to serve Santa Barbara County’s South Coast for generations to come.

Our board forwarded Measure P to the voters with five of us voting in the majority.

Let me be clear: Measure P is not just necessary, it is long overdue.

What It Will Do, and Won’t Do

Measure P includes the most specific bond project list in decades. Every dollar will be accounted for, and the community will have full oversight.

An independent citizens’ oversight committee, annual audits and complete transparency will ensure these funds are spent wisely and effectively.

Our board is focused on transparency, efficiency and accountability. While we won’t be able to complete the entire project list, we will prioritize health and safety in making decisions on projects.

Measure P will not expand our campus, it will repair and replace the existing footprint.

Measure P will provide $198 million to update aging classrooms, labs and career training facilities. These updates will prepare students for high-demand jobs in nursing, health technologies, engineering and more.

This includes replacing the outdated Physical Education and Physical Sciences buildings, which are past their lifespans.

Measure P will not increase tax rates previously approved by voters. Opponents of the measure claim otherwise, but the facts are straightforward and legally binding.

The tax rate of $8.50 per $100,000 of assessed property value was already approved by voters in 2008 under Measure V.

Since projects under Measure V are completed and the SBCC board refinanced the bond in 2016 to secure lower interest rates, taxpayers have been paying $6.50 per $100,000.

Measure P would return that rate to the $8.50 previously approved by voters and extend it for an additional 20 years, from 2041 to 2061.

As a sign of confidence, SBCC also has the highest bond rating possible for a community college district that is not a basic-aid district (i.e. not funded entirely by local property taxes): Aa1 by Moody’s.

Measure P ensures that we also secure up to $100 million in state matching funds, with $34 million already pledged for the PE building.

If we don’t act now, those state funds will go to other communities, and SBCC will lose out. Letting that happen would be a huge mistake, both fiscally and for our future.

What Measure P Is For

~46% of the bond project list will address critical repairs across the Cliff Campus, Schott Center and Wake Campus — everything from fixing leaky roofs, upgrading electrical systems, paving roads to ensuring safe drinking water.

These repairs will benefit every student, credit and adult education. All programs —  including engineering, nursing and health technology — will see direct benefits.

Let’s set the record straight: The PE building is ~30% of Measure P’s budget, not the whole measure. And it needs to be replaced for safety reasons, including seismic concerns, leaky roofs, lead pipes and asbestos remediation.

We have a state grant that covers a significant portion of the cost: $34 million that we’ll lose if we don’t come up with a required local match, through Measure P.

The new PE building isn’t just for athletics. It will serve the entire community in times of emergency as an evacuation center (as it has during the Thomas Fire and deadly Montecito debris flows) and provide safe, up-to-date facilities for health and fitness programs that serve people of all ages.

Another ~15% is for the Physical Science building. This building is also seismically deficient, is very old and is where students receive critical instruction in sciences like chemistry.

This building would be more expensive to repair than it is to replace. With local matching funds from Measure P, SBCC will likely qualify for state matching funds for this project as well.

A final ~9% is for making our community more resilient to a natural disaster and sustainable, by installing updated solar panels, battery storage for a micro-grid and EV charging stations.

SBCC will be a beacon of safety for all in difficult times.

Was Measure V Enough?

SBCC’s last bond to upgrade facilities provided $77 million to begin the process of maintaining and rebuilding aging facilities.

This may sound like a lot of money (it is) but it covered only a relatively small portion of the facility needs identified more than 16 years ago, and the needs have only grown since then.

Facility upkeep is not a “one and done” issue — many of our facilities are more than 50 years old — some need repairs, and some have outlived their useful life and need to be replaced.

2.2% of Measure V ($1.7 million) was used to complete the La Playa Stadium Press Box before I joined the board (most of the cost of this building was underwritten by a private donor).

We can’t change past decisions, but I would not have supported spending bond funds in this way.

The language of both Measures V and P track with the language of most of the bonds in California, because ballot language must meet strict legal standards. And almost every other community has to ask local voters for funds to repair and maintain aging facilities.

SBCC has had one bond pass in 50 years, Measure V. Since that bond covered a limited portion of the needed repairs, in 2014 the board unanimously placed Measure S on the ballot after carefully studying the remaining needs.

Measure S did not pass. Ten years later, the needs have grown, costs have gone up and we lost out on state matching funds.

Importantly, decisions about how funds will be spent are based on strict fiscal accountability, with health and safety taking priority.

We’re not asking for a blank check. Measure P is about ensuring that critical repairs happen and that state matching funds are secured for the benefit of our community.

Enrollment

It is true that enrollment at SBCC has declined over the last 15 years after its 2009 peaks — and it is important to understand that SBCC is not alone here.

Declining enrollments are a trend facing nearly all community colleges nationwide, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic.

But the need for safe, modern and functional facilities remains as critical as ever.

Programs that are growing to meet current needs require modernized labs and equipment that SBCC’s aged facilities simply can’t support. Students may choose other options if SBCC’s offerings are lagging behind.

Additionally, even though more students are studying online or in hybrid formats, these students still rely on the campus for hands-on learning in labs and classrooms.

In the fall of 2023, SBCC had a headcount of 13,427 credit students and 5,479 noncredit (generally adult ed) students, 18,906 combined.

Of our enrollment, 71.5% use our facilities for their education, 11% are dual enrollment, and 17.5% are exclusively online (and that might be true for one semester and they’re back face to face the next).

62% of all our students are in-district residents, another 8% are from the North County or neighboring counties, 5.5% are out of state/international (7.5% of the credit program).

The remaining 24.5% are California residents, who are constitutionally entitled to attend any California community college with in-state fees.

This year, 2,000 local students are attending SBCC with all fees and supplies paid for through the SBCC Promise program, and last fall alone 4,906 students (88% local) took tuition-free noncredit courses in the School of Extended Learning.

Every year, thousands of local residents utilize our campuses largely at little to no cost, and that doesn’t count the visitors using the campus for recreation, events and more.

We are already working on refocusing our programs to meet needs. Just this month SBCC was preliminarily approved to offer an affordable Bachelor of Science degree in Health Information Management, a field in growing demand in Santa Barbara County with good pay.

SBCC is not only about enrollment numbers, it is about providing the best education to meet the needs of today’s workforce.

We have consistently done that for decades, and we need modernized facilities to continue to do so.

SBCC’s Budget

This Board of Trustees is actively working on developing a strategic direction on how to close our structural deficit.

It is Board Goal 1: Achieve Long-term Fiscal Sustainability: Adopt budgets that are sustainable going forward, free of structural deficits, and realistic in terms of enrollment and funding trends.

The current board has embraced fiscal transparency, accountability and sustainability as a priority like never before.

For the past two years, the Board of Trustees has focused on undergoing a thorough and collaborative process to reach a fiscally sustainable budget.

We commissioned a Budget Sustainability Report in 2022 under former interim Superintendent/President Kindred Murillo. Trustee Marsha Croninger and I served alongside campus constituent representatives on this workgroup.

The report was completed this year and is now moving into the implementation phase with the leadership of Superintendent/President Erika Endrijonas, who is experienced in these topics.

Part of our budget work is to also look at optimizing our facility use. We’ve already gotten started, with Antioch University Santa Barbara becoming a tenant on SBCC’s West Campus.

This improves access to higher education for our students and brings in revenue to the college.

This is the second of our board approved goals: Board Goal 2: Facilities and Sustainability: Evaluate facility use and needs, and plan for campus facilities that are appropriately sized, modern, well maintained, safe, sustainable, and flexible for current and future needs.

We are actively working on fixing our budget for the long term, but this does not change the large scale and overdue needs addressed by Measure P.

By modernizing our facilities, they will also cost less in both ongoing maintenance and utility costs, providing a structural reduction in expenditures.

Why Measure P Is Right, Today

At its core, Measure P is about ensuring that SBCC can continue to be a pillar of affordable education, job training and community resilience.

The need for these updates has been clear for years. Trustees Marty Blum, Marsha Croninger, Veronica Gallardo, Peter Haslund, Marianne Kugler, Lisa Macker and Craig Neilsen unanimously voted for Measure S in 2014, a bond that was twice as costly for taxpayers as Measure P and more open-ended in its project list.

The need for these updates has not changed, and the urgency has only grown as costs have increased.

I was elected to the board in November 2014, in the same election as the loss of Measure S. After this loss, supporters intended to reflect and bring back a new proposal.

Our board and administration carefully considered and discussed the need for a bond for the 2018, 2020, and 2022 elections until finally deciding to go to the voters with this bond extension in 2024.

What changed is that we now have a clear, well-considered and transparent plan to move forward:

  • It is narrowly focused and prioritizes the essentials, health and safety.
  • We hired a superintendent/president last year with strong experience administering bonds.
  • We chose the tax rate extension over a new bond to minimize costs to taxpayers.
  • We’ve taken the steps necessary to implement this bond program responsibly.

We are committed to full transparency and ensuring that every dollar of Measure P is spent wisely.

We are committed to providing affordable education and job training opportunities for Santa Barbara’s students (many of whom are first-generation college goers), while securing the state funds that will allow us to stretch local tax dollars even further.

Waiting two more years would cost us at least $34 million in state funds, and at least $14 million due to rising costs.

Our Time to Act Is Now

Measure P is a necessary investment in the future of our community. It’s about ensuring that SBCC remains the educational backbone of Santa Barbara, providing affordable access to quality higher education and job training. It is something we needed to do years ago.

By voting YES on Measure P, we are protecting our investment, unlocking millions in state funds, and ensuring that SBCC can continue to serve our students for generations to come — all without raising the tax rate previously approved by voters.

Join me along with a broad coalition of local leaders, educators and community organizations in voting YES on Measure P.

This bond is about more than just buildings. It is about the future of our community. Let’s make sure we keep SBCC strong and vibrant for all of Santa Barbara.

# # #

Jonathan Abboud is the President of the Board of Trustees for the Santa Barbara Community College District


Op-Ed’s are written by community members, not representatives of edhat. The views and opinions expressed in Op-Ed articles are those of the author’s.
[Do you have an opinion on something local? Share it with us at info@edhat.com.]

Edhat Reader

Written by Edhat Reader

Content submitted to edhat.com by its readers and subscribers

What do you think?

Comments

6 Comments deleted by Administrator

Leave a Review or Comment

75 Comments

    • A smooth job of misleading voters just like the campaign consultants for yes on P. So many misstatements.

      Examples – the college closed due to bad air quality and did not house evacuees from the Thomas Fire. On Jan 8 evacuations were expected due to the rain. Then-President Dr Beebe was asked by the Red Cross if SBCC could take evacuees. He said yes immediately. The first evacuees went to Campus Center which has a kitchen. Then in the night Dr Beebe was told that an unknown number of victims from the mudflows were being bussed over. He told staff to ready the PE building to take them. There was significant resistance internally (oh the floors will be damaged) but he was firm. The additional victims went to the PE building. The scope of work for the architect for the new PE building does not mention design it to also serve as a potential evacuation center.
      – the Bond list for Measure S in 2014 was much more specific and prioritized by building. This completely non binding “Bond list” referenced for Measure P was obviously thrown together without detail, haphazardly by who got their requests in by 6/24/24 and shown to the Board 3 days before they voted on whether to put Measure P on the ballot. New theater seats for the Garvin when the ones there were new in 2012? Theater seats are supposed to last 25-30 years. Millions more for additional PE projects in addition to the new building?.
      – The “strict legal standards” do not prevent the college from telling the community the truth – describing clearly and specifically what the money is for and how much it will cost taxpayers increasing annually using specific examples to pay off.
      – no most of the cost of the press box was NOT paid by a private donor. Most – $1.7M was paid from Measure V. $800,000 donation in addition.
      – no, what remains when credit enrollment drops is the need for far fewer large buildings
      – programs of study are declining not growing. PE, a student activity, is declining. See Facility Vision Plan
      – you can’t prioritize health and safety when you haven’t evaluated it.
      – playing games with the number and percentage of students by adding in non credit when the issue is too many buildings on main campus for credit classes. Students don’t move to Santa Barbara temporarily to take noncredit classes.
      – trying to mix up the student numbers with noncredit when the facts according to SBCC are : 39% credit classes offered entirely online, 37% credit classes offered in-person and remaining 24% dual enrollment at the high schools (different bonds) not at SBCC or workstudy not at SBCC.
      Compare the numbers of students now with the peak in 2009/10 by searching for College Facts on the SBCC website and see that credit is only about half the headcount now.
      – Health Information Technology program is all online
      – SBCC has relatively few career training/job skills classes compared to many more at College of the Canyons for example. This needs to change but is part of a larger conversation about meeting student and community needs.
      – Board goals on budget and facilities were the same last year and basically the same for years. Not new. No plan at all for facility reduction or downsizing the college.

      • Here’s what ChatGPT says:


        Positive Views on Liberalism:
        Individual Freedoms: Many proponents argue that liberalism champions individual rights and personal freedoms, including freedom of speech, religion, and the press.
        Social Justice: Liberals often advocate for social justice, aiming to reduce inequality and support marginalized communities.
        Progressive Policies: Supporters believe that liberal policies can lead to progressive social change, like health care reform, climate action, and equal rights.
        Critical Views on Liberalism:
        Cultural Critique: Critics argue that liberalism can sometimes overlook cultural values and community needs in favor of individualism.
        Economic Concerns: Some view liberal economic policies as contributing to wealth inequality or failing to address the needs of working-class citizens.
        Political Polarization: Others argue that liberal policies can lead to increased political polarization, as they may alienate those with differing beliefs.

        Those criticisms are pretty weak.

          • Yes indeed. Actually more than equally … individualism is a core conservative value and conservatives often attack liberals as being “collectivists” and “statists”. Conservative policies are *the* driver of wealth inequality, and notoriously fail to address the needs of the working class. And the last point applies to all views but more to those who are intolerant and intransigent.

  1. Sorry Mr. Abboud, I don’t have confidence that our taxpayer dollars are being wisely-managed under the current system at CC. It’s not time for another giant blank check. It’s time for a wake up call. CC needs to be managed better, BECAUSE it is such an important community asset. No one’s arguing that. Some folks will vote yes for every single prop on the ballot. ❤️

  2. I don’t trust the Yes on P contingent because the campaign mailers conspicuously make no mention of the PE building. They only mention the career training and academic programs. If a third of the money is to go to the PE building, they should have stated that up front. I don’t like to be tricked. Come back with an honest campaign.

    • AHCHOOO – you seem really hung up on on the PE building. Why would you not support fixing it up to remove lead and asbestos and fix the leaking roof?

      The building is a community resource and much like the other athletic fields, may sometimes be used for youth sporting events.

      At $8.50 per 100K home value a year, it’s not a bad deal, especially since we’ve already been paying it and it won’t increase our property taxes. I say fix em up and help the students and the community have safe buildings!

      • > At $8.50 per 100K home value a year, it’s not a bad deal, especially since we’ve already been paying it and it won’t increase our property taxes.

        To be clear, this is not accurate. As the article says “Since projects under Measure V are completed and the SBCC board refinanced the bond in 2016 to secure lower interest rates, taxpayers have been paying $6.50 per $100,000”. Just because the $8.50 rate was approved by the voters, that doesn’t mean that people have actually been paying it.

        “tax” has been made a dirty word by the grifters who own upwards of 99% of all wealth and those who have swallowed their extremely well funded propaganda, but actually taxes are civic investment. Those $2 per $100,000 (that’s 0.002%) will pay off handsomely and will contribute to property values.

        • Dear Goldorf
          It is not $2.00 more. This is another one of the misleading statements by the campaign when “without increasing taxes” wore out. Apparently they depend on people not understanding how property tax math works. Try to figure out how long it takes to pay $455.6M (bond + interest) from the full bond statement and you will see that $2.00 isn’t anywhere close. Look at the chart under the Debate video. Blues and grey are all Measure P payments. Measure V is fading not from the refi but because total District Assessments increase every year and the full 8.50 is no longer needed to pay down Measure V according to the experts at Raymond James who sell the bonds.

          • I might pay attention to your comment if you actually said why it’s not $2 and what it is instead. How long it takes to pay it doesn’t change the annual rate, which is what I addressed. And the $2 statement came from me, not the campaign, so these ridiculous attacks *on me* about misleading statements and depending on people not understanding how property tax works are another reason to ignore you. I responded to someone saying that there would be no increase in property tax payments, pointing out that there would be. If I made a mistake and my number is wrong, then say what the right number is rather than handwaving ad hominems. I simply subtracted $6.50 from $8.50 to get $2.

            • The right numbers for the rate are in the chart by I referenced and most of the time it is the full 8.50 just for Measure P. Each year your property is assessed usually increasing its assessment by 2% so multiply the increased assessment each year by the 8.50 rate for your tax new higher tax bill each year.

              • I’m not going to try to go find some chart you referenced. I asked you a direct question which you are apparently not able to answer. And apparently you don’t know what a *rate* is. Of course your tax goes up if the assessment is increased, genius, but the 8.50 rate is an 8.50 rate, and $8.50 – $6.50 (what people are currently paying) is $2 … duh.

    • So you’re attacking a wide range of people who support P because a small number of other people doing PR for a living made ethically dubious decisions about how to promote it (what else is new). That is utterly irrational.

  3. From Mr Abboud’s letter:

    Let’s set the record straight: The PE building is ~30% of Measure P’s budget, not the whole measure. And it needs to be replaced for safety reasons, including seismic concerns, leaky roofs, lead pipes and asbestos remediation.

    We have a state grant that covers a significant portion of the cost: $34 million that we’ll lose if we don’t come up with a required local match, through Measure P.

    The new PE building isn’t just for athletics. It will serve the entire community in times of emergency as an evacuation center (as it has during the Thomas Fire and deadly Montecito debris flows) and provide safe, up-to-date facilities for health and fitness programs that serve people of all ages.

  4. Government schools today own our tax dollars, now they own our children and SBCC students, too. But they refuse ownership of the egregiously deficient education and budget deficits they provide in return . Where’s the ROI for the huge amount of taxpayer funding annually gifted to SBCC? Another school bond, after you lie? Only uninformed cronies will vote yes. Intelligent, EDUCATED, aware will vote NO — NoPE!

  5. I oppose P. Each time I read the pros & cons the descriptions and costs are always different. I don’t understand why this was represented much earlier and completely in the open. I haven’t seen any plans, bids for anything. I saw how much the school was supposed to spend on annual maintenance and what they actually do spend. I believe the school min many if the last 9 administrations could have spent our tax dollars wiser and smarter.
    I don’t want to continue to throw more money after poorly spend money.
    The campus has was to much land and way to many building for the small full time student population. Look the student population is in a decline. The local students already have free school and free books and yet the population is going down. We’re importing students which pays a lot more.
    It’s not only your college, many community colleges are facing declines.
    No, No, No

  6. With the low number of students who actually attend in person and the high waste of tax payers money for years, you have many options besides more tax payer money.
    Option 1: Move to a smaller campus. You have maybe 4,500 students on a daily basis?
    Option 2: Stop online learning for all the classes that don’t need it and bring back students to generate revenue. Stop with the terrible policies that have caused people to want to leave SBCC or stay away.
    Option 3: Get back to Real education and give people what they deserve. SBCC used to be top in the nation. It has been destroyed and you want taxpayers to keep paying for that? For what, a fat salary increase for the people that have ruined it?

    Doesn’t the President get paid in the $450,000 dollar range, already, plus a housing stipend? She is not even a competent leader. Isn’t there a lawsuit against her as well?

  7. Measure P would return that rate to the $8.50 previously approved by voters and extend it for an additional 20 years, from 2041 to 2061.

    So let me get this straight… The original bond was refinanced and saved taxpayers two dollars per hundred thousand.

    Now because you saved Taxpayers money you want to take that savings.

    In addition, you want to extend the bond 20 years.

    All while claiming no increase in taxes.

    Just say NO NO NO on P

  8. These bond measures are endless. If we approve all of them homeowners will be paying massively more every year for decades on their property tax. That might be fine for the very wealthy, but for everyone else it starts to become impossible to afford to live here. My property tax bill is about a thousand dollars a year higher because of past bond measures. And these colleges have huge budgets. Learn to live within your means the way everyone else does.

  9. The proponents estimate that we will spend $65 million of the $198 million Measure P funds for the Phys Ed building. If it goes over budget (and what are the chances it won’t?), the additional funds will come from Measure P. It is very likely that half of Measure P funds will go to this one project. I would prefer a measure that prioritizes the academic and career training facilities.

  10. Make sure you review the salaries of all the people here; stunning that so many of these people make $250,000 a year, even before benefits are added. This is an insult to citizens whose average salary is just over $50,000 a year. https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/santa-barbara-city-college/

    SBCC is detached from reality. Vote NO on P. More here:

    https://www.sbcurrent.com/p/the-measure-p-con-job

    • When evaluating claims like this, you should consider the source, which is neither transparent, nor California.

      “Transparent California” is just one of the many names used by the tax-exempt “free-market think tank” Nevada Policy Research Institute (NPRI). NPRI refuses to divulge its own funding sources, stating, “NPRI respects the privacy of our donors, which includes the amount of a donor’s gift”.

      NPRI’s primary funding source, as determined by The Conservative Transparency Project, is Donors Capital Fund, a dark-money source of funding for conservative groups. Its donors also include The Cato Institute, co-founded by the Koch brothers, and organizations affiliated with the climate change denial movement.

      NPRI spends 75% of its revenue on six-figure salaries and benefits. Its goal is to undermine support for employee unions nationwide, thereby decreasing salaries and increasing corporate profits.

      Funding for NPRI, which lately has been calling itself just Nevada Policy, and is the organization behind “Transparent California”:
      https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Nevada_Policy_Research_Institute https://www.scribd.com/document/180254866/NV-Who-Is-Behind-The-Nevada-Policy-Research-Institute
      This last one is a little bit of a whitewash, but still lists the dark money groups behind their funding: https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/nevada-policy-research-institute/

      • Also consider that SBcurrent is run by a bunch of MAGA conspiracy theorists that wanted a platform to spew their incompetence and hate for a tax write off. Nothing posted on that site should be taken with a shred of credibility and dignity.

    • This victim mentality will get you nowhere. Take responsibility for yourself–if you are making 50k a year and you were born in this country you have no excuse for doing so poorly. Do the work and you will reap the rewards–this is the USA.

  11. Nine more reasons to vote NO on P: Important update: legal filing California Fair Political Practices Commission:

    Filed 10/29/24: California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) Campaign Violations filing w/ allegations below. This is serious stuff. And it, as my father would say, “dirty.”

    1) Use of Public Treasury, Taxpayer Supported Public Facilities to Organize & Market Yes Campaign (Don’t know FPPC Code #s/ Ed Code Violation 7054, 7055)

    2) Disrupting public school normal school activities and campus life by patrician non-stop campaign activities.

    3) Organized (Required) Expectation for Taxpaid Public School Employees to Campaign; Emailing on SBCC intercampus publicly owned system using all-faculty staff lists; Requesting Info “with times and days when you are available to support Measure P”; Messaging public school employees at their campus address: “Here are even more ways to get involved”; “directing staff assignments” of so-called volunteer advocates.

    4) Yes Campaign (not mere informational) Meetings and Events conducted on SBCC Campus in Public Buildings.

    5) Yes Campaign Materials Stored and Distributed on Campus.

    6) No Evidence that Campaign Under the Auspices of SBCC Foundation.org on-line prior to 10/28/24 (first post); SBCC Foundation website void of any connection to Yes Campaign prior to 10/28/24; SBCC Foundation committed up to $500,000 for campaign expenditures without full public disclosure; No open books accessible to the public of Yes campaign committee meetings or major donors; By Law, auxiliary organizations, foundations that raise and spend money, must hold public meetings to disclosed; Wrangling up Directors for letters cleansed by paid campaign professionals (support a requirement to volunteer); Foundation CEO Abrams, Campaign Treasurer, highly informed; she knows the law.

    7) SBCC Website is YES Campaign Central for Marketing Bond Measure P2024.

    8) SBCC Publicly owned Office Equipment used to Market YES on Measure P2024; No Evidence of Rent Paid to SBCC by SBCC Foundation, a private 501(c)(3) for Offices in MacDougall Admin Building.

    9) Directly Linking Public School to the Democrat Party Headquarters: EdCode S7050-7058, S82537; Blatant Monopolistic Partisan Campaigning or Politics by a CA Community College is a Violation; Opposition Voices Cannot be Messaged Publicly by Opposing Trustees or By The Channels; Named Trustees holding non-partisan positions all linked to County Democrat Party; Board Censure consequences to Trustees opposing YES Campaign Mandate violating Free Speech of Elected Trustees to Represent Constituents.

    More here, including legal filing itself: https://www.sbcurrent.com/p/fight-against-passage-of-measures

    Pretty simple: the people at the center of all this do not have our best interest at heart; far from it.

Brazilian Day Santa Barbara

Firefighters Respond to Brush Fire at Carpinteria Bluffs Nature Preserve