Print friendly
E-mail story
Contact an Editor
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us.
Digg!
furl
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Facebook
Yahoo!The Ever Beleaguered Montecito Association Gets No Love
The Montecito Association’s stars must be crossed, because no matter what they do, they continue to be beleaguered, battered, and bewildered. No sooner did they crawl out from a robust Ty Warner PR flack-attack, than they found themselves knee deep a self-inflicted election snafu.
The Association normally takes the annual December board elections seriously, dedicating one-quarter of their by-laws to defining the laborious and exacting process. This earnest approach comes because this is the only opportunity for general members to have voice on who sits this powerful Montecito homeowners association lobby.
However, this year, no doubt because they were busy swatting at Tys, the Association fumbled the elections. Last week, some 1,050 members received an incomplete and illegal ballot. It was not only missing the full slate of nominees, but it also neglected to include the candidate’s biographies, the voting instructions, and the required annual meeting posting.
Upon receipt, Montecito, which likes consistency, went into a tailspin. “I just crumpled it up and threw it away,” said one society maven, referring to her baffling Association ballot. A past Association president simply rolled his eyes and sighed, “What has happened to our Association?”
Montecito Association Secretary Richard Shaikewitz (pictured
making wine), who for the past three years has been charged with
election supervision, became equally befuddled. 
“No one asked me to do anything,” he
stammered upon hearing about the illegal ballot. Declining to place
blame he said, “It was just a mistake,” and he scurried off to do a
by-laws check and find a remedy for the suffrage slip.
By the Association’s monthly meeting on Tuesday, December 12, Shaikewitz (who was recently elected board of the Montecito Water District) announced his solution: mail a new, corrected ballot to members, void any ballots already received, and switch election date from December 15 to January 3.
Shaikewitz explained that the executive committee voted on behalf of the board to accept the election date change, even though Association President Bob Collector had just minutes before reported that the executive committee took no action during the month. (Shaikewitz later said that Collector was referring to the regular executive board meeting, not a “special” one convened for the election. Hmm.) The 16 board members (including two past presidents) sat mute as Shaikewitz maneuvered through the parliamentary quagmire, perhaps gaining new respect for the troubles of their volunteer board colleagues over the Sheriff’s Council.
In the audience and puzzled by the public display of by-law
dementia were two board nominees listed on the dubious ballot.
Jim
Wolfe, from Balance Bar,
and
Mindy Denison (pictured as chair of Montecito Beautification
Day 2006), a veep of Saks,
left perplexed but still willing to participate. Providing their
election is not challenged, they will bravely be joining the
current beleaguered board in January.
They will be joined by newcomer Andy Arnold, of AOL, and MA re-treads Barry Siegel (seven-year vet), Jack Overall (eight-year vet) , and Diane Pannkuk (10-year vet). Hugh Boss and Jean von Wittenburg gain retirement after six years of service, while Susan Keller and Harry Kolb hollered “uncle” after only three years in the hot seats and declined re-nomination.
The election results will be announced at the MA annual meeting scheduled for January 9 and each new board member will take their seats and will get their welcome gift — a now well-thumbed set of Montecito Association by-laws!
BARK 'N' BITE: Possibly causing the Montecito Association’s uncharacteristic shy demeanor at Tuesday's meeting was stage fright, caused by the large audience who attended the December meeting. The hall seats were filled to capacity, mostly by members of a new group called The Voices of Montecito. Led by community activist Mary Belle Snow, the group has announced its intention to watchdog the actions of the Montecito Association and document what they may see as “abuse of power.”
Over a dozen VoM members, most recognizable from their previous pulpit stands in support of Ty Warner’s projects, turned up at the meeting and sat bemused as the Association negotiated its maze of election missteps. Earlier in the week, VoM gave thought to producing an alternate slate for the Association board, but they abandoned the idea when, after polling dozens of citizens, they found few takers.
They chose instead to use Tuesday’s Association meeting to pepper the wary and weary Association board with questions. They asked the board to explain its function, its role in land use decisions, its perceived “stalling” tactics, its reasoning, its structure, its culture, and its policies and politics.
MA president Bob Collector patiently and thoroughly answered questions. In the end, the VoM’s bark was quelled and the group departed with wagging tails, saying they appreciated the opportunity for community input and dialogue.
FAREWELL LAND USE COMMITTEE? In an ironically well-timed Montecito Association re-organization report, Diane Pannkuk, past president, gave a Tuesday MA presentation that may spell the death knell for the historic Montecito Association Land Use Committee.
In an attempt to streamline MA and make it less of a burden in the land use course, she said the Land Use committee might have its last meeting on January 2. Pannkuk’s concept is to replace the 13-member committee with small study pods who go to the applicant and report their land use findings directly to the Montecito Association Board of Directors.
Since the county created the Montecito Planning Commission, the MA's Land Use Committee, which served as the front line for community protection for decades, has floundered in duplicative function. Currently, an applicant is invited to present a project to the Association’s Land Use Committee, who in turn makes a recommendation to the Montecito Association Board for action. Often the board wants to actually see the project themselves before voting, so the applicant steps up for another presentation.
Meanwhile, at the county level, an applicant may be required to visit the Montecito Board of Architectural Review and ultimately they have to go to the Montecito Planning Commission for plan a decision.
“Too much!” cries the applicant and MA has come around to agree.
When Westmont put their foot down and refused to present their massive plan to the Montecito Association’s Land Use Committee, a small team visited the college to investigate the project and they in turn made recommendations to the MA board. In spite of MA’s whining, the process worked very effectively — MA made a comment and the applicant was less burdened.
Now Pannkuk suggests this format should be adopted as the norm, thereby eliminating the current panel-member set up and nixing, as well, the Land Use Committee’s monthly meetings. No action was taken at their December meeting, but the board was asked to ponder the idea and be ready for action after their January retreat.
As venerable, feared and controversial as the Montecito Land Use Committee once was, there will be tears of sorrow and joy when the word of its demise hits Montecito’s land use interested ears!
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.
Previous Month
Comments
Discussion Guidelines
Hi J'Amy--Regarding Voices of Montecito, there are lots of us who put VOM together. My daughter, Kandy Luria-Budgor, and I were just beginning to investigate the local planning process knowing, something was amiss but not quite able to finger it. We enlisted Mary Belle and couldn't have gotten anywhere without her. We, Sue and J Colin and Emily Roos were among the founding members of VOM. All the others (we have around 60 supporters) came on board as letters began flowing to the News Press and the Journal.
So what started out as a blip has suddenly become a big ground swell....and still growing--it takes a village to fix a village. Our first meeting with the Association went well. I was impressed with the amount of work they do, but it still needs reforming. The next meeting VOM attends, we will have more background.
Lee Luria
December 13, 2006 at 10:49 p.m.
Wasn't J'Amy a past president of the Association? Is she still involved in its politics? Like this election snafu--was she involved at all with it? If so, is there a conflict with her reporting on it? I know Monteicto is a small place, so maybe these conflicts can't be avoided. Someone please enlighten us all.
Concerned reader
December 14, 2006 at 1:56 p.m.
The VOM group hardly left with "tails wagging" - what an offensive turn of phrase. They left with the impression that communications would be more open - in my case yet to be seen.
Robert C. Meltzer
December 15, 2006 at 7:54 a.m.
Oh, and an election in which the nominees are screened by the Board (according to Mr. Collector) and then put on the ballot one nominee per opening hardly constitutes an election. A more appropriate term would be "endorsing the Board's preselected candidates (cronies?)"
Robert C. Meltzer
December 15, 2006 at 7:59 a.m.
Write In Candidate: The recent announcement on the Miramar has shed a lot of light on the trouble plaguing the Montecito review process, not just for Ty Warner, but for the whole community. Ironically, the timing of this news coincides with the current election for new board members on the Montecito Association (MA). If you are a member of the Montecito Association, you should have received your “corrected” ballot in the mail (the first ballot was deemed illegal, due to improper noticing and a lack of pertinent information).
The MA provides only 6 candidates for 6 positions, guaranteeing their nominees earn spots on the Board. They did; however, provide space on the ballot for a “write-in” candidate. The Voices of Montecito (VoM) is dedicated to improving the review process for the betterment of Montecito…and ensuring the MA and MPC do their job in representing our collective needs. Therefore, we are nominating J.W. Colin to the MA’s Board to ensure there is a voice representing VoM, and the great number of residents who feel the system should be improved. Below is J.W. Colin’s biography. We hope that you join us in writing him in as your candidate of choice to serve on the MA Board. Thank you.
J.W. COLIN BIOGRAPHY
Education: BS-UCLA ENGRG, MS-STANFORD-ENGRG/MATH,PHD-TEXAS-FINANCE/ECONOMICS
Resident of Montecito 25 years /Member of the Montecito Association
Work Experience
--IBM – Facilities Engineer
--Texas Instruments - Mgr. Plant Site Selection and Development, Manager of Market Research.
--Information Systems Inc. - Project Head for the layout and development of "Snowmass -At-Aspen and Project Control Head for all non-military construction Projects for Viet Nam
Santa Barbara Government Experience/Volunteer Experience
-City of Santa Barbara Rental Mediation Task Force
-First District County Arts Commissioner
--UCSB Affiliates, UCSB Art Museum, Montecito Country Club Men's Golf Committee
Mary Belle Snow
December 15, 2006 at 5:49 p.m.
Thanks for all the comments to J'Amy's recent post.
I just wanted to respond to the concerns raised about J'Amy's potential conflicts of interest. We are aware that she served at the president of the Montecito Association, but do not feel that such should preclude her from covering that Association. As Concerned Reader notes, we do live in a small town, and these types of situations often arise.
Indeed, so long as she stays far from the Association's political process (which is what J'Amy has promised to do), we consider such experience to be beneficial and not conflicting. But if she once again enters the political side of things, we would have to reconsider our relationship.
As for the "tails wagging" comment, that's not meant to be offensive at all. It merely states that the group was content to have the lines of communication open. Dogs wag their tails when happy.
But most of all, thanks for reading. We hope that this column is shedding light on Montecito in an honest, credible way and that it is a forum for open, productive conversation about the community. Your feedback is crucial in attaining that goal.
Anyone with questions or concerns can reach me directly at Matt@independent.com.
Happy holidays,
Matt Kettmann
Senior Editor
The Santa Barbara Independent
J'Amy's Editor
December 15, 2006 at 6:57 p.m.
"Tails wagging" is a patronizing and offensive phrase. We are not dogs and we did not leave happy.
Robert C. Meltzer
December 15, 2006 at 7:58 p.m.
-"Tails wagging" is a patronizing and offensive phrase. We are not dogs and we did not leave happy.-
Meltzer..you guys are a bunch of lapdogs for TY and his money and you know it! and if you don't, now you do!
Sol
December 16, 2006 at 6:26 a.m.
Sol (last name please - full disclosure here!), I guess anyone who disagrees with your side must agree with Ty, huh? I suggest two actions for you: 1. lookup the words democracy and libertarian. 2: Take a course in Logic 101.
And by the way, I don't "know" anything just because you or anyone else says so. You may "believe" what you want, but that doesn't mean you "know" anything.
Robert C. Meltzer
December 16, 2006 at 7:01 p.m.
Robert..hey dawg..I don't even "know" you and already you want to educate me..btw "lookup" is not a word..but...I "lookedup" "Libertarian" and all I found was pic of Wendy drinking vodka on a yacht; next, I lookedup "democracy" and got: one of imagination's most precious possessions...did I pass?? Can you get me a beanie baby??
Sol
December 16, 2006 at 7:33 p.m.
ok Bob..I just took a course in logic and here's what I learned: LOGIC, n.
The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding. The basic of logic is the syllogism, consisting of a major and a minor premise and a conclusion -- thus:
Major Premise: Sixty men can do a piece of work sixty times as quickly as one man.
Minor Premise: One man can dig a posthole in sixty seconds; therefore --
Conclusion: Sixty men can dig a posthole in one second.
let's try another!
Major Premise: The Voices of Montecito members have tails..
Minor Premise: so do dogs; therefore --
Conclusion: VoM members pick up alot of dog doo doo!
Sol
December 17, 2006 at 6:14 a.m.
Obviously, Sol failed logic. If your premises are false, as are yours, then your conclusions are false, as are yours. Obviously, Sol is not into reasoned discourse, nor revealing his identity, nor actually trying to solve a problem. Much easier to namecall. Cute, perhaps but not helpful, nor in the tradition of democracy (not as practiced today in the Montecito Association, but as defined historically - reasoned discourse and respect for differing opinions.)
Robert C. Meltzer
December 17, 2006 at 8:35 a.m.
RC.. my identity is easily found if you are computer savvy..so don't be so lazy.. and translate what you just wrote... i.e, dumb it down a little..I'm not as smart as you ..and lastly, I do have a solution: Ty.. stop crying and paving Montecito steets with gold..or at least TALK to the locals face-to-face for once.. give him that message for me, will ya?
Sol
December 17, 2006 at 9:07 a.m.
Sol, I put my full name out there; if you have the courage of your convictions so should you.
As for Mr. Warner - I never had any communications, face-to-face or otherwise, with the man. This is about private property rights vs. land use regulation and should not be about your antipathy for a rich man. The exact same issues apply to the neverending efforts of Westmont College to use its land as approved 30 years ago and Mr. Warner, as far as I know, has no involvement in that argument.
What I wrote previously is that if your premises are wrong (postholes, VoM have tailes, etc.), as yours are, they do not support your conclusions, as yours do not. And if all you want to do is namecall, then you are not contributing to a solution, only to a problem. That's about as simple as I can make it.
Robert C. Meltzer
December 17, 2006 at 10:08 a.m.
This is a blog not a courtroom..your obsession with my ID is your problem..if you jump off a bridge, so should I? Is that logic, RC? If you live in a city, you don't have absolute property rights, no matter your net worth. Why? cos you got NEIGHBORS! You want to get rid of all the gov't intrusion (boards,planning comms,associations etc) and let the landowners have at it..then go for it and see how far you get. (I have to ask a Board of Directors if I can change a window in my condo..poor little me)
Montecito needs oversight because it has gone from a little paradise to a joke (Miramar, TY's Channel Drive monstrosities, Westmont's growth, and GREED ..it has become nearly sterile)..the question is-who decides?
Sonny
December 17, 2006 at 11:16 a.m.
...and I gave you a little ID clue!
Sol
December 17, 2006 at 11:22 a.m.
If a blog is simply a forum for name-calling and irrational rants, then sign me off. But if you are interested in rational discourse, then:
The question is not so much who decides (which implies some sort of czar, God forbid), as by what process the decision is made. You seem to be an all or nothing kind of guy and very hung up on net worth. I'm not wealthy and I'm not in favor of absolute freedom regarding land use either. What I am opposed to is a cabal, not elected by a majority of Montecito property owners, effectively controlling land use, which is demonstrable what we have today. Under a structure in which decision-making is invested in a democratically elected group, one vote per property owner, Mr. Warner gets one vote. So what are you afraid of? Mr.Warner's actual neighbors at Miramar seem to be very much in favor of his upgrading the Miramar, but others seem to prefer leaving it in its current eyesore state for an indefinite period. So, you win! How does your face look without that nose?
And frankly, I don't care who you are and I don't intend to expend any energy finding out. I asked if you had enough confidence in your convictions to publicly identify yourself - clearly you don't.
Robert C. Meltzer
December 17, 2006 at 11:51 a.m.
RC..nobody cares if you identify yourself..it means nothing.. besides, I got enough people stalking me.. rational discourse?? from a guy who's in a club with Fats G? ha ha.. remember the sheriff's council?? oh please..you folks are just silly. I don't give a rat's ass about Warner's land use problems..he buys up half of Montecito and expects special treatment..then has his flunkies do all his crying for him..it's very touching. He owns the Miramar and can't get anything done..a simple seaside hotel that travelers and locals should enjoy. So what's the problem? what's he stuck on..not enough luxury? not world class enough? He should sell it to someone who gets Montecito..not another botox bimbo!
Solly
December 17, 2006 at 2:56 p.m.
Like I said, you clearly lack the courage of your convictions. And it would appear that you also have no interest in democratic process and prefer having a tiny group that you agree with have control no matter what the majority view may be. May God save the country from people like you. Like I said, if this is about name calling and irrational rants count me out. 'Bye.
Robert C. Meltzer
December 17, 2006 at 3:26 p.m.
Oh, one more thing. Who the heck is Fats G and what club are you referring to?
Robert C. Meltzer
December 17, 2006 at 3:30 p.m.
I hear VOICES!! Voices of Montecito (NEW SOCIAL CLUB) lists a number of major players associated with the group, including the racecar legend, Andy Granatelli, (FATS G!) and developer Wayne Siemens. It also combines members from other organized groups supporting Ty Warner, including Complete Our Renovation Expeditiously, or CORE, a cadre of people pushing for the remodel of the Coral Casino.
Do you have ADD Roberto??..you keep repeating I lack courage of conviction..I got it the first time and, if you haven't figured it out yet, I DON'T CARE!! and stop your crying...
Sol
December 17, 2006 at 4:45 p.m.
The Miramar Beach Homeowners Association is fed up with the Montecito Association standing in the way of property owners ability to improve their homes.
I believe that it is a violation of our civil rights as property owners and taxpayers to have this unrepresentative 'home owners association' demand unreasonable concessions in order to approve local projects.
For example, one of the demands made of Ty Warner to approve of his remodel of the Coral Casino was that he obtain a 'Environmental Impact Report' to study the effect of beach lights on marine mammals. This is outrageous and extremely petty. My family has owned a home on Miramar Beach since 1964 and I can assure you that dolphins and whales are not affected by a few lights pointed out to sea.
Why is there a local sub-culture of 'land use' consultants that are ex-employees of the County Planning and Zoning department? They charge $75-$150 per hour to help the average homeowner navigate the Byzantine County rules that they themselves helped formulate. This is the same type of corruption that we see in the Washington lobbyists cabal. The system here is broken and must be fixed so that homeowners can improve their property in a timely fashion and also so developers like Ty Warner are treated fairly.
Greg Huglin
President, Miramar Beach Homewowners Association
greg huglin
December 20, 2006 at 8:32 a.m.
Post a comment