• CREATE AN ACCOUNT
  • LOG.IN
  • CONTENTS
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • ARCHIVE
  • INFO | ADVERTISING | CONTACT US

  • Home
  • News
    • News Main Page
    • NewsFlash
  • A&E
    • A&E Main Page
    • Movie Times
    • TV Listings
    • A&E Blog
    • Art Galleries
    • Best Bets
  • Opinion
    • Opinion Main Page
    • Endorsements
    • Blogs
    • Columns
    • Voices
    • Letters
    • In Memoriam
    • Obituaries
  • Events
    • Today
    • Search
    • Submit
    • Best Bets
  • Living
    • Living Main Page
    • Outdoors
    • Travel
    • Sports
    • Peeps
  • Food & Drink
    • Food & Drink Main Page
    • All Restaurants
    • Delivery
    • All Bars & Clubs
    • Drink Specials
    • Open Now
  • Sports
  • Outdoors
    • Outdoors Main Page
    • Outside Insider
    • Spotlight On
    • Features
  • Classifieds
    • Real Estate
    • Jobs
    • Autos
  • Obits

    Paul Wellman

    Attorney Barry Cappello at the News-Press NLRB hearing on August 15, 2007.


    Bias Is as Bias Does at the News-Press

    Former Editor Linda Strean Testifies and Current Editor Scott Steepleton Continues


    Wednesday, August 15, 2007
    By Matt Kettmann (Contact)
    Article Tools
    Print friendly
    E-mail story
    Tip Us Off
    iPod friendly
    Comments
    Bookmark This
    del.icio.us. del.icio.us.
    Digg! Digg!
    furl furl
    google google
    newsvine newsvine
    reddit reddit
    technorati technorati
    Facebook Facebook
    Yahoo! My Web 2.0 Yahoo!

    There were occasional brushes with excitement in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court on Wednesday as the federal labor law case against the Santa Barbara News-Press entered the second day of proceedings. (See day one round-up here.) The bulk of the day was the continuing and consequential testimony of the paper’s current associate editor Scott Steepleton, the man admittedly responsible for committing the acts — specifically the reprimanding and firing of unionized reporters — that brought the National Labor Relations Board attorneys to town. But the highlight was the testimony — other than the near derailment of the News-Press’s entire defense — of the paper’s former managing editor Linda Strean, who flew in from Oakland for the afternoon session and shed light on the way the once award-winning, reporter-filled newspaper used to function under Jerry Roberts.

    The morning began with Teamster attorney Ira Gottlieb trying to get Steepleton to slip up. Gottlieb, who probably was surprised to see that his gray and pink tie matched Steepleton’s nicely, showed the editor a photo of the overpass protest, had him read the various signs, and had him identify the people involved. That protest is what the union is claiming led to the firing of six reporters. Steepleton has not denied that, but has argued that they were fired for “disloyalty,” and not their union involvement.

    Gottlieb then moved onto the termination of Melinda Burns, who Steepleton says was fired for biased reporting. Going through Burns’ performance evaluations, it was clear she scored highly, though there were steady mentions of bias creeping into her reporting. However, the evaluations tempered such statements by saying such was a typical trend for senior reporters who knew their topics well, that she was responsive to suggested changes, and that she was showing an improvement over the years.

    Cited as one example in Burns’ termination letter was an article she wrote on the Measure D transportation tax. A lobbying firm pulled a piece from that article, and used it in campaign mailers, which News-Press management believed was evidence of her bias. (Later testimony would explain that such is a common practice by lobbying firms.) Steepleton’s stance was essentially that — despite no further written warnings from management — she had not changed her biases enough by October 2006, so she was fired after 20-plus years of work.

    Steepleton’s amount of “do not recalls” dropped substantially when the newspaper’s attorney Barry Cappello (pictured above) started his cross-examination of the editor. Cappello used his time with Steepleton to paint a picture of a changing newsroom, one in which the owner Wendy McCaw would use a heavy hand to shape the news coverage and fire reporters at will to rid the newsroom of bias. And this, Cappello’s line of argument goes, is perfectly fine, because business owners can do what they want with their products.

    When asked to recall what Steepleton had said in a meeting with reporters when he took a leadership role, Steepleton replied, “We want nothing but a fair and balanced newspaper.” When worried reporters inquired asked about the day-to-day involvement of McCaw — who had recently tried to kill a story about Travis Armstrong’s DUI and punished employees for publishing Rob Lowe’s address in a planning story, leading to the exodus of the paper’s senior and experienced staff — Steepleton said, “She owns the newspaper, and I think she has every right to be a part of whatever she wants to be a part of.”

    The court gallery — which was peppered with scribbling reporters, some public watchers, and Cappello’s crew of young assistants, laptop-using paralegals, and head-high document boxes — then got a rundown of Steepleton’s career. Graduated with journalism degree from Cal State Northridge in 1986. Worked for Ventura County Coast Reporter 1983-1986. Worked in family business for a few years. Started back in journalism in 1990 at Paso Robles’ weekly Country News, where he worked until 1996. He joined the News-Press in 2000 after a stint at the L.A.Times.

    Then Steepleton’s testimony trotted along. He told McCaw that the reporters “wanted to do what they wanted to do when they wanted to do it” and that she “would not tolerate it.” He covered July 6, 2006, the day that Jerry Roberts left along with most of the management and senior staff. He described the newsroom “reorganization” and the performance review process and how, under new management, Steepleton himself would run all of the evaluations rather than leave it up to assistant editors. (No mention was made of the dwindling management staff.)

    Paul Wellman

    Scott Steepleton chats with News-Press attorneys Barry Cappello (right) and Dugan Kelley (center).

    When Cappello tried to delve into the Rob Lowe incident to explore the notion of bias, NLRB attorney Steve Wyllie objected to the line of inquiry, saying that it wasn’t an example of bias, and that it really had nothing to do with the charges. Judge William Kocol was also confused as to the relevance. A visibly flustered Cappello — who slides easily in court from being humorously obsequious to being a bully — accused the judge of “being narrow.”

    Wyllie argued that the Lowe incident had nothing to do with this case, and that “editorial content and control” was something that Cappello was trying to turn the case into. Cappello was trying to assert that the reason for the employees forming a union — that they wanted to keep owner Wendy McCaw out of the newsroom, not seek higher wages or better benefits — was an integral part of this case, and the heart of his defense. Wyllie countered that the impetus of the union had nothing to do with the case. Rather, said Wyllie, this was about illegally firing and mistreating employees because they were involved in a union.

    Judge Kocol at first sided with Wyllie, sustaining an objection, and potentially derailing Cappello’s main tactic. But then more debate ensued, and Kocol asked Cappello if he was trying to say that, due to their untraditional demands, that they were not protected as a union. Cappello confirmed that and also said that he would only pursue this sort of testimony related to the Lowe and Travis Armstrong DUI incidents. Kocol allowed the testimony to continue, overruling a Wyllie objection.

    It seemed that Kocol was a bit handcuffed by the situation, and decided it was in his best interest to hear Cappello out, even if the relevance between the union’s impetus and the charges of illegal firings was not yet clear. That distinction will likely prove crucial, for it seems to be Cappello’s central argument.

    Starshine Roshell, who the union claims had her column killed because of her campaigning, then became a focus. Her letters following the July 6, 2006 walk-out were shown on a video screen. She had been reassigned from feature writing to the news department, and her column had been killed, along with every other column in the newspaper. (According to Steepleton’s testimony over the past two days, McCaw felt that killing columns by staffers was a way to root bias out of the paper. However, since all of the freelance columnists were also terminated, former employees believe it was really just retaliation against everyone from the Jerry Roberts regime.)

    Starshine Roshell
    Click to enlarge photo

    Starshine Roshell

    Starshine’s first letter said her new assigmment “sounds like fun,” though the irony of the clearly satirical statement seemed to be lost on Steepleton and Cappello (or they just ignored it). Later letters requested to take her freelance column to the freelance world, which she signed with a smiley face. After Steepleton denied her request, she wrote that she’d gotten permission from attorney Ira Gottlieb to publish her columns elsewhere. Steepleton called the letter “outrageous.” In her final letter, a resignation, there was “no smiley face this time,” said Cappello, and it was filled with “invectives.” Steepleton said that when she left, she told him, “Fuck you too.”

    Before lunch, Steepleton then detailed the biases of Melinda Burns and Anna Davison while admitting that he did not conduct any counseling or disciplinary action before firing them. Their biases, said Steepleton in his termination letters and testimony, centered on two main articles. For Burns, it was the Measure D piece. For Davison, it was the piece on the State Street beautification project, in which she didn’t get a quotation from anyone berating the tree removal.

    Steepleton confirmed that both Measure D and the State Street tree removal were vehemently attacked by the News-Press editorial page, and the paper’s management wanted, at the very least, their stance published as part of the articles. The editor also said that reporters everywhere are supposed to be well aware of the editorial stances taken by their employing newspapers. “That’s one of those journalism 101 things,” said Steepleton.



    Strean-ing to Melinda’s Rescue

    After the lunchbreak, Cappello agreed to let a witness who had flown in from the Bay Area testify. It was Linda Strean, the former managing editor of the News-Press from June 2003 to March 2005 who now works for GreatSchools.net. A journalism veteran, Strean has worked since the late 1970s as a newspaper reporter and editor at multiple newspapers, including prestigious management roles at both the Chronicle and Examiner in San Francisco and a lecturing job at UC-Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism.

    Questioned by NLRB attorney Brian Gee, Strean was used primarily to vindicate the tenure of Melinda Burns, provide a better understanding of how controlling bias is a primary responsibility for editors and reporters at newspapers everywhere, and show how the News-Press functioned when it had a large and experienced staff under editor Jerry Roberts.

    Paul Wellman

    NLRB attorney Brian Gee with fired News-Press reporter Melinda Burns.

    Strean’s categorization of Burns was glowing, even with her admission that Burns’ passionate politics occasionally entered drafts of her articles. When that did happen, Strean or one of the other editors would send it back to Burns, and Burns would “always” fix it. Regarding Burns’ performance evaluations that mentioned bias as a continual issue, Strean said that those mentions did not warrant discharge or even a verbal reprimand. When Judge Kocol wanted to know why not, Strean said that “with Melinda, it was not a consistent problem…When we asked for it to be addressed, she was very good” about fixing her biases. Later in her testimony, Strean summed up Burns by saying, “She’s one of the finest reporters I’ve ever worked with.”

    Gee wanted to know whether the bias problem at the News-Press was, in Strean’s experience, a drastic problem. She replied, “It was not more common that at any newspaper I worked for….I didn’t feel it was a common problem.”

    To compare the methods used by Steepleton and current News-Press management to fire Burns and Anna Davison, he used two examples from Strean’s time in Santa Barbara. In both cases, the reporters were having problems with accuracy. In both cases, there was a long paper trail of written warnings that increased in seriousness when the problems were not fixed. This method of progressive discipline was something championed by former editor Jerry Roberts and used throughout Strean’s time at the paper.

    When Cappello’s time came to take on Strean, he attacked her credibility. In short, she was a longtime personal and professional friend of Jerry Roberts; Roberts was involved in litigation against News-Press owner Wendy McCaw; and Strean would do anything for Roberts, such as, Cappello’s insinuation goes, testify in a court of law in his favor — or the favor of his colleagues — regardless of the truth. Objections were raised, but not before Cappello could ask, “If you were voting on it, you’d vote for Jerry, right?” Strean was not required to answer.

    Cappello’s questioning then got more mundane, as he focused on the part of the employee handbook that said News-Press employees were “at-will” employees and could be fired at any time for any reason. Strean agreed.

    By day’s end, Steepleton was back on the stand, and will be again tomorrow morning, August 16, at the Santa Barbara College of Law, 9 a.m. Melinda Burns is also expected to take the stand sometime tomorrow.

    Story Help (Click-ability)
    Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.

    Comments

    Discussion Guidelines

    This hearing provides a perfect example of how we, as members of a supposedly civilized society, use lawyers. We hire them to say the things we would never ourselves say, and to make public accusations of a sort that we would never ourselves suggest.

    With the exception of Craig Smith and a few other "good guys," lawyers are a community of well-paid thugs who rely on their powers of persuasion and knowledge of the law and its loopholes (rather than fists and blunt objects) to beat their opponents into submission.

    And individuals like Wendy, as well as corporations like Dow Chemical and Union Carbide, want those who represent them in court to be the meanest, most cold-hearted and blood-thirsty henchmen they can find.

    Wow, what a noble calling.

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

    niceFLguy (anonymous profile)
    August 16, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

    Ira Gottlieb, Brian Gee, Steve Wyllie, Judge William Kocol ... these people too are lawyers. And I doubt that, as a District Attorney, Craig Smith was any more or less a "good guy" than any other District Attorney. OTOH, as a lawyer John Edwards held numerous corporations accountable for the harm they did people. His was a noble calling, but there's nothing noble about your vitriolic hypocrisy and broad brush strokes, "nice"FLguy.

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

    truth_machine (anonymous profile)
    August 16, 2007 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

    The American justice system is an adversarial one, whereby lawyers for each side have an obligation to and for their client. One of the means of that is to challenge the credibility of the opposing witnesses and that would seem to be what Capello was doing. Rightfully so. It's up to the judge to determine who is telling the truth, who is more believable, Strean or the attacking attorney.

    Thanks for this great coverage, Independent and Matt Kettmann!!!!!!!

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

    citti (anonymous profile)
    August 16, 2007 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

    It's a shame Ms. Strean didn't think to answer, "My integrity's not for sale, Mr. Cappello. I guess I just can't understand what's it's like to be a lawyer."

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

    Desert_Toad (anonymous profile)
    August 16, 2007 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

    Anyone who has lived here for some time knows full well that for years prior to Wendy buying the News-Press there had been continual accusations of bias and unfair treatment of people, organizations and issues in its pages. The animosity between the community and the paper seemed to reach a crescendo of sorts during the New York Times's ownership, a factor which may have played a role in their decision to sell.

    In any case, even though Capello has not cited this checkered history in his defense, claims of “bias in the newsroom” seem like a weak rationale for Ampersand's mistreatment of editors, reporters and staff. If anything, the actions of Wendy and Arthur have created very obvious and real biases, both in the topics the paper chooses to report on (or not) and their editorials. Not to mention the publisher's refusal to include any unfavorable NLRB rulings in their (sporadic) coverage of the paper's internal woes during the past year. No amount of clever legal maneuvering or posturing can hide the blatant unprofessionalism of Travis Armstrong's highly biased opinion pieces or the endless editorials dealing with animal rights. THESE are concrete examples of bias and only a fool would argue otherwise.

    I can't imagine how this won't fatally undermine Capello's defense and McCaw's credibility. It seems the only question is how big will they lose and what will the NLRB mete out to them.

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

    emptynewsroom (anonymous profile)
    August 16, 2007 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

    I see Truthmachine is at it again, with his/her usual ad hominum attacks, this time on niceFLguy.

    NiceFLguy didn't attack ALL lawyers, but pointed out how they CAN be rapacious and opportunistic, and by saying that there ARE some good ones, (Whether a few or most) he isn't being vitriolic or hypocritical. Truthmachine on the other hand, gets off on making unsupported attacks on people they encounter in this blog, as well as those we read about in the news.

    Join the club niceFLguy, this person has insulted myself and too many others in this blog to recall. P.S. If you're reading this Truthmachine, maybe you can answer my responses to you about the roundabouts, Frank Hotchkiss, and Starshiness article about Sinning Senators.

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

    billclausen (anonymous profile)
    August 16, 2007 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    ". . .the employee handbook that said News-Press employees were “at-will” employees and could be fired at any time for any reason."

    That's a standard, cover-their-ass policy for any corporation that actually has a hand book. The question to me is, can acquiescence to such a thing override employment law? If someone fires an employee for illegal reasons, is it deemed okay, because the employee originally agreed to "any reason"?

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

    equus_posteriori (anonymous profile)
    August 16, 2007 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    "I see Truthmachine is at it again, with his/her usual ad hominum attacks, this time on niceFLguy."

    Lying hypocrite Bill Clausen is at it again with this ad hominem attack. My response to niceFLguy contained no ad hominem.

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

    truth_machine (anonymous profile)
    August 16, 2007 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    Main Entry: 1ad ho·mi·nem
    Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
    Function: adjective
    Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
    1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
    2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
    (from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary)

    Not surprisingly,all you could do was call me names "truthmachine" and of course calling niceFLguy a "hypocrite" certainly is an appeal to feelings/prejudices rather than intellect. Why don't you tell us how he is being a hypocrite? Also, how am I a "lying hypocrite"? After all, are you here to help us, or merely insult us?

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

    billclausen (anonymous profile)
    August 16, 2007 at 8:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    Like I said, my comment to niceFLGuy contained no ad hominem. OTOH, you're /all about/ attacking my character.

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

    truth_machine (anonymous profile)
    August 17, 2007 at 4:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

    Honestly, Bill, there's no helping you. I spelled out exactly how niceFLGuy was being hypocritical -- by applying an arbitrary standard to lawyers he knows, such as Craig Smith (who is indeed a good guy), while painting the /whole class/ of lawyers -- with "a few" exceptions, as "a community of well-paid thugs". It is /I/ who appealed to reason, as against niceFLGuy's highly emotional and emotion-manipulating post. But you, being the deeply dishonest person you are, radically mischaracterized his post with "NiceFLguy didn't attack ALL lawyers, but pointed out how they CAN be rapacious and opportunistic" -- no, he said they -- the COMMUNITY of lawyers -- ARE rapacious and opportunistic thugs. But of course calling people thugs isn't vitriolic in your pathetically hypocritical little mind -- hypocritical because the ONLY reason you're denying that it's vitriolic is because I said it was. That's all your 2:44 post was about -- attacking me, because I've upset you so with my criticism of you elsewhere, poor baby.

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

    truth_machine (anonymous profile)
    August 17, 2007 at 4:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

    How did the NP trial blog turn into a bitter war of words between truth_machine and billclausen??? A notice to any of you bloggers taking a hard line... Some people will disagree with you. Get over it!!

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

    wonarrowfan (anonymous profile)
    August 17, 2007 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

    Apparently bias in a draft of a news article is a more severe crime than plastering the front page above the fold with irrelevant articles about cutesy animals time after time.

    Since I don’t read the News Press anymore I can only guess that when the Michael Vick story hit the stands it probably called for a two week expose on dog fighting and animal cruelty.

    I’m surprised PETA hasn’t kicked in some money for the NP defense.

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

    DarkMarcsun (anonymous profile)
    August 17, 2007 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

    Thanks for the club membership card, Bill. It was good of truth_machine to process my application so promptly. :-)

    Having read more than a few of truth_machine's ill-considered attacks, I find it best just to ignore them and move on, rather than debate the point and leave some new reader with the mistaken impression that truth_machine's thoughts might have some credibility.

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

    niceFLguy (anonymous profile)
    August 17, 2007 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

    "Having read more than a few of truth_machine's ill-considered attacks, I find it best just to ignore them and move on, rather than debate the point and leave some new reader with the mistaken impression that truth_machine's thoughts might have some credibility."

    After having gone back and forth with this person and covering all ground, it's clear to me that you are right so I'll take your advice and move on. Besides, considering the sheer number of people this person has insulted in the past, I'm sure there will plenty more for them to attack in the future. I actually agree with T.M, on one point, and that point being that Craig Smith IS a good guy. (I've also heard this from someone who worked with him some years back)

    Besides that, it's a nice day so I'm headed to the beach and will leave the fighting to others.

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

    billclausen (anonymous profile)
    August 17, 2007 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    News-Press Objections to Union Election Overruled!

    See at http://craigsmithsblog.blogspot.com/2007...

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

    SantaBarbaraThinker (anonymous profile)
    August 17, 2007 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    Congrats to the News-Press newsroom and the citizens of Santa Barbara County! The NLRB has done the logical thing in certifying the Union. This is undoubtably just another in a series of rulings that will help bring the paper back into the real world. Sell, dear Wendy, sell.

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

    emptynewsroom (anonymous profile)
    August 19, 2007 at 7:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    "How did the NP trial blog turn into a bitter war of words between truth_machine and billclausen???"

    It's pretty simple -- I pointed out how niceFLGuy's hyperbolic and vitriolic comments about the entire community of lawyers are factually inaccurate and uncalled for, and Bill Clausen took it as an opportunity to attack me because of animus from prior disputes between us.

    Just because Barry Cappello, and most corporate lawyers, are corrupt, does not mean that the entire community of lawyers are "thugs". There are thousands upon thousands of DA's, defense attorneys, judges, law professors, and numerous other groups of lawyers who are good, even excellent, people. Just ask Craig.

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

    truth_machine (anonymous profile)
    August 21, 2007 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    Quote by truth_machine, "Just because Barry Cappello, and most corporate lawyers, are corrupt, does not mean that the entire community of lawyers are "thugs". There are thousands upon thousands of DA's, defense attorneys, judges, law professors, and numerous other groups of lawyers who are good, even excellent, people. Just ask Craig."

    tm, I'm pretty sure that you will take this as an attack, but so be it. . . .

    Despite your inability to come to terms with bill (and his with yours), you are certainly intelligent enough to debate certain points. However, you seem to be a bit overeager, when it comes to having something to argue--not debate, ARGUE.

    It's easy to understand your point, about the blanket statement made by niceFLguy, but you don't have to harp on it. In fact, if you would accept the fact that blanket statements are often made, in blogs and 'live' conversation, usually to help carry the point, then you might be a step further along a path to a less stressful life. Just consider it hyperbole, or even propaganda, and you can move on.

    Unfortunately, whether you take my suggestion or not, you will probably find yourself on the receiving end of a similar argument. Unless you are capable of making a statement of fact, irrefutable on ANY level, then you better gird your loins, and prepare for defense.

    Also, please note that while I am addressing this post to you, I know that we're all guilty of using blanket statements, to varying degrees. In fact, I just made one.

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

    equus_posteriori (anonymous profile)
    August 23, 2007 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    Post a comment

    Username:
    Password: (Forgotten your password?)

    Comment:

    EVENT CALENDAR

    Previous Month | Next Month

    Today's Events Best Bets Submit an Event

    Local Weather

    Currently:
    Clear Sky
    Temperature:
    60.1°
    Wind:
    6 W

    Surf Report
    • Specials
    • InPrint
    • Top Emails
    • Best Of 2009
    • 2009 Election Coverage
    • Wedding Guide 2009
    • Blue Green Guide 2009
    • SBIFF 2009
    • Tea Fire 2008
    • Local Heroes 2008
    • Calendar of Fundraisers
    • Local Bands
    • Within the Syuxtun Story Circle
    • Camellia Sasanqua
    • Whole New Ballgame
    • Gratuitous Gore on Highway 154
    • Saul Williams Brings Afro-Punk Tour to Velvet Jones
    • Where There’s a Dill, There’s a Way
    1. Travis Armstrong Is Outta There
    2. S.B. Bank & Trust's Rocky Year
    3. UC Campuses Dominate Rankings
    4. What buildings did architect Julia Morgan design in Santa Barbara?
    5. Sexile
    6. Rattlesnake and San Roque Side of Jesusita Trails to Re-Open Friday
    • CREATE AN ACCOUNT
    • LOG.IN
    • CONTENTS
    • CLASSIFIEDS
    • ARCHIVE
    • INFO | ADVERTISING | CONTACT US
    Google
     
    Independent.com Web
    Copyright ©2009 Santa Barbara Independent, Inc. Reproduction of material from any Independent.com pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. If you believe an Independent.com user or any material appearing on Independent.com is copyrighted material used without proper permission, please click here.
    This is our Privacy Policy.