• 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

    Fife to Dell: Garden is Fine


    Thursday, June 25, 2009
    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!

    Dear Mr. Dell:

    Your [op-ed of June 18] requires a response to you as well as the community. It is rife with many inaccuracies and omissions that I would like to correct.

    First, I will address the financial status of the Garden. Unfortunately, the impact of the national and state economic downturn has hurt organizations that rely on investment funds. The Botanic Garden has posted audited 2007 and pre-audited 2008 financial reports along with year-to-date 2009 numbers at SBBG Documents & Brochures under the Resource tab of our website. We have also posted a chart, which depicts the Garden's investment portfolio valuation history. An analysis of the portfolio history reveals the Garden investment portfolio reduction relates to the 2008 economic downturn. In addition, spending on the Vital Mission Plan since May of 2005 has been $4 million. The costs relating to the Vital Mission Plan represent the cost of planning and development in California and Santa Barbara County. The Garden has worked cooperatively and with full transparency with all county agencies and commissions over the last four years. That work in conjunction with public input has made the Vital Mission Plan an improved plan that the entire community can embrace. The outcome of this long and expensive process will be that Garden staff will have improved working conditions and modernized collection space. The steadfastness of the Trustees, over several generations, testifies to their commitment and understanding of the reoccurring staff request for increased collection space and stewardship and improved staff workspace.

    Responding to your other issues:

    The policy of the Garden since 1926 has been to evaluate the acquisition of contiguous land as a means of preserving open, rural space in Mission Canyon and to minimize housing development on the visible slopes east and west of the Garden. With the original 13 acres, the Garden has grown to 65 acres over its 83-year history. Recently, the Garden acquired the Cavalli property of 13 acres extending the eastern boundary of the Garden. These 13 acres constitute part of the Vital Mission Plan that would extend the Garden ownership to 78 acres. This will allow for more exhibit/collection space, expanded educational endeavors, and scientific study while offering new hiking paths and a spectacular view atop the Cavalli ridgeline overseeing the Channel Islands. It furthers our mission to preserve open space that otherwise would surely be developed into more housing. Also, in 2007 the Garden acquired two additional contiguous parcels, one of approximately 6 acres, another of less than one acre. Such land acquisitions have been the history of the Garden and offer future multiple opportunities.

    To characterize the acquisition of the Ojai Garden as costly and misguided does not accurately reflect the intent or nature of the transaction. In 2003, the Garden entered into a pledge agreement with the landowners. Their desire was to have their garden, already well known in the region for its beautiful setting, aesthetic displays of Mediterranean flora (including California flora), provided with professional stewardship. In addition to the garden, a large electric boat, a floating classroom, was donated. Operation of the floating classroom continued for a few years during which time it was a popular venue for grant programming to agencies and children. It is important that the public understand that the diversion of SBBG dollars to the Ojai pledge agreement was minimal. Staff time was substantially supported by grants. The donors themselves contributed over $100,000 a year to cover operational costs.

    As you well know, but unfortunately failed to mention, the construction of the Meadow Terrace, was an approved Substantial Conformity Decision by the County of Santa Barbara. The Garden again was transparent in its need and request to the County regulatory agency that evaluated the modest project and found it to be consistent with the 2003 Historic Landmark Resolution. The Garden proceeded in good faith and with about 50% of the project completed, a Stop Work Order was issued by the same regulatory agency in response to six complaints that constituted a 'substantial public controversy'. The Garden has agreed to link the completion of the Meadow Terrace with the Vital Mission Plan, so that the Terrace is subjected to a CEQA analysis for environmental impacts and to mitigate as necessary any identified impacts. It is important to note that the Meadow Terrace was designed by one of the country's leading landscape architects, Darrel Morrison, who incorporated into the design elements, sensitivity to the site and the historic importance of the footprint. To imply that the Garden's intent was to create an eyesore is baseless and utterly ridiculous. Such a viewpoint can only be held by those who are opposed to change in the Garden. As you also know, the Garden is in mediation with the County of Santa Barbara and since that is an active process it would be inappropriate to discuss specifics.

    We appreciate your statement that the pavers are a reasonable addition. The Garden has certainly received numerous expressions of thanks from those who are accessibility challenged - those in wheel chairs, those with walkers, mothers with strollers, and those who have difficulty traversing the uneven terrain and ruts of the dirt paths. Aside from offering increased accessibility, substantial staff time is saved with upkeep of the pathways. To say that the pavers have gone well beyond what Garden supporters feel is appropriate diminishes the Garden's response to all who are physically challenged and want equal access to areas of the Garden.

    The history and mission of the Garden is rich with a commitment of conducting experimental trials related to the use and introduction of native plants into the landscape. Again, with the initial design input of Darrel Morrison, an experimental, one-of-a-kind, California native sod was developed and is being trialed in the Meadow. This is not, as you know, a typical turf or commercial sod. To say it was poorly conceived and inappropriate does not reflect the horticultural intent or the viewpoint of many garden professionals, visitors, and families.

    Now we come to compensation. Let's first note that the gardening and physical plant staff of the Garden received no reduction in hours or pay. The priority of the Garden was to protect the historical core functions - the grounds being the most important. The actual headcount of employees prior to the economic downsizing was 50 (35 full time equivalents). The loss of 10 employees (headcount; 6.25 FTE) was devastating, but necessary to ensure our financial viability. I believe a comparison of similar non-profits in our community - the Zoo, the Natural History Museum, and the Art Museum - would yield similar compensation levels for management and staffing positions. The Garden monitors salary comparisons within our community, the state, and benchmarks against gardens throughout the country. By the way, senior management took a 10% pay cut at the beginning of 2009, the highest in a series of gradated cuts.

    To characterize the actions of the Trustees as "secrecy and stonewalling" is nonsense. Under California law, public disclosure requirement of a non-profit is a yearly audited annual report. Under Federal law, 990's must also be disclosed. The Board of the Botanic Garden has routinely disclosed those documents on its website (see above).

    Board recruitment is a continual process at the Garden. At the moment, we are 11 in number (4 short of the 15 noted in the Garden bylaws). Nevertheless, all decisions made by the Board occur only when a quorum of the seated trustees are present and a majority of that quorum votes. We are advised that this complies with California law.

    I find it particularly offensive that you would continue to make the statement that the Garden allowed nearly a million dollars worth of assets to go uninsured. This is especially egregious since Ed Schneider, the Garden's Executive Director, wrote a personal email to you, informing you that the Garden had very good and full coverage after your comment first appeared on a blog site. The responsibility for Garden stewardship by upper management is reflected in the Garden having full and excellent insurance coverage. Everyone who has suffered losses in our local fires knows that it takes time before you receive a cash settlement. Thankfully, the community has responded to the Garden's immediate need to restock the horticultural equipment (completely lost except for one shovel and one utility cart) so the gardening staff can continue their excellent care and development of the Garden grounds and physical plant. We are thankful for the widespread and numerous heartfelt expressions - written letters, donations, and in-kind gifts (totaling over $110,000) - that have been received. This is indicative of the grass roots support and love for this treasured Garden.

    Finally, let me say in clear and unequivocal terms that the Board of Trustees supports our senior management team, and especially Executive Director Ed Schneider. Under their leadership the Garden has substantially elevated its professional posture among peer institutions. This statement is supported by reports from our accreditation agency, the American Association of Museums. Ed Schneider, in particular, has a great passion for this institution that started in 1971 when he used the Garden as part of his laboratory assistant duties during his botanical graduate studies at UCSB. Ed Schneider has spearheaded strategic growth in a number of areas such as enhanced collection development, exhibits and their interpretation, an improved physical plant, growth in professional staff, enhanced public awareness of the Garden, and fostering community dialogue and interaction. He has been nationally recognized as an educator, scientist, and administrator. Under his leadership, the Garden has grown significantly as an accredited botanical garden and we, the governing Board and community, take great pride in his and the Garden's accomplishments. Fife Symington, chair, Santa Barbara Botanic Garden Board of Trustees

    Comments

    Discussion Guidelines

    FIFE vs. DELL: More questions than answers! [Part I]
    Financial Status: a) What consultation of volunteers, staff or the community was made within the last eight months before announcing the alleged “improvements” (from the prior Vital Mission Plan of about three years ago)? Any reasons for the recent changes were not addressed or explained to the public or to the volunteers. b) Why has it cost $4 million since May of 2005 for issues relating to the VMP? c) Why was over $200,000) needed for Public Relations? d) What did the VP for PR at the Garden do, or fail to do, that required such great additional expense for an outside firm? e) And why then did the VP for PR continue to get substantial annual pay raises?
    Meetings and Minutes: a) Why have the Trustees as a whole not been willing to hold a full, even lengthy discussion via a “special meeting” with the volunteers? b) Is this not an issue of “secrecy and stonewalling”? c) Why are the minutes of the last five years for the Trustees and the Executive Committee, not to mention finance and long-range planning committees, still unavailable for study by the volunteers, or by the general public?
    Leaders’ Sacrifice: a) Have the Trustees or VP’s read the SB Daily Sound article on the mayor and county officials of Toledo, Ohio (web story, “Holy Toledo,” dated May 21, 2009), comparing their willingness to sacrifice something for the greater good of the community (or the city)? In short, in light of the current financial crisis, the mayor volunteered to take a 40% pay cut, and along with other city managers, will maintain the city parks on weekends with their own two hands. b) Is this not a better example of what to do than to say, as did recent SBBG statements, that earlier this year the top brass took a 10% pay cut? c) For their level of financial experience as well as their successful oversight of prior construction projects, have the Garden CEO and VP’s demonstrated high leadership skills? d) Indeed, how do the real data on their salaries compare with those of regional small city mayors or city managers or regional museum directors received over the past three years? e) On these bases, were the salaries of the top Garden brass not overly inflated? f) Finally, do you recall the agreement of Lee Iacocca, as a CEO with creative skills and proven leadership qualities, who volunteered to manage a troubled Chrysler Corporation about 15-years ago when he agreed to work for $1.00 per year to help save the company from financial ruin? g) To help save the enterprise, could Toledo’s current mayor and Iacocca’s past financial sacrifices not be good models to follow for the currently highest paid SBBG officers? h) Or is that also an issue of confidentiality or secrecy? From the TelescopicFuturist.

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 1

    TelescopicFuturist (anonymous profile)
    June 29, 2009 at 6:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    Great response TelscopicFuturist.

    Can anyone publish a name list of the complete Board of Trustees?

    This list seems well hidden and not part of the of the Fife Symington's claims of ":full transparency".

    We obviously know the position of the Board Chair. The other Board member's position's are not so clear. It is likely some are supportive of cleaning house and they should be supported and asked to support new board members who have the Garden's best interests at heart and not a personal agenda.

    Despite the Garden management's successful efforts to keep the Board in the dark by not holding monthly meetings and not bringing on new members to the required 15 members, it is likely that some of the Board members are open to and possibly supportive of eliminating the Garden's top management. These Board members have to be identified and fully supported.

    I believe the efforts to reform the Garden must come from major donors and qualified individuals willing to actively participate as Board Trustees (in most cases one and the same).

    I don't believe all current Board members are willing to face civil and criminal liability should wrong doing eventually come to light. Of course, Fife, the Board Chair, is a convicted felon and has an edge in dealing with challenges both civil or criminally, but at some point even he is not going to risk his neck for Ed Schneider, President and CEO, Director or whatever title he has designated for himself.

    This does not mean that some Board members will not support new progressive board members looking to do the right thing. If the minutes and reports are forced to become available instead of locked away hidden from view this will make it easier. Supportive board members must be identified and joined by like minded new Board members so the renewal of the Garden can move forward.

    Also, don't be deluded by the 4 stars on Charity Navigator. It is very easy to manipulate budgets and allot time to "programs" instead of overhead/salaries. It's clear that is what the garden has done since it's prior measly rating of 1.5 stars.

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

    doublecheck (anonymous profile)
    June 30, 2009 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    DoubleCheck, you have it right about supportive management. Note that, although the main immediate critical problem is about 2008-2009, the 4-star rating of Charity Navigator is based on the IRS-990 form for 2007. Donors beware: As per site warnings, the rating makes no statement about “organizational or management skills of a CEO,” but only about the plausibility of reported IRS data. Also, names of Trustees are buried in the posted 990 for 2007. The SBBG website curiously does not seem to have the current Trustee names posted. In the meantime, here are more questions for the Trustees (PART II of my comments, “FIFE vs. DELL”) in an objective search for evidence.
    VMP (Vital Mission Plan, details): a) It would seem reasonable first and foremost for the Garden to have dealt with the crucial legal issue, namely, that of the extent of spatial jurisdiction or dominion of the Historic Landmark Resolution of 2003. So far, three whole census tracts (within the SBBG) are tied up (by County officials and the preservationist old guard who call themselves ironically the “Friends of Mission Canyon”) instead of only the area (such as a 35-foot circumference) around each of the seven specifically designated sites. Until that issue is solved, everything else would seem to be moot. Yet the Garden continues to spend money by the bushel full for advancement of the VMP, not to mention for CEO and VP salaries and benefits. Meanwhile, self-serving if not incompetent and manipulative internal county politics at all levels may in the end toll the death knell of the entire project! b) Why not wait for a settlement of the Meadow Terrace project first before going forward with the rest of the multi-million dollar VMP? c) What practical bureaucratic experience do the current Garden’s brass have that might turn the construction planning process from an arbitrary “circus” into a rational process?
    MEETING-MINUTES again: a) Did the Trustees, management and financial committees, fail to do their duty (keeping accurate minutes of decisions) as required for a public non-profit corporation? By the way, the bylaws require a 5 to 7 member Executive Committee, including “at least four shall be officers of the corporation” (Article IV, sec. 1). b) On these grounds, it seems that fewer than those required numbers for an Executive Committee even regularly attend main Trustee meetings. If this apparently deliberate refusal to reveal the legally required minutes is not stonewalling, it is decidedly not a good example of legal or competent management. Or is there something within the minutes to hide?
    DIALOGUE: Other than one VP being available once a week for face-to-face consultation by the public, or through email queries, what significant and effective devices have recently been introduced by the SBBG to foster "internal" as well as “community dialogue and interaction”?

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 1

    TelescopicFuturist (anonymous profile)
    June 30, 2009 at 9:47 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:
    73.0°
    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
    • High Noon in the Garden of Controversy
    • Viggo Hits The Road
    • Elings Park Expansion Shot Down
    • Before I Be Your Dog …
    • Alison Saar at Atkinson Gallery
    • Autism Attacked Alternatively
    1. Eating Animals
    2. Producer Must Pay Landscaper
    3. High Noon in the Garden of Controversy
    4. Teacher in Trouble
    5. Montecito Pet Shop to Sell Only Rescued Dogs
    6. My Swine Flu Experience
    • 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.