Ten days before potential candidates can even declare their official intention to run in this November’s Santa Barbara City Council elections, two political 800-pound gorillas have already thrown their considerable weight behind two of the three challengers backed by the Democratic Central Committee. The cops’ union—the Police Officers Association (POA)—and District Attorney Joyce Dudley announced their support this week for candidates Iya Falcone and Deborah Schwartz.
Almost as striking as the earliness of the announcement was who was not included. Missing from the endorsement announcement was Cathy Murillo, former KCSB news director and Independent reporter, who is running as part of a slate of challengers along with Falcone and Schwartz. The three were endorsed two months ago by the Democratic Central Committee as part of a concerted campaign to retake the council majority. For the first time in decades, conservatives now enjoy a 4-3 council majority, and local Democrats are determined to cut that short by taking on the more conservative incumbents Dale Francisco, Michael Self, and Randy Rowse.
Conspicuously missing from the police endorsement announcement was Councilmember Michael Self, whom the union endorsed two years ago. According to union president Eric Beecher, the POA could well still back Self again, but that it needs to review all the other candidates in the field. While Self is credited with working hard behind the scenes on behalf of the POA during contract negotiations, some in public safety unions have expressed concern about her association with Lanny Ebenstein, who writes political editorials for the News-Press and is pushing a statewide initiative that would ban collective bargaining for all public employees. Self, for the record, said she would not sign any petition to qualify that initiative for a statewide vote.
Beecher explained the POA came out so soon, partially at the instigation of Schwartz, with whom the union was extremely impressed. Although Schwartz grew up in Santa Barbara, she left in 1984 for 20 years and consequently is something of a political newcomer. But her mother happens to be Naomi Schwartz, the former county supervisor and a major behind-the-scenes player in Democratic Party circles. Likewise she enjoys strong backing from her mother’s political protégé, county supervisor Salud Carbajal, whose campaign war chest has become the stuff of local political lore. Schwartz talks tough about growing gang violence, but makes clear that her sense of public safety includes quality of life issues, too. She worries that Santa Barbara’s hopping bar and nightlife scene consumes “an inordinate” amount of law enforcement attention and would consider ordinances, like shutting down bars earlier, that would mitigate that.
The union’s endorsement of Falcone—a two-term former councilmember and old-school bread-and-butter moderate Democrat—was all but preordained given its previous endorsements of her and her close working relationship with the POA over the years. After stepping down from the council two years ago, Falcone also worked as a consultant to the union during its stormy contract negotiations with City Hall last year.
In years past, the POA’s endorsement has ranked as one of the most influential in local elections, bestowing upon candidates not just cash and campaign ads, but precinct walkers and a political respectability that crossed party lines. This year, however, public employee unions are under considerable attack predominantly by Republican politicians, who’ve blamed them for the fiscal woes afflicting many states, counties, and city governments.
Leading the charge for the incumbents will be Dale Francisco, even though he has yet to formally announce his candidacy. While Francisco has pushed hard to increase the number of cops on the force, he and the POA have what at best could be described as a love-hate relationship; he supports law enforcement but not necessarily their unions.
During recent negotiations, relations between the two grew so sour that the union had crafted an attack mailer that it came close to sending out. On the council, Francisco has pushed to increase the number of authorized sworn officers to 150—it’s 140 now. But he also pushed to create a new subcommittee to review police operations to ensure maximum efficiencies, something none of his council colleagues, nor any of the other candidates in the race, have embraced.



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace







Previous Month



Comments
Not being a real big fan of the POA endorsements here. But I can't imagine a "conservative" or "republican" or "independent" that I could vote for. They're were all crazy even before this republican led financial meltdown. All they can do now is blame everyone else. Very immature.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2011 at 5:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What are the real criteria (yes, the real ones, not the spin) that determine the POA and DA endorsement?
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2011 at 7:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Falcone has a deplorable record with several failed budgets on her previous watch. She's big on the tourist face lift on the waterfront where the red brick crosswalks already have asphalt filling the holes and no money to fix them. She's helped gentrify the funk zone with million dollar condos which exclude the blue collar workforce.
No second chances with our money thank you.
easternpacific (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2011 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Read how the unions are corrupting campaigns and stealing away your children's (and our) futures...
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Public-...
"Earlier this year, a new prison guard contract came up for approval in the Legislature. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated it would cost an additional $51 million in its first year, and Republican lawmakers, looking for ways to narrow an estimated $10.8 billion budget gap, said they had the votes to kill the deal.
Then a Republican senator, Anthony Cannella, changed his mind and voted for the prison guards’ contract. It passed.
Mr. Cannella was elected over Ms. Caballero, the target of the attacks by the correction officers’ union.
The union “was actually crucial to my election,” Mr. Cannella said in a video produced by the union."
sa1 (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2011 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Schwartz also was supportive of the Botanic Garden's --- when under PR Guru John Davies and Symington/Schneider --- Master Plan. Luckily, she was on the losing side in the 5-4 vote.
citti (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2011 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Schwartz was appointed to the County Historic Landmarks Commission by Janet Wolf solely to further her budding political career. She, along with commissioners Sue Adams and Barbara Lowenthal, tried to push through approval of the Botanic Garden's plan to build an events plaza on the famous Meadow and pave over the Garden's trails just to appease the Garden's administration and gain future political support for Schwartz. Fortunately, the CHLAC majority stood firm and stopped the ruination of the Garden. Now the old Garden leadership is gone and it is undergoing a beautiful restoration. If Schwartz had gotten her way the Garden would have been trashed forever.
zorro (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2011 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Zorro - Sue Adams never supported paving trails - she was the probably most forceful opponent of the Garden's use of synthetic pavers on their trails - and to my recollection never supported the Meadow Terrace Events Plaza. Barbara Lowenthal rarely attended or participated in the Botanic Garden's proceedings before HLAC.
Marc_Chytilo (Marc Chytilo)
June 22, 2011 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, this looks like Deborah Schwartz lost the Mission Canyon vote for Santa Barbara City Council.
Perhaps analyzing her record as a sitting city planning commissioner would be more relevant?
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2011 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Schwartz's record on the planning comission is not a good one unless you are pro-growth and support lots of high-density development.
Georgy (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2011 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Marc Chytillo: You are incorrect. On December 10, 2007 CHLAC voted 5-4 to disapprove the Garden's plan which included paving of the trails and construction of the Meadow Terrace Events Plaza. (See CHLAC minutes on county website). Among those voting in favor of the Garden's plan were Deborah Schwartz, Susan Adams and Barbara Lowenthal. The three of them made up a subcommittee that met with the Garden's administration, supported their plan and then tried to get the rest of the commission to go along. But the majority voted against them because it would have OK'd the Terrace and the paving. True, Sue Adams spoke against the paving but ended up voting for it anyway. She said one thing but did something else. The Board of Supervisors supported the CHLAC majority on appeal. Bottom line, if Schwartz, Adams and Lowenthal had gotten their way, the Garden would have been ruined.
zorro (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2011 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting that even though the Council just approved a budget without cutting police, the POA still prefers to support the lefty/union shills. Undoubtedly because they expect more goodies from them than from a more responsible crew. The actions of the current Council (i.e. since the delightful departure of Das) has not been without flaws, but has been much more thoughtful and evenhanded than the previous lefty rubber-stamp government we were cursed with. Now if we can just fix the "staff infection" in SB with a 40% cut in non-safety local gov personnel, we can get this town's budget back where it should be. It's growth has greatly exceeded that of both the population (which has not grown at all in 10 years) and the inflation rate.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2011 at 6:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's not clear to me what SantaNa's comments have to do with this editorial regarding the Brown act, but.....
While I agree that economic vitality is extremely important, I would hardly agree that it trumps public safety. And while I agree that the Santa Barbara government should encourage the development of private sector jobs, they are hardly in control of
"widespread economic turmoil, skyrocketed unemployment rates, diminished population, short sells in the real estate market".
Now, as to Nick's comments on the Brown act: While the intent of the original Act was good, the inflation of the Act from several hundred to several thousand pages may well be counterproductive to good government. It is abundantly clear that our Council and Board of Supes are incredibly ignorant in certain areas (economic, finance, science and technology, the laws of unintended consequences) and should have the opportunity to educate themselves without public ridicule.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
June 23, 2011 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And if Michael Self received the POA endorsement, would she too be a "union shill" and the scorn of JohnLocke?
I know that is a trick question because Mrs. Self does not understand that the POA indeed is a public employee labor union, as deftly reported by the Independent in 2009.
And would city council members meeting in private also be no big deal -and actually considered good government practice- to the Francisco bloc of current council members after they are terminated by the voters next November and replaced by Falcone, Schwartz and Murillo?
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
June 23, 2011 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In your dreams, John_Adams.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
June 24, 2011 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Okay, I do believe that JohnLocke would be an inconsistent hypocrite if Self receives the police employee union endorsement and I do expect that JohnLocke would not call here a "union shill" but would assign that epithet onto Schwartz and Falcone.
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
June 24, 2011 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
John_Adams, Schwartz and Falcone have a history of supporting the blood-sucking public employee unions. And yes the police union is one of them. As of yet, Self has no such record. So stop with the what-ifs and deal in what's real. Take a lesson from your namesake. And be prepared for a continuation in the movement of our Council from the looney left to the considered center.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
June 24, 2011 at 6:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Isn't it somewhat funny that after all this union bashing, and words like "thug" being associated with union leaders, the politicians still seek out union support? These politicians are not just democrats, especially when it comes to public safety employee unions, but republicans and independents of all kinds.
We read the " ultra conservatives" views repeatedly, but when it comes down to it the public wants politicians that are going to make sure they properly fund police and fire. After all, Michael Self won't show up when you dial 911.
Validated (anonymous profile)
June 24, 2011 at 7:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
- The Badge 2002
- Crash 2004
- NYPD Blue (ended 2005)
- Adam-12 (ended 1975)
- The Andy Griffith Show (ended 1968)
Dude, you need to update your crazy non-sequiturs; your're not making pop culture references, you're tripping on nostalgia.
binky (anonymous profile)
June 24, 2011 at 10:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Some still think "blood sucking" Unions, unemployed, homeowners, homeless, poor and activist minorities robbed the nation. How unenlightened can JohnLocke be. Must be a retired banker.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
June 25, 2011 at 7:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You know it's a party when your sparring partners get desperate and start with the "blood-sucking" "thug" "shill" and the like. While "Socialist" is so 2010, "Nazi" is just a comment or two away.
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
June 25, 2011 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
McD, I never mentioned unemployed homeowners, homeless, poor, or activitist minorities. Only blood-sicking public employee unions. Meanwhile, I suggest that you donate your income to the City to pay the unions. Just look at the damn data, willya?
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
June 25, 2011 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
SantaNa writes, "seatbelt tickets, helmet laws, infractions for not using a right turn flicker on Shoreline". Problem with authority or a young freedom fighter??
You tell em like it is tiger.
Validated (anonymous profile)
June 25, 2011 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Marc Chytilo, here's the Daily Sound piece on that 5-4 (Adams, Lowenthal, Mussel, Schwartz) vote on Woodward's motion to deny the SBBG Meadow Terrace project: http://sbdailysound.blogspot.com/2007...
And John_Adams: considerably more than Mission Canyon residents care deeply about the Botanic Garden and watched that process and worked to preserve the garden from Schneider-Symington and their supporters. Obviously, she was only appointed to the HLAC as a political stepping stone, in the same way Das et al appointed her to the PC. That remember-her-mama nepotism does not warrant my vote for her on the city council.
at_large (anonymous profile)
June 26, 2011 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The data is clear. Wall Street, bankers, republican party leadership, tea party types, and little old lady retiree annuity holders voting republican that are the blood suckers. They bring down the economy every time.
And must I always remind you again that is it G.W. Bush and his administrations failures, malfeasance and mismanagement that is the cause of the current financial problems. JohnLocke your little old corporate annuity is in jeopardy due to yourself, not unions.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2011 at 6:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"They bring down the economy every time."
You make half the point Don, but how do you explain the failure of the Soviet Union?
Here's a challenge for all the ideologues: Get off your idea that it's all the fault of one side. Big government types and free marketers are equally capable of fouling the nest.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2011 at 7:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
billclausen; The failure of the Soviet Union was due to the pissing match with the U.S. in this militarization match. Now that we're on our own we may be headed in the same direction. But that is only if we continue to elected ideologue war-mongering conservative republicans who foolishly and repeatedly get the U.S.A into military quagmires.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
June 29, 2011 at 7:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Cuba isn't doing very well either Don, but indeed you're right about us blowing our money on these foreign entanglements.
The U.S. can't make it's own inner-cities work, so why do its leaders think their going to make Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Yemen ad infinitum work? Oh I forgot, selective amnesia.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
July 1, 2011 at 3:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)