DAS, STEVE & SUPES TO [Santa Barbara] GRAND JURY ON POT & ETHICS REFORM: NO WAY, NO HOW, NOT NOW, NOT EVER

Das, Steve & Supes to SB Grand Jury on Pot & Ethics Reform: No Way, No How, Not Now, Not Ever

The Board of Supervisors could have saved their staff lawyers time and trouble in the drafting of their disgraceful and disrespectful response to the Grand Jury’s bombshell report on the county’s cannabis ordinance - by simply publishing the five-word message embedded within its 11 pages:

Go piss up a rope.

As a practical matter, that is the bottom line of the supervisors' response: anyone familiar with the controversy will recognize it as little more than a political rant by pot industry puppets Das Williams and Steve Lavagnino, tarted up in a 3,054-word bouquet of legalese in defense of a local brand of stuff-it-down-their throats power politics worthy of Mitch McConnell.

Last Monday, the supervisors approved their formal response to the landmark report by the civil Grand Jury, which conscientiously, painstakingly and responsibly catalogued and detailed the reckless and sleazy process, led by Supervisors Williams and Lavagnino, by which legal cannabis cultivation was implanted in the county.

As the jury detailed, the Doobie Brothers, amid an atmosphere of secrecy, rammed through a troubled new law, which managed simultaneously to inflict damage to the health and quality of life for many residents, disrupt the long-established wine and avocado industries, desecrate the integrity of creditable land use processes and ignite bitter and ongoing political division and lawsuits across the county.

Alone among the board, only the resolute Supervisor Joan Hartmann uttered a word of concern or care about the conflicts, mess and muddle brought about by the pot ordinance (though Peter Adam noted that he had cast many votes in opposition, which reflect concerns raised by the jury).

The board's formal, written response in defense of the Das-Steve Pot Patronage and Protectorship Act, however, not only treats the good citizens of the Grand Jury with utter contempt but also categorically refuses to acknowledge -- let alone take responsibility for -- the myriad of problems the legislation continues to cause.

L'etat c'est moi.

DENY, DEFLECT, DISMISS.

In flatly rejecting 18 of 19 Grand Jury recommendations for action, the supervisors' philipic on 10 different points proclaims, "This recommendation will not be implemented, as it is not warranted."

To be sure, the document employs occasional linguistic variations, perhaps for stylistic reasons: “This recommendation will not be implemented, as it is not reasonable," the supes assert seven times, while applying the phrase, "This recommendation will not be implemented as it is not necessary," once.

This deny-deny-deny strategy mirrors how Das dealt with the cannabis scandal while running for re-election a few months back, when he bumptiously and brazenly spurned repeated invitations from voters and debate moderators to express even a trace of regret or remorse for his botched legislative handiwork.

By failing to acknowledge the personal and economic pain and suffering of people whose day-to-day lives have been afflicted by the politically-connected cannabis industry, heavily populated with his personal pals and donors, Das has ceded any moral authority attendant to his elected perch, by making clear that he governs on behalf of his supporters and damn the rest.

The President of the Red States of America, would be proud.

NOT WARRANTED!

Here is a look at how the supervisors dismissed and derided a few of the Grand Jury's recommendations for cleaning up the kinds of shady political dealings that defined the passage of the cannabis ordinance:

SPECIAL INTEREST INFLUENCERS.

Pointing to the "unfettered access" pot industry lobbyists and operatives had to Das and Steve during the preparation of the ordinance, the jury recommended that supervisors in the future "publicly disclose all access granted to lobbying individuals or groups” when they have business before the board.

"Not warranted," declared the supes.

Why? Basically because they don’t have to: Determined to maintain the cozy status quo at the county, the board invoked a 1991 state supreme court ruling in which then-Governor Pete Wilson fought off efforts by the L.A. Times to review his daily calendars, to determine exactly with whom he was meeting in devising key policies.

Wilson, then soon to embark on his immigrant-bashing Prop. 187 crusade, did not have to disclose his meetings, the court ruled, because it would have "a chilling effect" on deliberations.

Ha! No kidding. Nice company, Das.

ETHICS IN POLITICS.

The Grand Jury recommended the supervisors establish an “independent Ethics Commission with oversight over the board,” to prevent a repeat of the unsavory dealings that produced the pot law, a move that has been taken by many other counties, including Ventura, San Francisco and Los Angeles, to ensure sunshine in local government activity.

"Not warranted," said the supes.

Why? Their answer claims there simply is no need for a local ethics watchdog -- because anyone who perceives a problem of conflict of interest or corruption amid their transactional behavior need merely direct their complaints to Sacramento, where they can take the matter up with California's Fair Political Practices Commission.

And hey, don't forget to call if and when you penetrate that state government bureaucracy.

PAY-TO-PLAY.

The jury recommended that supervisors “publicly disclose receipt of campaign contributions from donors who have matters pending a decision by the board.”

"Not warranted," adjudged the supes, well-qualified to attest to their own integrity.

Why? This one really takes the cake:

When asked about the need for local political reform during his campaign, Das never tired of deflecting the question by shedding crocodile tears and bemoaning the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous Citizens United decision, beating his breast about how it has corrupted our political system by flooding it with cash.

Now comes Das and the board, per Page 11 of the taxpayer-financed response to the Grand Jury, to declare shamelessly that the jury's campaign contribution reform recommendation would “curtail contributors' constitutional rights”; citing a 1980 state court decision, the document adds that “Public policy strongly encourages the giving and receiving of campaign contributions.”

Now there’s the understatement of the year.

edhat Santa Barbara
By Jerry Roberts of Newsmakers
September 28, 2020