by : lacylit10 Politics

Expectations vs. Reality in Public Service and Leadership

“Never trust a politician.” This was something I remember hearing growing up from nearly every elder in my family. With that firm belief tucked inside my brain, I never thought I would engage in politics as an adult. For better or worse, here I am, engaging with politics.

Essential Qualities of Effective Leaders

Begrudgingly, I have to give credit to those who choose to serve in public office. Just being on the peripheral, I find it to be, more often than not, infuriating and draining. There are many qualities that someone in a position of leadership should possess. Most leadership experts consider self-awareness to be the most critical. Empathy, humility and integrity are a few others.

In my experience working with local elected officials (and observation of state and federal officials), very few demonstrate all of these qualities. Many don’t seem to possess a single one. There are others who draw on certain leadership characteristics depending on the issue, the audience and the need. And while I would normally commend a leader for doing such, these characteristics should be demonstrated in continuity. The unpredictability of their leadership behaviors can be perceived as two-faced and untrustworthy, coming off as self-serving rather than others-serving.

Constituent Representation, Accountability

Politicians are elected by constituents. They report to the people. Seemingly, candidates view a majority vote as a popularity contest, a testament to how much they are liked. The victory inflates their ego, and they “serve” the people with very little meaningfully constructive feedback and essentially nonexistent disciplinary action. People look to them for help, and they tend to develop a bit of a “Savior Complex,”when it is not warranted or justified.

Even if I do not name names, I am not comfortable publicly sharing some of my negative experiences. They know who they are and what they have said or done to make me question their ability to be a competent and respected leader for our community. What is seemingly worse, though, is even that public admission may jeopardize my working relationship with them. Apparently, their conscience cannot handle the guilt. As I have learned from those who tried before me, retaliation does not necessarily come in the form of a denied project. But it can come in the form of stealth defamation or a refusal to take a meeting.

Where is their accountability?

At any level of government, when it becomes us versus them, I think it’s safe to assume who will win and which power will reign. But I think for some of us, it’s not so much about winning or losing. It’s not a matter of punishment or litigation (unless unlawful and unethical activity accounts for it). 

For me, at least, it comes down to those leadership characteristics. Tell the truth. Admit you’re wrong. Treat me with the same respect in which you expect to be treated. Don’t be condescending. Don’t lead me to believe one thing and then do another.

Balancing Public Service, Personal Integrity

Humble up and know your place. Put your ego aside and recognize that you have chosen to be a public servant. That requires taking criticism. It requires listening to a lot of opinions and juggling many different priorities. It requires talking to people you don’t like about subjects that make you uncomfortable.

It’s unfortunate that some of our most basic life lessons seemingly get forgotten once elected.

Also published in Noozhawk.

by : lacylit10 Leadership, Politics

Persuasion, Communication, and Our Moral Obligations

What does ancient Greek rhetoric have to do with today? Perhaps we don’t recognize it with its official title, as it is more commonly referred to as the art of persuasion. Often, when we learn or reflect on history, we don’t look at it through a lens of communication. However, different forms of communication and their advancements over time have helped contribute to significant societal downfalls, which makes it worth paying attention to.

In the early democratic cultures of Athens and Rome, citizens were afforded access to information and an open system of debate to prepare them for voting. But true to human nature, deceptive propaganda soon overwhelmed both cities, contributing to their collapse. The printing press allowed for mass production of books and newspapers, leading us to the Age of Enlightenment, and the democratic revolutions of the 18th century. In the 19th century, the penny press and telegraph geographically expanded information reach and stirred political debates, instilling fear and resentment across nations, setting the stage for World War I. Cinema and radio created accessible and essential platforms for European fascists to engulf democracy and turn it into totalitarianism. Television transformed politics, as representatives now had to worry about optics, branding and sound bites. And today, we are in the age of digital communication, on the verge of an artificial intelligence takeover.

In journalism school, we are taught rhetoric to motivate, inform or persuade our audience, which means almost anything we see, hear or read has an agenda (hidden or in plain view). We are also taught to consider our sources, and the validity of information spread.

Although I am educated in journalism, I am not a journalist. I don’t have to be objective in my work. But you should consider my background in what I argue. Since my passion and expertise lies within agriculture, I will (openly or discreetly) educate my audience with facts and data that support my pro-ag beliefs. Likewise, when studies are published or reports are made public, we have to dig deeper than what we see on the surface. Who funded the study? Who funded the organizations that funded the study? What are their beliefs? Background provides context and credibility to help us determine the agenda that may not always be at the forefront of what we read, see, or hear. (They call persuasion an art for a reason.)

Rhetoric originated sometime in the fifth century B.C. For well more than 2,000 years, we have been fighting misinformation, propaganda and the art of persuasion. As a society, I personally do not believe we are any better at filtering through the B.S. now than we were then. If anything, we spend less time thinking for ourselves and more time scanning through headlines, coming up with our own conclusions based on echo chamber inducing and attention-grabbing phrases rather than concrete fact and evidence. And with the sheer volume of information coming at us on a daily basis, who has the time or energy for background research on all of it anyway?

Psychologically speaking, information overload leads to confusion, indecisiveness, stress, anxiety and mental fatigue. Overuse of social media leads to feelings of inadequacy and lower self-worth. When there is excess, people tend to yearn for structure and stability. The same thing happens in democracy. Boundless freedom can degrade a society.

We have a responsibility to uphold moral and ethical behavior. Most people do not rob department stores or punch a stranger on the sidewalk because they have a conscience. Anyone who posts something on the world wide web is an active creator of media, using the platform to spread information, whether it be fact, fiction or opinion. Our failure to take responsibility for what we say or share online has turned the internet into a modern-day Wild West where free speech runs rampant. Seemingly, all conscientious, respectful and dutiful behavior goes out the window with the shields of our screens. 

Looking forward, there are two sayings that come to mind:

  • Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it.
  • It’s how you pick yourself up when you fall.

We are on the precipice of revolutionary change. Now more than ever before, normal people like you and I have been active participants in shaping our society via the numerous platforms available to exercise our First Amendment rights, and it has fundamentally transformed the landscape of our democracy. I can’t help but wonder, will we take responsibility for our contribution in the inevitable downfall? And will artificial intelligence be part of the digital age demise or the beginning of a new era of communication?

We may not be able to prevent communication advancements and anticipate their effects on our society and democracy, but we can learn from our past. If William Randolph Hearst could “furnish the war” with Cuba in 1898, then I am pretty confident media today can influence elections in 2024.

As published in Noozhawk.

by : lacylit10 Politics

With Wind Energy and Endangered Species…

…the Greater Good Sure Is Subjective

By its scheduled completion in December, the Strauss Wind Energy Project near Lompoc is expected to produce enough electricity to power 45,000 houses.

Considering Santa Barbara County set the ambitious goal of reaching 100% renewable electricity by 2030, this project will be substantially helpful in attaining that goal.

Except the wind energy being produced will not stay in Santa Barbara County. The electricity will be exported to the San Francisco Bay Area.

In March, Strauss Wind Energy and BayWa r.e. filed for a federal take permit from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for any incidental deaths of golden eagles and other endangered species.

Since these permits can take years to secure, Strauss and BayWa requested permission from the county Planning Commission to begin operation without the permit.

Originally, county staff recommended the commissioners deny the request, but the commissioners recommended staff return with findings to approve it.

The decision was ultimately approved, as three of our local planning commissioners believe that immediately profiting by powering the Bay Area is more important than waiting the lengthy time frame for legally obtaining permission to kill endangered species.

It is for the “greater good,” they said. 

The greater good is such an interesting argument to me, because it is not based on logic. It is based on what you believe to be more important.

The greater good is subjective based on what you personally believe should take priority.

As taxpayers, we must decide what is more important to us:

  • Support the county in allowing Strauss and BayWa to begin operation without the federal take permit, and accept that the county can be held liable (fined) for any endangered species deaths.
  • Oppose the county in allowing Strauss and BayWa to operate without the federal take permit and accept that the county will not see immediate profits from exporting the electricity to the Bay Area.

The county is absolutely rigid in compliance enforcement when an individual or private company wants to do a project, and the county has no problem making the permit process as painful as possible while it drains local pocketbooks with associated fees.

In this situation, however, the county is willing to turn a blind eye to federal compliance for the wind farm, so it can generate profits off of exporting the electricity of a multibillion-dollar company.

Seemingly, laws and regulations are only relevant to enforce when the county believes it won’t make substantial money.

Choosing to make an exception for a project where it will largely profit sets a dangerous precedent. I can almost guarantee the county will not make an exception for your project when it does not generate that kind of revenue.

So who, exactly, do the Santa Barbara County planning commissioners consider the “greater good” in this situation? The county itself, local constituents, or residents of the Bay Area?

I actually do believe that sometimes rules need to be bent or broken for the greater good, if you are willing to suffer the consequences.

But I am not willing to accept the consequences of county decision makers who put profits over people (and the lives of endangered animals).

If the county is not willing to make compliance exceptions for local businesses when they will not see a multimillion-dollar profit, then it should not make the exception for a multinational corporation where it will.

I understand the taxes generated from the project will be significant. But the county will probably use those profits to hire more staff in the climate department to create more regulations requiring locals to replace their own nonrenewable energy sources, creating a slow, inconvenient and costly process as we carry the financial burden of chipping away at the county’s unrealistic climate goals.

If the planning commissioners were truly concerned with the greater good of our community, they would keep the wind-generated electricity within our county to help them reach their own ambitious climate goals.

And if the county was truly concerned with the greater good, it would adhere to the laws it enforces for others. 

Originally posted on Noozhawk.

by : lacylit10 Politics

Murky Circumstances…

… of Santa Barbara County’s New Ambulance Contract Should Raise Alarms.

If you haven’t been paying attention to the decisions the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors is making regarding the county’s ambulance contract, I suggest you start looking into it and making your voices heard.

I, for one, do not want to get caught in a situation in which my emergency medical care is hindered because the county Fire Department and American Medical Response are confused by their roles and responsibilities with the new permit system.

Nor do I want to become a victim in the process of learning that the new permit system is ineffective.

Regardless of how the new permit system will work, the power the Board of Supervisors has given itself here baffles me.

The five supervisors have taken the decision of who determines who receives the ambulance contract out of the hands of experts and have given it to themselves — increasing their power over subject matter in which none of them is formally educated or has professional working experience.

What makes them think they know what is best when it comes to our emergency medical care?

When you apply for a job at the most senior level of an organization, there is usually a requirement of an advanced degree and at least 10 years of professional experience.

These are the minimum basic requirements that most companies consider someone to be qualified to make impactful business decisions.

Why would our supervisors take the decision away from people who have these necessary qualifications in health care and emergency services and give it to themselves?

Cottage Health, Lompoc Valley Medical Center, Marian Regional Medical Center and the contract review panel — consisting of a board-certified emergency physician, a hospital executive, a retired metropolitan fire chief, the current public utility ambulance system administrator and a community — member all favored AMR over county fire and expressed concern about the permit system.

Why would the supervisors go against the recommendation of many qualified experts?

There are only two reasons I can think of: power and money.

The vote to take the decision away from experts gives more unjustified (in my opinion) authority to our elected officials. Giving the contract to county fire gives those elected officials more opportunities to divert money away from other necessary resources and reasons to raise taxes.

Do you think raises won’t be given out to everyone in the county who has to take on more work to make the county ambulance system work?

Due to lack of transparency on the issue, I’m inclined to believe there is something to hide.

Andy Caldwell, executive director of the Coalition of Labor, Agriculture & Business, has provided the supervisors with opportunities to defend their decision, in which they have deflected his questioning.

The county buried Caldwell with paperwork to distract him from the fact they did not provide what he asked for under the California Public Records Act in the timeframe it was required, and the more he inquired, the more the players seemingly got defensive.

Whether you agree with Caldwell’s political views or not, these are all suspicious reactive behaviors.

Admittedly, I could be way off base. But perception is reality, and the supervisors are choosing to remain quiet rather than educate us on the reasons for their decisions.

Given the circumstances, if you’ve been paying attention, what else are we supposed to believe? We’re only getting part of the story.

I encourage county fire, county staff or the Board of Supervisors to offer justification for their reasoning. I, and many other concerned health-care consumers throughout the county, are ready and willing to listen.

**Originally published in Noozhawk.