This
letter is in response to Jeff McKinnon’s April 3, 2008, letter to the editor attacking
School Board member Jeff Little’s recall response questioning the teacher’s
supposed 56-0 vote of confidence for Clevenger. In the Santa Ynez Valley News,
McKinnon has had conflicting statements about the number of people voting and
the method in which they voted.
On
March 25, 2008, McKinnon said, “all but a half a dozen faculty were present,”
but he thinks they would have voted “presumably yes,” and the vote was by a
“show of hands.” In the April 1, 2008, edition, McKinnon is quoted as saying,
“The result of a unanimous oral vote of confidence.”
The
Faculty Association’s open letter published in the Valley Journal at the end of
February stated, “We fully stand behind our 56-0 vote of confidence in Mr.
Clevenger as our principal.” Unfortunately, this misinformation has been
repeated through all media sources: newspaper, internet, TV and radio. Like many people in the valley, I was
“spammed” numerous emails written by faculty association co-presidents Tory Babcock
and Jeff McKinnon.
These
emails reiterated the subsequent self-admitted untruth of the 56-0 vote of
confidence for Clevenger.
In
Babcock’s Feb. 27, 2008, email she writes, “Please email this letter to all of
your valley contacts so that we blanket the valley with the truth.
How
can we counter injustice in the world if we don’t do it in our own backyard?
Thanks for doing the right thing.” If they did not tell us the truth about the
vote, what else is not true?
It
appears Jeff Little was correct in questioning the
validity of the vote. Maybe it’s the school board that did the right thing and
is encountering injustice.
Lisa Japczyk, Solvang
Dear Nancy,
Last week
there was an article in these pages regarding my family’s proposal to create a
private winery on our property we have owned for nearly two decades in Happy Canyon. The article was erroneous in many of its facts and
did not portray our proposal accurately. Our private winery will not be open to
the public and our requested utilization of this agriculturally zoned land is
far below what the county allows.
The campaign to interfere with legitimate
farming and ranching interests is one of entitlement and “citified” arrogance
and this is the pollution which will damage our valley if left unchecked.
Ranchers and farmers have long been stewards of the land, and have taken great
pride in maintaining its beauty and function, and we believe in that tradition.
Over the
past several months, we have met with many of our neighbors to share and
discuss our plans. Those meetings led to changes and refinements to the plan
that is currently being reviewed by the County.
After making several suggested changes, a number of neighbors who
originally were concerned now support our plans.
We have made it a priority throughout this
process to make sure our neighbors and the valley community
have the facts about our plan and understand our family’s commitment to
protecting and maintaining the unique rural and agricultural character of Happy
Canyon and the valley we all share.
Our ranch in Happy Canyon has been our family
home for almost 20 years. Ten years ago we decided to take 58 acres of our
agriculturally zoned land and plant grape vines, and have been making wine from
those grapes since 2002. We currently truck grapes from our vineyard to a
winery in the Valley for processing. Our goal now is to produce our wine at our
ranch in a private winemaking facility.
There has
been considerable discussion and some individuals are trying to create
confusion about what makes up a “private winery.”
Our
facility is for private use only — to make our wines and to introduce these
wines and our wine making process to industry distributors, critics, and
writers in private meetings. We have not proposed and our permit will NOT allow
any public tasting, nor will our permit, at our own request, allow for public
tours.
There
will be NO retail sales of our wine at the private winery. In fact, our major
storage and shipping will also be off-site. This is our home and we have no
desire to infringe on our own privacy.
There was
a false statement in the story that 140 people signed a petition against our
plan. That is NOT true.
The fact
is that the said petition had nothing to do with our plan, as it was a petition
specifically opposing public wine tasting, public tours, and special events in
Happy Canyon. Our proposed winery was never mentioned.
We share
a love for Happy Canyon with our neighbors, many of whom are large acreage
agricultural operations as well as residential neighbors. That is why we’ve
worked so long and so hard to ensure that the completion of a private facility
to produce wine from our grapes on our property does not adversely impact the
quality of life in our rural neighborhood. We think the plan currently being
reviewed by the County achieves that goal. More than 25 of our closest
neighbors are supportive of our plans and have signed a card in support. Our
current plan demonstrates no visual impact, no sound impact, and will only add
an average of 26 daily trips (the equivalent of a little more than two homes)
to the current roads. Happy Canyon has a current daily trip allowance of 5,000.
Without
exception, our plans call for less than what is allowed by Santa Barbara County
for the type of winery we have proposed. We have voluntarily eliminated public
tasting and public tours, we have cut our allowed
production volume in half, reduced the overall square footage of the facility,
as well as cut the special event allowance from 8 to 4.
The
zoning for our Happy Canyon Vineyard parcel is AG-II-100 — which means it’s
zoned for agricultural use. Because vineyards are an agricultural use, they may
be planted without a permit. The AG-II-100 zoning also allows for the
permitting of agricultural processing and accessory structures, as well as a
winery. We are not asking for anything above and beyond what is allowed by
County requirements; we are asking for less than allowed to set a new precedent
of neighborhood respect.
Late last
year, our plan was reviewed and approved 4-0 by the Agricultural Preserve
Advisory Committee. The Central Board of Architectural Review also considered
the plan and concluded that the winery architecture is well designed and
appropriate. We will soon again be before the County to seek approval for our
plans.
We
appreciate the rigors of the County review process as we understand the purpose
is to ensure thoughtful, compatible and appropriate projects. Our land is zoned
for this use and we are asking for less than what is allowed by the County’s
Ordinance governing wineries — less production, less square footage, and no
public tasting or tours. If you have any questions about my family’s winery
plans, you may reach me at tjbarrack@gmail.com.
Thomas
Barrack
Happy Canyon
What has happened to justify a recall of the five board
members of the Santa Ynez High School? Superintendent Fred Van Leuven
recommended not to renew Principal Norm Clevenger’s
contract for next year. This action seemed to be a surprise to many; however,
it should not have been surprising to the people involved with the school.
Evidenced by an email that I received from Norm, “It is probably no deep secret that
Superintendent Fred Van Leuven and I have not always agreed on things. We were
both professional and the success of the schools lends credence to Santa Ynez
High as a wonderful high school. Had the superintendent continued next year, I
would have resigned. It has been too difficult for me especially in these last
couple of years.”
Reading to these words from Norm, it should not be too
hard to understand why the superintendent was reluctant to recommend him for
next year. It is obvious that there is a mutual discontent between the men.
Norm’s verbal reaction to not being rehired, both to the Superintendent and to
the board President, must have put him in the position of an unhappy or
disgruntled employee. It is common business practice to remove a disgruntled
employee from the workplace immediately for all the obvious reasons. During
Norm’s years at the school he has formed many good relationships with some of
the teachers and staff and I’m sure many of them were disappointed to see that
he was not being rehired.
In a meeting of most of the tenured teachers and some
other employees, there was a show-of-hands vote of confidence for Norm to be
able to complete the year. There has been no vote as to whether the teachers
wanted Norm to be rehired for next year or if the teachers would be in support
of a recall. I’m sure that, under the circumstance, the school would be
responsible to pay for a recall election; if there were enough signatures
generated to force a special election, the teachers would not want any of the
funds to be taken from their department The money
would have to come from a budget that is already under fire from the state. I
think that friends of Norm would like to show support for him, and rightfully
so: Norm is a very nice man. To ask the school district to pay for a special
election to recall all five members of the board, who are also very nice people
themselves, would not be in the best interest of the school or the kids.
Please remember, these are five individuals who are
successful, intelligent and hard working volunteers. They are, in part,
responsible for making Santa Ynez one of the highest rated schools that is
financially sound, and has the highest paid teachers in the county.
Besides putting a financial burden on the school, having
a recall election will create discontent among friends and neighbors who
already are dealing with hard economic times. This unfortunate situation needs
to go away and we need to go back to being the great people who make this
valley the most wonder place to live.
If you feel strongly enough to continue, please enter the
race for the two board seats that will be available at the next election.
Please don’t sign a petition and carry on the foolishness.
Frank Kelsey
Ballard
Editor:
The
turmoil at the high school has created unrest and distrust in our Valley
community and I strongly urge the School Board to revisit the decision taken at
their last meeting to ratify the dismissal of Principal Norm Clevenger.
There are
many reasons to take another look at the situation, which others are prepared
to address.
As former
chair of the Santa Barbara chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, I am
most troubled by the apparent violation of Mr. Clevenger’s First Amendment
rights.
Based on
available information, I must conclude that Mr. Clevenger is being denied his
right to petition the government (i.e., the School Board) for a hearing
for redress of grievances in an open and timely manner.
This is a
right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, cherished by all Americans.
Sincerely,
Jordan Mo, Solvang
It Gets
Worse
The
recent op-ed titled “Would you hire this man?” was based on information off of
Candidate Smyser’s website. The information was very
concerning; because it showed a severe lack of follow-through, commitment and
work ethic.
What is
even more concerning than his lack of maintaining a job very long is the fact
that, as recently as Aug. 22, 2007, Mr. Smyser had to
leave a planning commission hearing early to catch a flight to Northern California.
He
informed several people in the Santa Barbara hearing room that he was going up
north to look for a job and a home. Since then, in October, 2007, his wife,
Sandra, took a job and lives in Steamboat Springs, Colo.
Since
Willy Chamberlain, Brooks Firestone, Andy Caldwell and Vincent Armenta are Mr. Smyser’s mentors
and backers, maybe they could explain to the voters what is going on here, if
Mr. Smyser can not or will
not.
I am
waiting.
Jennifer
Sorenson