Marc McGinnes, a former lawyer
and a representative for Friends of the Bridge, a local group opposed to the
barrier, sent a letter to the county’s District Attorney’s office calling for
an investigation and then to take “appropriate civil and criminal actions to
address the violation.”
On June 18, SBCAG approved as a consent item — meaning
there was a consensus to approve without open discussion — a fund transfer between
three construction projects to close a shortfall for the $12.5 million Highway
101 Ellwood/Cathedral Oaks interchange project in Goleta.
The proposal was spearheaded by Caltrans and will shift
federal stimulus dollars slated for the Milpas/Hot
Springs freeway widening project to the Cold Springs Bridge Project. Money for
the suicide barrier, which can be tapped immediately, would then be reallocated
for the project in Goleta.
“The proposed funding trade would help ensure timely
delivery of two projects supported by SBCAG — the Elwood/Cathedral Oaks
interchange and the Cold Spring Bridge,” reads the staff report.
Though SBCAG provided a staff report on the proposal, it
did not name or refer to these two projects in its consent calendar.
“Thus, stakeholders and other members of the public
interested in participating in SBCAG decision-making concerning either or both
the Cold Spring Bridge barriers and/or the Hwy 101 Milpas
to Hot Springs Road widening project were deprived of notice of the proposed
action(s) and the opportunity to be heard,” wrote McGinnes
in a letter to the association.
As of press time, SBCAG Chairwoman Lupe Alvarez did not
respond to several attempts to contact her for comment.
Kevin Redding, legal counsel for SBCAG, dismissed the
accusation. He said because the item was primarily about funding the
Ellwood/Hollister project, naming the other projects in the consent calendar
was unnecessary. “This was not about the bridge,” he said, adding that the
staff report, which details the proposal’s impact on the other projects, was
posted on SBCAG’s bulletin board and on its Web site.
“That is
laughable,” McGinnes responded, during an interview
with the Journal. “And it’s not just laughable. What they did is illegal.”
“If you’re reading an agenda that doesn’t appear to
pertain to anything you’re concerned about, why would you go online?” McGinnes said. “Carrying that argument to a logical
conclusion, you’d have to say there’s a duty on the part of any citizen who’s
interested in any topic to not only read the agenda item description but all
the staff reports. No court would agree with that. They’re hoping that the
court will agree with his characterization.”
McGinnes
said his group and the public have been stymied in the past to find out the
status of the suicide barrier project.
“This is not just a mistake,” he said. “This looks like
an intentional evasion of accountability. If it wasn’t intentional, it was so
careless as to be unbelievable.”
McGinnes
said he is confident that a judgment by the District Attorney’s office will
side with him.
He said the only way for SBCAG to “correct the violation”
would be to revisit the issue at a future hearing and give “proper public
notice.” Though Friends of the Bridge has opposed the barrier from its
inception, arguing that it will destroy the aesthetic qualities of the bridge
and will only encourage those determined to commit suicide to go elsewhere to
end their lives, McGinnes said this is strictly about
accountability.
“When it’s brought back to hearing, it will be given the
legitimate comments that it merits,” McGinnes said.
“I suspect they’re going hear from their constituents, particularly those
concerned about the freeway widening. This is not just about Cold Springs
Bridge. People will ask why they’ve given the county a lot of money from
Measure A, and now they’re jeopardizing a project for a non-transportation
project.”
McGinnes has
contacted several groups opposed to the Cold Spring Bridge barriers proposal,
asking them if they would be willing to become parties in litigation on the
matter. Jarrell C. Jackman, Ph.D., executive director
of Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation, which was one of the groups
contacted, said if there has been a violation of the Brown Act, the issue
“should be addressed and remedied.”
As of Monday, SBCAG board members had not read the
complaint, Redding said. And though he thinks McGinnes’
complaint is a non-issue, he said the association would likely respond in some
fashion.
“If the board thinks there is something that needs to
happen, they could put the item back on the agenda for a future meeting,” he
said. “But that would be assuming we’ve done something wrong, and I’m not sure
we’ve done anything wrong.”
Reach Jeremy Foster at
jfoster@syvjournal.com.