Modern America plays host to thousands upon thousands of various interest groups. Our nation’s founding fathers, and shapers of our constitutional government, knew quite well of the human nature of interest groups and their ability to gain public momentum and effect sociopolitical issues on a local, regional, and national scale. In James Madison’s 10th Federalist Paper, written in 1788, he describes interest groups as “factions” which are competitive economic special interest groups who are united by some common passion, and that often conflict with the interests of other citizens or the public good of the entire community or nation (Gerber, p.137). Madison analyzes a prescribed set of solutions to the fundamental governmental problem of maintaining a delicate balance between the establishment of a representative government and popular majority rule, and the simultaneous fulfillment of individual and minority rights and freedoms, a daunting task for any conscientious politician past or present.

The political social spectrum in America has become significantly more complex, and multi-faceted since the Declaration of Independence was initially drafted and then revised. Burdett A. Loomis, and Allan J. Cigler acknowledge that change, and in their book Interest Group Politics, written in 1998, an excerpt entitled “The Changing Nature of Interest Group Politics” seeks to place into perspective a broad series of changes in the nature of modern interest group politics (Gerber, p.144). Their article discerns between two views on modern interest groups and their capacity to initiate effective change within the American political system. One view was that the considerable growth in the number of interest groups has made politics more representative than ever before, in that groups composed of a large number of passionate, goal-oriented citizens and political activists cannot be suppressed, or quieted to the point that they will not be heard from. The Shoreline Preservation Fund (SPF) at UCSB represents an interest group, which adheres to the environmental principles of the MISSION STATEMENT that governs its actions. As well as addressing the concerns of environmentalists involved in SPF approved projects and similarly, the voters who approved it when it was first proposed on the UCSB ballot, therefore making the organization a direct representation of the political ideals of our community.

In 1999, the Isla Vista Chapter of Surfrider responded to the continuous polluting and deteriorating integrity of the UCSB shoreline with the proposal of the SPF; both factions remain in operation today as student-based organizations (Shoreline). The goals of the SPF are declared in the contents of their MISSION STATEMENT, which I have reproduced below:

THE SHORELINE PRESERVATION FUND (SPF) shall provide funds to preserve, protect, and enhance the terrestrial and marine habitats associated with the shoreline of the University of California, Santa Barbara through preservation, education, open access, research, and restoration. The following five principles shall guide and govern the funding of projects by the SPF:

1. PRESERVATION: Biodiversity and the ecological integrity of the shoreline are essential and irreplaceable. The SPF is committed to preserving and enhancing these aspects of the shoreline.

2. EDUCATION: Environmental education is vital to the future health and well being of the UCSB community. The SPF seeks to develop and utilize educational materials and opportunities that are fun, factual, proactive, and informative.

3. ACCESS: The right to safe open and low impact access to the shoreline must be maintained with respect to sensitive habitat. SPF supports the balance of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) and public access.

4. RESEARCH: Projects that promote education through research are fundamental to our understanding of coastal resources and the natural processes and human influences that act upon them. SPF encourages studies that further our understanding of the shoreline.

5. RESTORATION: Understanding that past human activity has negatively affected the environment. SPF understands that restoration of habitat is critical to maintain natural and healthy ecosystems.

With the Environmental Affairs Board (EAB) of UCSB as a cosponsor, 4,000 signatures supporting the SPF petition were obtained in order to get the proposal onto the general campus election ballot of Spring ’99 (Shoreline). The SPF prop passed by a resounding 75.9%, the widest margin of victory of any initiative on the ballot, furthering evidence that the UCSB community is both aware and willing to act directly or indirectly to preserve local coastlines. Approval of the SPF means that $3 per student per quarter will be charged upon enrollment for the next four years until the initiative must be re-approved by another UCSB campus election in 2003. The enrollment fee, in conjunction with voluntary student and citizen contributions, generates approximately $180,000 per year for the campus shoreline. This fund is then allocated to various eco-projects presented to and eventually approved by incumbent members of the SPF board of directors, which I have listed below for 2000:

1. J. Scott Bull, Chair and Surfrider Representative
2. Craig Revell, Vice-Chair and Undergraduate Representative
3. Jodie Henri, EAB Representative
4. Chris Hubbard, Associated Students Representative
5. Tim Maddux, Graduate Representative
6. John LaBonte, Graduate Representative
7. Maggie Stack, Undergraduate Representative

The SPF is a landmark interest group for UCSB in that it is an example of a grassroots, community based effort to care for its coast. SPF funds are generated by students as well as administered by students. In long-term respects, the students will also reap the benefits of any successful enhancement projects along the UCSB shoreline.

I recently conducted an interview with SPF Fund/Staff Administrator Phil Tseng, who enlightened me on SPF’s project history, long-term goals, and where the SPF stands in the political arena of Santa Barbara. The following dialogue represents some of the highlights of our conversation (Tseng, 2000):

MICAH: “What does your job consist of here at the SPF office?”

PHIL: “Mainly I am the primary facilitator of accepting the proposal applications we receive for each quarter, as well as organizing board meetings and other SPF activities. I also see that legal agreements are signed and that projects follow the procedures outlined in their proposals; sometimes I present solutions, or make comments to people involved in the projects. There are two types of funding that we approve for projects, major funding, and minor funding. On average we have 6-7 major funding projects, and 4-5 minor funding projects per quarter. We had our highest number of proposals winter quarter of last year when we had 15.”

M: “What do you consider your political goals at the SPF?”

P: “Well, we really don’t take any kind of political stance here. Our MISSSION STATEMENT was made last year to describe our intentions as well as act as our governing entity. There’s an assortment of reasons why we don’t. Number one, our fund is a ‘student fund’ and for us to take their money and use it in a political arena without their knowledge would upset a lot of people who thought they had voted for saving the beaches. We want to operate as a true non-profit organization, so we don’t endorse any candidates or things like that.

There are a lot of watchful eyes, for instance one time a campus administrator saw an article in The Daily Nexus stating that the SPF will be funding research projects out at the Channel Islands. This brought up the issue of just how far the SPF’s geographical funding jurisdiction extended. Limitations on how far away SPF sponsored projects could get from the UCSB campus had not been made clear to the campus administrator. It was simply a miscommunication; we provided a definition of our jurisdiction boundaries and cleared the air without any need for administrative action.

One thing that we are pushing for right now is for the The Daily Nexus to publish our water quality tests in the daily press. We monitor four spots along the UCSB shoreline and we feel that this information is pertinent to surfer’s health as well as other people in the water.”

M: “Can you describe for me an example of the worst project you’ve funded and your most successful, in terms of achieving the goals set forth in their proposals?”

P: “Sure, first off, our least successful example, we paid a $2,800 stipend to an artist to draw pictures of the flora in and around the Coal Oil Point Reserve. Although the pictures were well done and came back to us after some time, they were never created into a field guide, which was there intended purpose. The field guide was going to be for people visiting Coal Oil Point. (Shows me pictures) Now they’re just sitting here practically useless and getting more and more dated.

Our best project by far is our funding of the Growing Solutions Corporation, which collects native seeds and propagates them. It was a $29,000 project we approved in spring quarter 2000; with a laptop added to organize the massive cataloguing they need to do. Planting is scheduled to start by March (2001) with 6,000 plants being propagated for use by the Isla Vista Recreation & Parks Department, and another 4,000 to be used at the Goleta Slough, Estero Gardens, and other various projects.”

M: “What are SPF’s techniques of influence at the community, state, and/or Federal level, in the creation of environmental policies?”

P: “There is no direct involvement with the creation or altering of environmental policies, our main goal is to have innovative projects that will better our understanding of the UCSB shoreline’s species and processes. Our biggest weakness is not getting enough proposal applications; we have not rejected a single minor funding proposal since the SPF began. We strongly encourage and welcome all student and community member’s ideas and concerns with preserving the integrity of our coastal environment. There’s a public falsity that the SPF review board is hardnosed, stringent with their resources, and hard to work with, but quite the opposite is true.”

M: “I know that the SPF doesn’t not participate in political issues, but what would you say your viewpoint is on SPF’s overall success in the political arena?”

P: “If we have any effect on environmental legislation or policies it will be the result of the long-term effects of successful projects funded by the SPF. Positive long-term effects are the only way to influence the creation of further innovative and possibly larger scale projects that could reach more people in our community and surrounding areas.

Hopefully we can preserve and restore the natural beauty of our shoreline in the midst of urban sprawl so that we can enhance the ‘student experience’ at UCSB. We can save the beaches while at the same time changing the social perspective towards UCSB student’s stewardship towards their environment.”

The SPF is a symbolic student based public interest group for other UC schools to model their own organizations from. Another long-term goal mentioned to me by Phil during our interview was to have similar ‘student fund’ factions materialize on other campuses; UC Davis, Santa Cruz, USD, UCSD, and other UC schools represent potential candidates for student run organizations.

In this respect, Madison’s 10th Federalist concerns with controlling the influence of special interest groups on society as a whole should be withdrawn. In the case of the SPF, there concerns reflect that of the general public, and more specifically the concerns of the UCSB students who provide the funding for all SPF projects. ‘Control’ should be administered in order to keep the SPF operating within the parameters set forth by their MISSION STATEMENT. Yet the innumerable beneficial aspects of public interest groups, such as the SPF and similar organizations, must be accessible as well as promoted by public service announcements, newsletters, websites, and other forms of media. All of which are conducive to community members’ voluntary public interest group partisanship, environmental education, and ultimately the benefit of the entire society.