Board ordered to rescind line item control
The disagreement between District Attorney John Sarsfield and
the San Benito County Board of Supervisors played out one round in
court May 1. Judge Steve Sanders ruled that the Board of
Supervisors must rescind a March 28 vote on the DA’s budget, which
gave them line item control over his expenditures, according to
County Administrative Officer Susan Thompson.
Sarsfield filed a case against the San Benito County Board of
Supervisors after the March vote, believing that a provision in
Government Code section (GC 29601) made their vote illegal. The
code in question has been open to interpretation in other counties
in the past.
Board ordered to rescind line item control
The disagreement between District Attorney John Sarsfield and the San Benito County Board of Supervisors played out one round in court May 1. Judge Steve Sanders ruled that the Board of Supervisors must rescind a March 28 vote on the DA’s budget, which gave them line item control over his expenditures, according to County Administrative Officer Susan Thompson.
Sarsfield filed a case against the San Benito County Board of Supervisors after the March vote, believing that a provision in Government Code section (GC 29601) made their vote illegal. The code in question has been open to interpretation in other counties in the past.
“The only change they will be making is reversion from line item [control] back to an object level,” Thompson said. “It’s the kind of control we had prior.”
The difference between line item and object level control would have allowed the Board more control over the type of expenditures in the DA’s office. For instance, at the object level, the Board of Supervisors can vote on how much money goes to salaries and benefits or services and supplies. Line item control would have allowed them to limit the money within those object level, letting the Board decide how many would be spent within services and supplies which includes office supplies, subpoena services and outside legal counsel.
Sarsfield stated that the Board “was enjoined from enforcing what appears to be an illegal restriction on the operations” of his office.
The other outcome from the May 1 ruling is that Sanders has ordered the Board of Supervisors to take a vote on whether they should augment the DA’s budget further by the end of May. The Board has already approved a $108,000 augmentation, or additional funds, for the fiscal year, according to Thompson.
The vote on augmentation is tentatively set for May 23, though Thompson noted that Sanders said he did not have the authority to make the Board give the DA’s office the requested funds.
The next date set in the case is July 17, when both parties will meet for a conference.
“Their actions were plainly illegal and a waste of taxpayer’s money,” Sarsfield wrote in a press release. “Supervisors De La Cruz and Monaco, instigated this entire mess, have a lot of explaining to do.”
Sarsfield has stated that the Board’s actions were made to stop him from prosecuting Los Valientes.
The March 28 vote on the DA’s budget passed unanimously.
