Melodrama punctuates contentious meeting to rein in District
Attorney’s budget
In a Board of Supervisors meeting where personal attacks flew on
both sides
– and county counsel reminded supervisors and Sarsfield to
abstain from discussing the Pekin/Los Valientes civil case more
than a few times – the supervisors publicly censured Sarsfield
March 28.
Melodrama punctuates contentious meeting to rein in District Attorney’s budget
In a Board of Supervisors meeting where personal attacks flew on both sides – and county counsel reminded supervisors and Sarsfield to abstain from discussing the Pekin/Los Valientes civil case more than a few times – the supervisors publicly censured Sarsfield March 28.
“What are we actually trying to do?” said Pat Loe, the sole supervisor to vote against no confidence. “Isn’t it up to the people to judge? The people of the county can make this decision.”
Sarsfield is up for re-election in June. His opponents in the race include his co-worker Deputy District Attorney Candace Hooper Mancino and local attorney-at-law Arthur Cantu.
The vote of no confidence, which took place after the Board approved a budget augmentation to help the DA’s office make it through the end of the fiscal year, makes little difference in how the DA will conduct business.
When Sarsfield had his chance to speak before the Board and the public, he reminded everyone that not so long ago the San Benito Bar Association took a vote of no confidence in him – with change to the way he runs his office.
“People have a right to their opinion,” Sarsfield said, before the board. “But understand that this is purely symbolic.”
Supervisor Anthony Botelho took his time expressing his reason for supporting the vote of no confidence and echoed some of the words of other supervisors. Sarsfield’s disregard for his office budget, putting the county in jeopardy by making poor decisions, not participating in community forums to discuss gangs and drug problems and for violating the public trust were the four reasons cited by Botelho for the censure. Fellow Supervisors Don Marcus, Reb Monaco and Jaime De La Cruz all supported to the vote of no confidence at Tuesday’s meeting.
One local who spoke before the Board, an Aromas man, suggested the censure vote be put on hold.
“Mud is being slung from both sides of the fence,” he said. “Get someone outside that has nothing to do with this county and this office to investigate. Then do [the no confidence vote] at that time.”
Richard Place, who is running for the board of supervisors against incumbent Pat Loe, spoke out against Sarsfield at the meeting. Sarsfield has said Place is associated with Los Valientes, a secret group that has cost the county significant amounts of money in nuisance lawsuits. In a recent court filing, Place disputed the accusation, saying that he became linked when he used legal channels to question the conduct of former Supervisor Richard Scagliotti.
The board of supervisors will put together a committee to request an investigation of the DA by the Attorney General. In the meantime, the board approved an augmentation of the DA’s budget including past expenses and estimated expenses through the end of the fiscal year.
The controversy over the DA’s budget started March 13 when the County Administrative Officer and Finance Director informed Sarsfield that he had over spent his 2005-2006 limit for services and supplies. The DA claimed that supervisors cut off funding to his office to keep him from prosecuting a civil case against Los Valientes and local attorney Michael Pekin for civil rights violations.
The DA over spent his services and supplies fund by $91,000. The fund pays for office supplies, toxicology and subpoena services, outside counsel and travel expenses. The office exceeded the monetary limits mainly due to the use of outside professional services – civil attorney Nancy Battel was hired to prosecute the Pekin and Los Valientes civil cases.
“It cost a lot of money when people are willing to fight you to the end,” Sarsfield said. “How much money are you willing to pay for justice?”
The board has agreed to pay the incurred costs and has augmented the DA’s budget with additional funds to help the office finish out the fiscal year, which ends in June.
The board voting unanimously for the following:
-A transfer of $12,600 from the DA’s salaries and benefits to services and supplies
-An augmentation of $108,633 from contingencies
-A freeze of one deputy district attorney position for the remainder of the fiscal year
-Consideration of a layoff of a administrative or clerical position for the remainder of the fiscal year
-Establish budget management controls over the DA’s budget as of March 29. The Board now has line item control over services and supplies, they must be presented with contracts for services before costs are incurred and they are requiring the DA to submit a request for budget augmentation before incurring expenses that would put him over the line item limit, unless the expenses are exempted under government code 29601.
