Sometimes, things really are what they seem to be, and it’s not
about the politics.
District Attorney John Sarsfield took a beating this week in
front of the Board of Supervisors, and deservedly so
– to a point.
Sometimes, things really are what they seem to be, and it’s not about the politics.
District Attorney John Sarsfield took a beating this week in front of the Board of Supervisors, and deservedly so – to a point.
The district attorney’s job is largely administrative, and that means minding the dollars. Sarsfield’s office staff, saddled with fees from a contract lawyer retained to represent the county in actions against the anonymous Los Valientes group, apparently had no reliable mechanism to track expenses against budget. County department heads routinely request a funds transfer from one portion of their budgets to another when faced with unanticipated expenses. That’s exactly what should have happened in this case.
But when a county bureaucrat informed Sarsfield’s office that the well had run dry, and that he needed to either obtain supplemental funds or seek a transfer – a relatively routine administrative task – Sarsfield took a new tack. He said that the whole thing was part of an elaborate, politically driven attempt by the Board of Supervisors to squelch his legal crusade against Los Valientes. Further, he alleged that it was an attempt by one supervisor to force his office to go soft on child molesters.
Ridiculous.
Sarsfield leveled his outlandish barbs before the board had even met to discuss the matter. When Sarsfield’s budgetary problems finally did make it to the board last week, the panel unanimously authorized funds to pay the county’s obligation. But with the D.A.’s budget on the fast track to being depleted before the end of the fiscal year, the board elected temporarily not to fill an open deputy D.A. slot and ordered that more detailed budget management begin immediately.
Given the already shaky financial condition of the county, the board’s course is eminently reasonable. Sarsfield’s response has been to request a $350,000 supplement to get through the last three months of the year. Appropriately enough, it was denied. The board’s decision compels Sarsfield to do what he should have been doing all along – to attend to the responsible administration of his office.
However justified the board may have been in its frustration with chaos in the district attorney’s office, supervisors went too far in casting a vote of “no confidence” in the D.A.
We agree with board Chairwoman Pat Loe, the only dissenter in the vote, that such a move is bad politics and bad manners. Sarsfield faces two qualified challengers in the June 6 election. We’re willing to wait until then for the electorate to cast a vote that actually counts for something. The board’s no-confidence vote has no legal effect, and in the wake of the vote Sarsfield was defiant.
The election ensures that people get the government they deserve. We’re confident voters will make the right choice on June 6.
