Sunday, May 2, 2010
Less: Intra-County Revenues (1,275,666)
What ever – Intra County Revenues is and why are they subtracting from a new budget ? I checked the Public Defenders and Probations budget and the category Less Intra-County Revenues also appears with barely an effect..
Now lets keep looking at numbers and go review the Santa Barbara County Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act 2008/2009.
Open up the report and look at the data on page 2 or 3 titled
Sustained Petitions for Felony Offenses
And the chart tops out at 340.
Than look at the 2010 version same chart at
An as if Magic the numbers have doubled from there stance in the first version. Creating a fraudulent effort to sustain some type of unjustified focus on a target audience our Hispanic Youth.
So from there you go to the Criminal crime stats at
and lets cross check the accuracy of my above statement.
On this web page we show an additional 200 felony crimes Than the original chart fraudulently reported to our State. Once again magnifying the corruption by those sworn to up hold the law an further reflects an effort by law enforcement to try and create a need that simply is not there at the level they misrepresent.
From there we go to the Public Defenders budget of 08/09 and lets review there stats.
New Adult criminal cases 23,000
How ever as I have already shown during my review of 2009 COURT STATISTICS REPORT Statewide Caseload Trends
1998–1999 Through 2007–2008
We had 2750 new felony charges of which 25% are dropped with an additional 3668 misdemeanor cases.
In our Public defenders budget they represent the sum of 24000 new cases?
Now the data fraud does not stop there because if you go back to the State Crime stats web page it shows 3100 felony case and 10000 misdemeanor cases.
So from an exaggerated number of 6800 I can trace the minimum next closest to 13,100.
My point is this the Pension fund is just a continuation of corruption and violations of all our rights on so many levels. What I have been attempting to do is find one you care about and hope that basic Accountability to the law is reappled
So below is a report from the Grand jury.
Santa Barbara County Pension Fund audit,
This audit reflects a hard value of 1.25 Billion dollars.
Yet this next report reflect 180 million dollar taken off the books in 1999 an than goes on to say those funds were lost by 2002. I find that odd since this very letter fails to show any data for 2001. It than contradicts the grand jury report from above by reflecting a 142 million market loss in 2000. That’s odd am confused, of curse not because here comes the grand final. You see even though Mr. Geis C.P.A. has failed to provide Pension Fund data for 2001 his report does make reference to a loss in the year of 2001 at 322 million dollars lost to the fund. Go A head and review the data for yourself.
Case in point: In 1999 the County was 100% funded per the actuarial value method and 117% funded
($180 million surplus) per the market value method. In our opinion, this was just short of excellent.
At that point decision makers decided to improve both active member and retired member benefits
using surplus earnings to pay the benefits (a part of the $180 million surplus). The cost of these
benefits created new liabilities for past service estimated by the actuaries to cost $87 million. During
the implementation of the new benefits the market lost $142 million by 12/31/00. Therefore, the
surplus to pay the benefits was wiped out and new liabilities were created that had not been paid for
Page 3 of 7
over time. The next year the fund lost an additional $322 million. The market value unfunded liability
went from a surplus of $180 million to a deficit of $284 million. As discussed later, the plan sponsors
(County) are required to payoff the deficit through increases in contribution rates (see UAAL in table
below). The point is that even with 117% funding, because of market volatility any change in benefits
has to be carefully planned, especially in the area of using surplus earnings to fund benefit increases.
A better fiscal policy would be to build a reserve to the 125% or greater funding level with the surplus
maintained to guard against market downturns.
Page 4 of 7
So I ask who do you have to blame but yourself. The constant bending of the laws or looking the other way because you think it does not affect you have caught up. If I can not legally be arraigned before the first bending of the law what chance do pension fund owners have when a million here or there can never be traced. Oh really you don’t think so huh watch this. 180 million dollars surplus taken off the books 1999 to help pay a partial subsidy towards health benefits, 15 or 8 and 4 dollars here and there x 4500 people a year. Than they subtract 7 million dollars for that subsidy. You see you thought to cheat the county tax payers was ok and you got shafted. Put 180 million dollars in an interest earning account of 3% and you base grows while paying all of your benefit and the original 180 million stays as value to the fund. Oh and in closing why did Santa Barbara County sue the Pension fund in 08 and no mention of it in the 09 Grand Jury report. In part there were grave concerns over the valuation system and unfunded future liability being misrepresented, Imagine that. Until we come back to our sense’s and ethically and even handedly apply all laws and standards as required by our Constitution and the laws that follow. An we must ensure those who cannot defend themselves are also protected equally This may just turn out to be just the tip of a humongous ice berg.
Just think on that before you vote for Josh Lynn for Santa Barbara District Attorney!.