Question; What is personal conduct?
Answer; In one sense, it is an individuals ethics. Ethics are standards of conduct that indicate how a person should behave based of ones concept of moral duties, virtues etc., which themselves are derived from principles of right, and wrong. There are two aspects concerned with ethics. First, the ability to discern right from wrong. Second, the commitment to do what is right, good, and proper. This is typically based on ones beliefs, attitudes, and value systems
. As defined @ Answers.com
So lets examine some personal conduct by our Superior Court Judges and those in control of the SBCERS pension fund.
Do you all recall a few weeks ago when Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Clifford Anderson was ordered to assign a preliminary hearing to a TRIAL Judge in Department 2? Judge Anderson seemed quite upset at the time about the back room politics of this move an said so to the media. I of course questioned this move because Judge Hill had Trials already bound over for Trial Court stacking up and there was no need for him to be involved with a preliminary hearing. Well as it turns out when the date arrived for the newly assigned preliminary hearing Judge Brian Hill could not preside over it any how since he was still in the middle of the Lyons double murder trail. It went back before Judge Anderson who wanted no part of the circus act and the case finally landed before Judge Ochoa. Personal conduct and ethics where are they in our Superior Court?
Speaking of the Lyons double murder trial “the fix is in”. You are telling me Judge Brian Hill who has had 3 huge cases’ with jury problems comes out with a mistrial for Mr. Lyons? You are talking about Judge Brian Hill who was forced by Judge Ochoa to throw out the first R. Juarez murder trial. There were issues with the jury in the Eric Frimpong, Ricardo Juarez an Jesse James Hollywood trials all ignored by Judge Brian Hill. “Hearsay” really that is the best excuse they could find to dismiss a jury they where not in control of? Where is the personal conduct? Oh wait it get’s better.
Now the same act of violence murder kills both victims on the same date but minutes apart in the Lyons murder trial. Read how the will plays out in with the Lyons family @
“In an curious twist of fate, it also appears the whole reason the Lyons family, which is native to Santa Barbara, still owns the property is because Scharton was killed moments prior to Daniel: Scharton’s will states that when she died, her assets would go to Daniel first, then to family after. Daniel’s will said his property would be first transferred to Scharton in the event of his death, then his family. So when Scharton was killed, her belongings—including her part ownership of the house—went to Daniel, whose assets then quickly transferred to his remaining family.”
Does that bother anyone else but me? The murder victims have different last names and wishes.
Now lets read about the Personal Conduct of our Santa Barbara Police Chief.
http://www.independent.com/news/2010/dec/16/chief-sanchez-sued/Santa Barbara Police Chief Sanchez Sued
Convalescent Home Alleges Reneged Payment
Thursday, December 16, 2010
“Santa Barbara Police Chief Cam Sanchez is named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed on October 29 by Mission Terrace convalescent home, which alleges Sanchez and his wife’s family didn’t pay the home for housing his wife’s mother for almost two years. The lawsuit, which alleges there is an unpaid balance of $133,964.77, plus interest, also names Arminda Gonzales, Daniel Gonzales Jr., Daniel Gonzales Sr., and Sanchez’s wife, Guadalupe Olivia Gonzales SanchezThe complaint states that the family admitted the police chief’s mother-in-law, Arminda Gonzales, to the home on December 27, 2007, and signed a contract promising to pay. She was under the home’s care until September 24, 2009, when the family took her out of the home. While there were multiple requests for payment, no payment was ever made, according to the suit, which was filed on behalf of Mission Terrace by Lawrence Conlan of the Cappello and Noël law firm. Conlan didn’t return a call requesting comment. Steve McGuire, an L.A.-based attorney representing Sanchez and his wife, gave this statement: “Chief Sanchez and his wife deny all the allegations that have been made against them, and we intend to prove that they have no liability for all or any part of the amount demanded in the complaint.”
The suit alleges breach of contract, breach of oral contract, and unjust enrichment among other things. Sanchez has been named in lawsuits in the past, including two related to unpaid medical bills. They have since been resolved”
Where are the criminal charges? Mr. Armstrong the Santa Barbara city administrator and Mr. Sanchez’s superior, due your job and fire the Police chief. Enough is enough let him retire and sail off into the sunset but get him out of Santa Barbara. Not so easy to kick my ass when I am not being held down or over medicated right Mr. Sanchez?
Now the SBCERS Pension fund and the alleged under funded future liability.
|I must admit to being very confused to the conduct of those public and elected officials involved with the SBCERS pension fund. This first chart above shows that even though they claimed the need for more funding to be used for future unfunded liability’s. It was actually not needed and fell under the category of discounted funds (where did the assigned funds go?). Please look at the last two columns on the far right to understand what I am talking about. While over several years an budgets 319,570,770.00 was ear marked for amortization payments. The chart above also reflects that only 200,318.267.00 were actually used or needed. While the chart that follows below shows the discounted portion of 118 MILLION is still needed. We also need it’s expected impact on the pension fund because the future is bleak, as we can see by the following chart. We are talking about caring a negative BILLION dollars of future unfunded liability until the year 2028 and beyond!
Even though Santa Barbara Board of Supervisor Gray called out the county for what appears to be misleading and fraudulent acts against this county’s tax payers. More is required of her personal conduct than we have seen so far. You must remember she first addressed her concerns with the county budget last June calling the process a PONZI SCHEME.
Light at End of Budget Tunnel?
Cuts, Concessions, and Even Energy Efficiency May Bring Balance
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Fourth District Supervisor Joni Gray blasted the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors majority Friday as the quintet conducted their final deliberations on what to cut for the 2010-2011 fiscal year’s $833-million budget they were finalizing to go into effect July 1.
“I’d like all of you to leave this hearing with three words,” Gray said, actually using four words to initially describe her cryptic message. “Bus, bridge, and Ponzi scheme.”
She continued, “I feel like I’m speeding down a highway in a bus and there’s a sign that says, in half-a-mile the bridge is out,’ and yet nothing is being done to stop this bus.” While people everywhere are cutting back, she said, the board was “not taking their foot off the gas.” Gray then addressed her Ponzi scheme comment, saying the board was moving money “here and there,” even making reference to Bernie Madoff. “You’re all very bright and well-meaning, but I cannot support this bus going off the bridge,” she said
About my calculations and chart above in regards to the SBCERS Pension fund value. No it is not perfect but it is far more accurate than what the county has put before us. You see on the obligation side of my calculations for the pension fund I seam to be within 400 million dollars of the county. How ever on the current fund value the county and I are over TWO BILLION DOLLARS apart. Now all I used was the assumption value from a given point and the actual investment return percentage from the same point in time. So than I ask how can we be so far apart? Somebody seams to be playing with the funds value side.