THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT COUNTY GOVERNMENT
WHAT DOES COUNTY GOVERNMENT NORMALLY DO? Virtually everyone is aware that we have a county government but few know who their county supervisor is, much less what it is that county government does. We know that the county collects property tax and that we also have a supplemental 1/2% sales tax. But what becomes of these taxes? Interestingly enough, virtually all of the tax collected by the county is distributed to the state and federal government and to local municipalities and authority districts. Very little of the money collected by the county is actually spent by the county. So what functions does our county perform? County government is primarily an administrative branch of the state and federal government. Besides collecting taxes and performing essential services such as land planning, environmental oversight, and industrial development, the majority of our county's function is the administration of services that are mandated by the state or federal government, mostly in the area of health and human services .
DRUNK AT THE FEDERAL PUNCHBOWL! Our county government is essentially an extension of our state government and much of what our county government does is mandated by State or Federal Law. As a result, the State of California and the Federal Government must reimburse the county for performing these functions. The more ‘services’ the county provides, the greater the reimbursement. And our county does a great job at providing as many reimbursed services as they can! For instance, with each child placed in foster care, the county collects Federal funding that is in excess of the cost to the county for the care of that child. For each county citizen (properly or improperly) identified as a possible child abuser, the county collects a reimbursement. And for each non-custodial parent in the child support courts, the more the county can show that this parent owes and the more money the county can collect from this parent, the more the county receives from the Federal government. In each instance, California law specifies that the county must act in the best interest of the public. Instead, many of our county's citizens, Mr. van Doorn included, have discovered that the county prefers to act in its own best interest, that being to maximize Federal and State reimbursements. What exactly does this mean for each of us, the people of San Diego County?
In each case, the county shows its preference to do whatever is necessary to maximize the reimbursements that are received and little if any concern is given to the unconscionable damage that is forced on the families of this county. It's little wonder that virtually every one of us is well acquainted with one or more people who have been wronged at the hands of our county government or county courts. If elected, Mr. van Doorn will work not only to curb corrupt and prejudicial practices in these county agencies, he will also place an emphasis on reaching out to our legislators both in Washington DC and in Sacramento, and press for changes in the way our county's reimbursements are calculated. Not only should counties be reimbursed based on the number of services provided, but equally important, the quality of the service our counties provide should have a major bearing on how much each county is compensated.
ORDER IN THE COURTS? This past year, Mr. van Doorn had the honor of being invited to several lunch meetings with then Presiding Judge Janis Sammartino. During one of these luncheons, Mr. van Doorn asked the judge a question that no practicing attorney dared present, that being the problem of perjury in our courts and the apparent indifference of this county's judiciary to react to this offense to the integrity of the Court. To the surprise of many, Judge Sammartino was candid and honest in her response. She acknowledged that the commonplace occurrence of perjury in the local courts was troublesome for her judges to deal with, but that it was her policy that perjury not be punished in our courts, either through financial sanctions by her judges or by referral for prosecution to the District Attorney. Judge Sammartino asserted that it was her position that the appropriate response by the judiciary to this offense was to train our judges to harbor prejudice, and to suspect all litigants of being liars. Upon the giving of this answer, the majority of the 40 or so attorneys in the room each responded with stories (for Judge Sammartino) of clients who each had suffered irreparable harm as a result of the failure of our local Superior Court to properly identify such perjuries as they occurred. Finding Judge Sammartino's possition on perjury to be unsatisfactory, Mr. van Doorn followed up with his own inquiry. How could a citizen, when clearly wronged by an act of perjury in our local Court, go about initiating a prosecution against a perjuring party, when evidence of such is convincing enough for a successful prosecution? Inquiries were made of the county District Attorney's Office, the Sheriff's Department, and the San Diego Police Department (both directly and through Councilman Brian Maienschein's office). Answers to John's inquiries to the county DA's office have been contradictory and came only with persistent follow-up. In their first response, the DA reported that citizen's complaints can be submitted to the DA, and upon review, the more credible cases would be submitted for prosecution. Mr. van Doorn followed up by presenting a blatant case of perjury to the DA, yet the DA provided no follow-up with prosecution, nor were any responses given to this request for prosecution. Another series of repeated inquiries were submitted to the DA to which two different responses were received; first, that the DA cannot prosecute referrals from the general public (rather, the public must file a report with the appropriate law enforcement agency, in the DA's opinion, the San Diego Police Department), and second, that the reason that the DA will not prosecute perjury is that the Board of Supervisors has cut the funding for this area of law enforcement. Answers were far more prompt and consistent from the City of San Diego. It was the opinion of the City that the County Sheriff is assigned with the responsibility of maintaining order in the courts and if referrals for the crime of perjury are to be made through law enforcement, that such referral should be made with the Sheriff's Department. And last, each and every inquiry made in person and over the phone with the Sheriff's Department was never returned, despite promises to the contrary. At present, many branches of our Superior Court are 'out of control'. Those responsible for the proper function of our county government have made it all too clear that they are aware of this problem, yet remain entrenched in their resolve to do nothing about it. It will take assertive and passionate leadership from our county supervisors to pressure the other leaders of our county's law enforcement branches (the County Sheriff, the District Attorney, and the Presiding Judge of our Superior Court) to perform those duties necessary to return integrity to our courts. John van Doorn will provide such leadership, and will place pressure on our Sheriff and our DA to once again maintain order in our courts.
IN SUMMARY ..... if John van Doorn should receive the honor of being elected as your next County Supervisor, John promises….
|
|||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
