Santa Barbara Police Chief Cam Sanchez to be interviewed Sept. 14 2011 for San Bernardino police chief opening

San Bernardino police chief candidates to be interviewed Sept. 14 (Cam Sanchez)

Josh Dulaney, Staff Writer

Posted: 09/06/2011 06:08:48 PM PDT

SAN BERNARDINO - Police chief candidates will be interviewed by the City Council on Sept. 14, Mayor Pat Morris announced at the council meeting Tuesday.The announcement came before the the council voted to extend outgoing Police Chief Keith Kilmer's transitional services contract, which was approved on a 5-2 decision, with council members Chas Kelley and Wendy McCammack dissenting.
Kilmer, who announced his retirement in March, has stayed with the city on an interim basis and has been paid an hourly rate while the search for a new police chief continues.
Kilmer's initial transitional services contract was scheduled to run out on Sept. 1, and the council's decision extends it through Nov. 7 or until a new chief is hired.
Bob Murray and Associates, a Roseville-based recruiting firm, has conducted the search for a new chief on behalf of Morris' office.
Under the City Charter, the mayor appoints a police chief, subject to the approval of the council.
Two people have been identified as finalists - Santa Barbara Police Chief Cam Sanchez and Phoenix police Cmdr. Robert Handy.
The council's decision to extend Kilmer's agreement didn't come without some controversy.
According to a staff report, the city will save up to $9,962 under the agreement because Kilmer is taking an hourly wage with no benefits.
But McCammack, who has criticized the selection process, saying the council should have been more

involved, said the city could have saved more money had a San Bernardino police captain been appointed interim chief.
She said the city could have been saving $4,400 a week and "I'm sure the chief could've have easily certified anyone of our captains to be interim chief."


Read more:http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_18838386?source=email#ixzz1XitbSSJz

S.B.C.C.C. The place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style!

People are following my blog here. Further research into Real Estate Fraud at the Santa Barbara Court House

In the last 3 weeks I have had a lot going on.  I had a 1 on 1 meeting with one City Council member. I was impressed with this members genuine concern with several different subject matters that I have written about. Even though the SBCERS pension is a County issue they felt it deserves further attention. I also had a chance to briefly talk with a few other City Council members and the Mayor, all of them were very nice. I am always amazed when a person walks up to me and introduces themselves as a fan of my blog. Which happen a few times when I attended the Peter Lance D.U.I. proceedings a few weeks back. I have found a sponsor for television who will allow me to produce my own show. Where I will present my pension research and findings. I saw that former F.B.I. agent Robert Eringer has added a link to my blog on his website! He is heavily involved in exposing corruption here in Santa Barbara. Another friend is trying to put me in contact with yet another former F.B.I. agent and I am really excited about that.

Well recently I made another new media contact and they too see the importance of my SBCERS pension value contradictions. So my question is why has our local county government not yet contacted me about my findings? Please remember even the California State Controllers office has made contact.

Thanks for the updates, Larry! I forwarded the pension info to my boss.
Please keep me updated and let me know any contact suggestions, and
events. Covering the news tomorrow. Reach me at xxx.360.5488 or this
address with any suggestions.
Thanks!
xxxxx

It seems that the Santa Barbara Civil action (purposed gang Injunction) for the people is running into more opposition. The fact that the new attempt at a civil gang injunction has been sealed seems a bit absurd. Twice now local Government has failed to provide city residents with a forum to air their opinions on this matter. It seems I am not the only one doing the math as to how little City residents this injunction is about.

http://www.independent.com/news/2011/sep/08/pueblo-chief-opposes-gang-injunction/

PUEBLO Chief Opposes Gang Injunction
Says Anti-Gang Task Force Started Several Programs that Need Time to Work
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Mark Alvarado, the executive director of grassroots social justice organization PUEBLO, announced that his organization now formally opposes the gang injunction launched by the City of Santa Barbara earlier this year. Alvarado, who previously expressed an openness to injunctions under certain circumstances, said his board voted to oppose the initiative launched by City Hall shortly after two non-gang members were killed in high profile murders by gang members.
One half of the 30 people on the list are already incarcerated. Of the rest, six or seven seem to be “turning their lives around already and have had no criminal contacts since becoming adults,”      

Gang Injunction Civil Rights creates Concerns with the Fund for Santa Barbara Board of Directors.
On June 23rd, the Fund for Santa Barbara’s Board of Directors sent a letter to top City of Santa Barbara leaders to express civil rights concerns associated with the civil gang injunctions requested in Superior Court by the City of Santa Barbara. The letter from the board is attached to this email and can be found @ http://www.fundforsantabarbara.org/cmsAdmin/uploads/Ltr_to_Mayor_et_al_re_Gang_Injunction_6_23_11.pdf
or @ http://magicinsantabarbara.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/ltr_to_mayor_et_al_re_gang_injunction_
The Fund for Santa Barbara Board of Directors take their concerns to the next level by providing supporting documentation against the present wording of Santa Barbara's attempt at a Gang Injunction. I do not feel they oppose the idea of an injunction. To me it just seems they oppose an Unconstitutional attempt at a injunction!  The opt out wording providing here to the City of Santa Barbara was a collaboration with the A.C.L.U. and members of the City of San Francisco's legal staff.  Read @
http://www.fundforsantabarbara.org/cmsAdmin/uploads/Opt_Out_Agree_SF-_ACLU_2008.pdf
or @ http://magicinsantabarbara.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/opt_out_agree_sf-_aclu_2008.pdf

I have been doing some additional research at the Santa Barbara Court house concentrating on the illegal foreclosure of my former home at 1721 Chino street. I also took the time to look into several other property's that have recently had ownership transfers for what ever reason. Now in the case of my former home there are 9 different documents associated to my home from 04/06 and 11/10/09. In two of them they clearly show that I have lost all my interest to the home and others now have those rights. In fact from 04/14/06 and 11/10/08 there are 8 different documents filed on my former property by 8 different persons or entities. 

 It seems the Santa Barbara Court House is very busy recording all types of Real Estate transactions. Which is all fine and good except for one thing. The original first and second deeds of trust from loans I took out when I owned Chino street, are missing from the Santa Barbara court House records. Why is that?

As for the other real estate records I reviewed. They too are missing notes from mortgages taken out by the previous owners. There are plenty of transfers to trust recorded afterwards  but no original deeds. Now because I know there were previous notes I search for Reconveyance deeds. Which would show when these properties notes had been paid off.  Seems they too are no where to be found.

My point is this: I looked into 3 homes where the property rights had been transfered to some type of Living Trust. And all three homes had previous mortgage information removed ( which I have) and all 3 did not have a reconveyance deed showing that the notes had been satisfied. This is a very clear sign of fraud and I am sure if I spent a day at the Santa Barbara Court House I could find 100 examples of this type of Real Estate fraud. Just ask Tim Delaney of Prudential Reality what his role was in stealing my home. I am not afraid of any one. 

Now I know this last issue is a complicated on but I guess what I am trying to share is that. All the illegal documents to take ones property are present when you review records at the Court house. All the original notes and deeds of trust from the previous owners are missing. Why is that!

S.B.C.C.C. The place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style!

Local Non-Profit Destined for Grace Opens Haitian School. Rebecca Costa-Smith, and Lindsey Connolly are from Carpinteria California.

Lindsey, Tio Larry wishes Rebecca and you all the best in your endeavors. It has been a blessing to watch you grow up into the young lady that you are. You are never far from my thoughts. I hope the future allows me to spend more time with you. I hope all my friends and followers of my blog donate to your worthy cause.

Love Always

Your Uncle 

Larry Mendoza

P.S. maybe I will surprise you with a maple bar real soon!

Local Non-Profit Opens Haitian School
updated: Sep 09, 2011, 11:46 AM 

Source: Destined for Grace

Santa Barbara, CA, September 9, 2011 - Best friends Rebecca Costa-Smith, 25, and Lindsey Connolly, 24, grew up in Carpinteria, California. In 2007, Costa-Smith went on a church trip to Haiti and was deeply moved by the conditions there. Consider: The mortality rate for Haitian children under five is a tragic 87 percent. The average adult has 2.8 years of schooling. Extreme poverty and disease are widespread. A year after that visit Costa-Smith went back, bringing Connolly with her. The pair returned to Santa Barbara determined to find a way to make a difference.

In July 2008 they established Destined for Grace, a non-profit corporation dedicated to improving the quality of life of the children they met in Haiti. Destined for Grace's first mission was to establish a school in the village of Mirebalais, Haiti for children in grades K through 5. They leased a building on the outskirts of Mirebalais, an area known as Bayasse. The building was little more than bare walls, but Costa-Smith and Connolly had a vision. Over several visits-with help from volunteer groups from Santa Barbara and elsewhere-they transformed the sad structure into a school, painting and tiling the classrooms to make them some of the nicest in the area. Thanks to heroic fundraising efforts and generous personal donations, Ecole Destined for Grace will open its doors to 115 students on October 3, 2011, at no cost to the students or their families. "Our goal is to educate, feed and love these children and hopefully to inspire them to pursue higher education," Connolly says.

The school itself will be fully self-sustainable. "We will grow produce to feed the children while teaching them the process of cultivation," Connolly says. The school will employ a full-time staff of Haitian teachers and workers to run the daily operations and oversee the care of the children. Destined for Grace proudly leads groups of volunteers to Haiti to expose them to the needs of this suffering society. Due to the lack of an established mail system, deliveries are made monthly in order to assure the school has sufficient supplies to operate.

As part of ongoing fundraising efforts, Destined for Grace has already established two local thrift shops in Carpineria and Santa Barbara. This week, a third store opened in Old Town Goleta. In addition to funds received from the stores and personal donations, the organization has received dozens of student sponsorships. Each $115 donation provides one child with a uniform, meals and school supplies for the year. Despite an outpouring of support, there are still many students hoping to be sponsored in the coming academic year.

Those wishing to support Destined for Grace are encouraged to sponsor a child, donate clothes, furniture, books and other household items to one of the three Destined for Grace Thrift Stores, make a tax-deductible donation and of course, volunteer to visit the school. "We've received tremendous support, and feel confident that Ecole Destined for Grace is just the beginning of what we can offer the children of Haiti," Connolly says.

The new Destined for Grace Thrift Store opened September 6, 2011at 5960 Hollister Avenue in Goleta. Other stores are located at 5406 Casitas Plaza in Carpinteria and 720 Milpas Street in Santa Barbara. Please visit www.destinedforgrace.org for more information.

S.B.C.C.C. The place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style!

Date Set for Santa Barbara Gang Injunction Arguments. Santa Barbara Superior Court seals the purposed Injunction keeping the public in the Dark AGAIN!

---

                                      Chris Thank You for an outstanding article!

Date Set for Gang Injunction Arguments

City Attorneys Look to Impose Preliminary Restrictions

---

Monday, September 5, 2011

By Chris Meagher (Contact)

Twelve defense attorneys, four City of Santa Barbara lawyers, four police officers, two members of the media, and one Judge James Brown gathered Wednesday afternoon for the next round in the city’s quest to install a gang injunction, though not much actually happened at the hearing.

The biggest news to come out of the scheduled meeting (which turned out to be mostly procedural) was that oral arguments for a preliminary injunction would come on November 16, with both sides briefing the case prior to that. A preliminary injunction would have similar effects as a permanent injunction: Alleged gang members wouldn’t be allowed to wear certain types of clothing, associate with fellow gang members, or congregate in certain locations — “safety zones” — throughout the city. The widely controversial, permanent version of the injunction is slowly making its way through the legal process.
The original legal document — filed in March, not long after two separate incidents in which citizens with no gang ties died at the hands of alleged gang members — names 30 defendants who Police Chief Cam Sanchez and others have labeled the city’s “baddest of the bad.” Roughly half of the alleged gang members are currently behind bars, many of them with rap sheets to back up the city’s claims that they have violent histories. But there are others whose gang history, and perhaps more importantly, current lifestyle, are not being accurately portrayed with their names on the list.
Because the original court filing made reference to defendants’ juvenile court proceedings, the city filed an amended complaint on July 22, supposedly to eliminate all references to juvenile court. The amended complaint, however, is under seal, unavailable for public consumption. The court intended to unseal the complaint, as well as any future documentation in the case, but held off on such an order this time around. Going forward, Judge Brown said in his court order Wednesday, there was to be no reference to any juvenile court proceedings.
As for the preliminary injunction, Tom Shapiro from the city attorney’s office hinted that documents that will be submitted in support of the city’s request for preliminary injunction will be a couple hundred pages long.
The next court date is October 12.

Please do not make this a race issue, it is so much bigger than that. The real issue is the abuse of the Constitution by those sworn to uphold it!

  Well it is nice to see Chris Meagher rebound and represent all sides in the Gang Injunction  issue. In Chris's current article he informs us that Over half of the 30 people originally named on the injunction are currently in jail or prison. Then you have the ones that should not be included in the injunction in the first place. Than when you consider the claims that there are approximately 800 ALLEGED GANG MEMBERS. Yet the D.A. and City can only name 7-10 current adults not incarcerated. WHAT GANG PROBLEM ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?  Did you know all Real Estate transactions within a Gang Injunction Boundary are required by law to disclose the fact prior to the sale of their property can being finalized. When police Captain Martel and officer N. Rivas appeared before the Neighborhood Advisory Council they had no answer's for the council about what effects the possible injunction would have on Real Estate. One person who attended the meeting said they were disappointed to see that the Officers who were there to answer questions, could not.

Just last Saturday at Sebastian Aldana's Kick Off for City Council I was interviewed by KEYT news. They chose not to air my interview which is odd because of what I had to say. I said that with only 1% of crime linked to "Gangs" where is the praise. Praise for Police, Probation and our Intervention programs. Praise for our City Council and Residents who worry about our youth, but that praise has been slow in coming. I mean when you have already cut in half the original 30 named in the civil action, where is the praise?"

How about a CIVIL action ( GANG INJUNCTION) for the PEOPLE that is sealed from the public, can that be Constitutionally legal! Have the defendants seen it? Or just the Lawyers as the produce the predetermined outcome? I am upset with our District Attorney J Dudley and our current sitting City Council. Once again the public was denied any chance to view the current Injunction since it has been altered from it's original format to the courts. If you recall the City and City Council failed to perform their duty and have any public forums about whether or not there was a true need for such a drastic move by the City.

It is extremely arrogant of the Mayor, City Council and D.A. Joyce Dudley to exclude it's residents from participating in such an important issue. The Fund for Santa Barbara wrote a letter to those I just mentioned sharing their concerns. I have attached this letter to this email.

http://www.fundforsantabarbara.org/index.php

The Fund for Santa Barbara a non profit Community Foundation. that supports grassroots organizations working for Social, Economic, Environmental and Political change in Santa Barbara County. They had some very serious concerns about the Gang Injunction process and wrote the Mayor and City Council of Santa Barbara expressing them.

Gang Injunction Civil Rights Concerns

On June 23^rd, the Fund for Santa Barbara’s Board of Directors sent a letter to top City of Santa Barbara leaders to express civil rights concerns associated with the civil gang injunctions requested in Superior Court by the City.

Read the Board’s letter and 

http://www.fundforsantabarbara.org/cmsAdmin/uploads/Ltr_to_Mayor_et_al_re_Gang_Injunction_6_23_11.pdf

supporting documents regarding the Opt-Out provision

http://www.fundforsantabarbara.org/cmsAdmin/uploads/Opt_Out_Agree_SF-_ACLU_2008.pdf

The Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors back on 1/20/2000 opposed the passing of prop 21 because it allowed any juvenile crime to be labeled a Gang Crime. This is something Law Enforcement and our D.A.'s offices abuse far to often. I have attached the comments from that day with this email.

At its January 20, 2000 meeting the Human Relations Commission voted to oppose Proposition 21, by a vote
of 8-3, and to oppose Proposition 22 by a vote of 6-5.
a)Proposition 21, the ‘Juvenile Crime Initiative’ would, if passed, result in significant changes to the
Juvenile Justice system. The entire proposed law is 48 pages in length [ATTACHMENT 1]. Summaries and
comparison charts prepared by the Legislative Analyst for the State of California, League of Women Voters,
Secretary of State and Chief Probation Officer Association are also attached. A list of individuals and
organizations opposed to Proposition 21 is attached [ATTACHMENT 6].
The most significant changes, and those which concerned the Human Relations Commission, include: a)the
elimination of informal probation as an option for any juvenile arrested for any felony; mandating the filing
of charges in adult court for certain offenses for offenders as young as 14, thus eliminating the review,
evaluation, and recommendation by Probation Officers or the Juvenile Court Judge; b) a very broad and
subjective redefinition of the concept of ‘gang activity’ or ‘gang related; allowing any public offense to be
deemed a felony if it is deemed ‘gang related’;

In closing the City was not advised of the changes with the current version of the purposed Gang Injunction. The sealing of the purposed injunction by Superior Court keeps us uninformed which seems to be the desired effect our City Government is looking for. They did this even after the public out cry the first time around I hope we express our unhappiness with the current City Council in the next Election this November. 

Santa Barbara Gang Injunction Unfairly Targets Some-by Youth CineMedia

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1ziP0K0KFk&feature=player_embedded

3:21Add toSanta Barbara Gang Injunction Hurting Families.mp4by YouthCineMedia1,081 views 

Here are the Real Numbers and where I found them @

http://www.independent.com/news/2009/apr/23/clouds-gathering-over-police-chief/

Gang-Related Offenses

	2005	2006	2007
MURDER	0	0	2
ATTEMPTED MURDER	1	0	0
ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON	16	25	26
BRANDISHING	1	3	4
ROBBERY	5	3	6
BURGLARY	3	5	1
VANDALISM	30	37	37
BATTERY	5	12	13
KNIFE IN PUBLIC	3	7	8
TOTAL GANG RELATED OFFENSES	102	163	177
TOTAL CITYWIDE NUMBER OF OFFENSES	26,137	24,346	23,002
PERCENTAGE OF CRIME GANG-RELATED	00.39%	00.70%	00

---

S.B.C.C.C. The place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style!

In 1991 the California State Controller Reported that the SBCERS Pensions Previous Funded Levels were as Follows: 12/86 102.0% Funded 12/88 91.0% Funded 12/90 83.0% Funded. In a 2009 Santa Barbara County Document the values have been altered, is that a crime? The 2009 Document shows that in 12/86 the SBCERS was only 67.1% Funded, in 12/88 67.2% Funded, Finally in 12/90 only 61.40% Funded, How Can There Be Such a HUGE VALUE Difference?

 SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2011

Subject: My SBCERS Pension Data will be used on a T.V. Show / A Sheriff had a comment on the Pension Data.

 As I returned home from a meeting this week there happen to be two County Sheriffs in our complex, doing their usual OUTSTANDING job. I asked one of the Sheriffs if I could show him the same 2 documents that I am about to share with you all. The Sheriff looked at the first document which was from 1992 and showed the SBCERSpension was fully funded. Then the Sheriff and I compared that data to what was later reported to the Santa Barbara Retirement Board in 2009. He could not believe that these two documents differed from each other by 35% for the same time frames.  

 Knowing that I keep a blog he made a request. He asked that I remind people that Law Enforcement are the good guys. It seems because of all the issues with law enforcement currently in the news the public has become a bit distrusting. All I can say is that all the Sheriffs I have been in contact with out here perform their duties both Fair and Just. 

   For the past 18 months I have been investigating the SBCERS Pension fund. I have always felt that it was mathematically impossible for the SBCERS Pension fund to currently be under funded in any way shape or form. As a result of my hard work I can now challenge the funded levels and investment return averages for as far back as 12/31/86. Because of all this I am trying find a way to present my findings on local T.V. in the near future. However today I only want to concentrate on the pensions reported funded  levels for the years 12/31/1986, 12/31/88 and 12/31/90. Now lets review the older data that was presented way back on June 3oth 1992.

 The 1991-92 cover page from the California State Controllers Office reads as follows:

To the Citizens, Governor, and Members of the Legislature: I am pleased to submit the 14th edition of the Public Retirement Systems Annual Report  for the fiscal year ended June 30th 1992. This file is available @ http://magicinsantabarbara.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/1991-921.pdf  

1991-92 California State Controllers Report, view page 5 of 6

and we are concerned with page 5 of 6. Half way down the page under the heading Summary of Funding Position the reported values are as follows.

....................Unfunded Obligation...........Funded Ratio

12/31/86..........- 4,630,000........................102.10%

12/31/88..........26,627,000........................91.00%

12/31/90..........68,203,000........................83.00%

 The problem is that between this 1992 report and the next 2009 document, the reported funded values of the pension differs for the same reported years. To prove my point we will now review the 2009 Retirement Board document below and it's data. I have included the web location for this document for your review.

 http://www.countyofsb.org/uploadedFiles/SBC/RPAAC/C%20-%20Employer-Employee%20History%20of%20Costs.pdf

Santa Barbara County Employer Employee History of Costs

The 2009 Retirement Board County Employer-Employee History of Cost document claims that in:

12/31/86 The SBCERS Pension was ONLY 67.10% Funded

12/31/88 The SBCERS Pension was ONLY 67.20% Funded

12/31/90 The SBCERS Pension was ONLY 61.40% Funded 

The 2009 Document also shows the Unfunded Future Pension Obligation as 

12/31/86 The SBCERS UAAL was 112,647,000

12/31/88 The SBCERS UAAL was 132,291,000

12/31/90 The SBCERS UAAL was 185,762,000 

 So in 2009 the Santa Barbara County now claims that the SBCERS PENSION WAS ONLY 67.1% FUNDED on 12/86. This creates a discrepancy of 35.0% with 10 California State Controllers Public Retirement Systems Annual Reports. Because in all these yearly reports 1986, 1987,1988,1989,1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995 they show the SBCERS pension to be 102% FUNDED for 12/31/86. I have put the two values (2009, 1992) side by side so you can see what I am talking about.

 Reported in......1992-93*........2009.....Negative impact on Pension

 .12/31/86........,102.10%*......67.10%..................-35.00%

.12/3188.........,,91.00%*.......67.20%..................-23.80%

.12/3190...........83.00%*........61.40%.................-21.60%

 There is more here but I am really trying to keep a complex issue as simple as possible. How can we have a 35%, a 23.8% and a  21.6% lower funded level difference between the two reports for the years 1986, 88 and 90? Than we have to ask at what cost has this come to Santa Barbara County Government? If you look further and do the math the unfunded pension liability will be different between the two documents as well. The 2009 document shows a UAAL value of - 112,647,000 for 1986. While the 1992 report shows there was actually a surplus of 4,630,000 for the same 1986.  That is a 120 million dollar difference between the two documents. Did Santa Barbara County Residents pay twice for the same pension? Further more the 2009 document  shows that there was 19 years of amortization payments to still be made from 12/86. When in fact if the pension was 102% there would be no need for ANY TYPE OF AMORTIZATION payments to be CARRIED OVER!

 I have tons of Pension data on my blog and the link below. Just click on any year below and the link should open up that file.

http://santabarbaracriminalcourtcorruption.blogspot.com/2011/07/california-public-retirement-systems.html

California Public Retirement Systems Annual Audit Reports 2007-08 – 1997-98. Also Past Fund Values from 1996-97 – 1978-79 for 5 California County Pensions; Los Angeles(LACERA), Santa Barbara(SBCERS) Ventura(VCERA), Kern(KCERA), and Contra Costa(CCCERS) County

Please click on any  orange highlight and that PDF file will open for your review.

California Public Pension Funds Yearly Audits from the Office of the California State Controller. Pubic Pension Reports County by County and City by City @

http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_locrep_retirement.html

California Public Retirement Systems Annual Reports

• Fiscal Year 2007-08
• Fiscal Year 2006-07
• Fiscal Year 2005-06
• Fiscal Year 2004-05
• Fiscal Year 2003-04
• Fiscal Year 2002-03
• Fiscal Year 2001-02
• Fiscal Year 2000-01
• Fiscal Year 1999-00
• Fiscal Year 1998-99
• Fiscal Year 1997-98
• Fiscal Year 1996-97  (Summary)
• Please Keep in Mind that 19 additional years of Audits are available through the California State Controllers office upon request.
• Recently I did make  such a request for the following 5 California County Pension Funds  ; Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, Contra Costa, Kern and Ventura.  I have now uploaded these archived pension  files  dating from 1996-97 back to 1978-79 and made them available for everyone to review here on my blog.
•  LACERA, SBCERS, CCCERS, KCERA, VCERA

 1996-97  Fund Values for 5 California County Public Pensions; Los Angeles(LACERA), Santa Barbara(SBCERS) Ventura(VCERA), Kern(KCERA), and Contra Costa(CCCERS) County
1995-96
1994-95
1993-94 
1992-93
1991-92
1990-91
1989-90
1988-89
1987-88
1986-87
1985-86
1984-85
1983-84
1982-83
1981-82
1980-81
1979-80
1978-79

It may be easier to use my other blog posting  to click and open each year pdf file.@   http://magicinsantabarbara.wordpress.com/2011/07/02/california-public-retirement-systems-annual-audit-reports-2007-08-1997-98-also-past-fund-values-from-1996-97-1978-79-for-5-california-county-pensions-los-angeleslacera-santa-barbarasbcers/ 

To Order Publications

[Copying and mailing charges may apply]
By E-mail: Please complete the E-mail Inquiry Form.
By Regular Mail:
For State and Local Government Annual Financial Reports:
Office of State Controller John Chiang
Division of Accounting and Reporting
P.O. Box 942850
Sacramento, CA 94250
For Annual Audit Reports or Audit Guides:
Office of State Controller John Chiang
Division of Audits
P.O. Box 942850
Sacramento, CA 94250
For Unclaimed Property or Tax Publications:
Office of State Controller John Chiang
Unclaimed Property Division
P.O. Box 942850
Sacramento, CA 94250
For all other publications:Office of State Controller John Chiang
P.O. Box 942850
Sacramento, CA 94250
By Phone: (916) 445-2636

S.B.C.C.C. The place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style!