SUPERVISORS THROW CASH AT 'SART' MEDICAL MYSTERY; TAXPAYERS 'SEXUALLY ASSAULTED'

Santa Barbara County's esteemed Board of Supervisors, fresh from proving their fiscal prowess by, well, existing, has once again graced us with their profound understanding of public funds. This week, our local satraps, seemingly allergic to transparency and common sense, rubber-stamped a whopping $310,226 check to Dignity Health for something vaguely termed 'SART Medical Program Operations.' One might reasonably inquire, 'What exactly *are* SART Medical Program Operations?' Fret not, mere plebeians; such details are clearly above your pay grade and beneath the Board's notice.

Now, for the pièce de résistance: our illustrious Board declared this generous handout 'exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act' because it's merely a 'government funding mechanism' and won't cause any 'significant physical impact on the environment.' Right. Because nothing says 'environmentally sound' like throwing a third of a million dollars at an opaque program without a peep. One wonders if the environmental impact statement waiver for government spending extends to the forests decimated for all those blank checks, or the carbon footprint of the Supervisors' collective eye-roll at taxpayer questions.

This isn't about the *Daily Rag* missing a detail; it's about our governing body turning public funds into an ATM for favored institutions, all while wrapping it in bureaucratic jargon that makes a DMV form look like a haiku. The real story isn't the 'SART Medical Program Operations' that remain deliberately undefined, but the S.A.R.T. — 'Secretive Allocation of Really Taxpayer's Cash' — that just landed in Dignity Health's coffers without so much as a polite 'what for?' It seems the only thing being 'assaulted' here is the taxpayer's wallet, and Dignity Health just got a very dignified handout.

Perhaps the Supervisors believe that by keeping the details vague, they also keep the public's outrage equally vague. But even a quarter-million-dollar government stipend for a 'services of independent contractor' — a definition as loose as a politician's promise — eventually catches the public eye. Especially when the 'independent contractor' is a massive health system. It’s almost as if the Board’s understanding of 'fiscal impact' only applies to what they *don't* spend on actual public services, rather than what they cheerfully dispense to their monied friends.