Sundstrom's Odd Defense Of Street

If you haven't read OC Auditor-Controller David Sundstrom's column in yesterday's OC Register, you ought to.

Although his column was entitled "The Case For Keeping Chris Street," Sundstrom didn't tell readers the controversial OC Treasurer should be kept on because he's a great public servant who is doing a wonderful job as Treasurer, and someone to whom he'd happily entrust his personal investment portfolio. Indeed, Sundstrom hardly mentions Street at all.

The case Sundstrom actually makes is the 1994 OC bankruptcy led to the enactment of such an array of regulations, oversight and safeguards that whoever occupies the Orange County Treasurer's office can't do much harm even if he or she wants to.

Good points all that should be taken into consideration by the Board of Supervisors as they weigh whether to strip Mr. Street of his investment authority tomorrow pending the resolution of his various legal problems. Whether or not that was his intent, Sundstrom's op-ed comes off far more as a defense of the Treasurer's office itself, rather than a case for its current occupant. In the praise department, it is faint indeed.

UPDATE: Here's the report on the assets held by the OC Treasurer's office from Sundstrom's office.

Comments

[David Sundstrom]

For the record, the title that I gave the Register was "Could Chriss Street Lead Orange County Down the Road to Perdition?" which they turned into the first sentence.

[Jubal]

Thank you for that, David. That would have been a much more accurate title.