Stop Gap Loan - Not a Done Deal

The Board of Supervisors has learned that the line of credit loan from Plumas Bank it's been waiting two months for, may be delayed until the end of January.

Financial consultant Richard Arrow, in a Dec. 22 telephone conference call told the board the loan documents are with the Plumas legal department before the loan goes to the bank president for approval.

If the loan is approved the amount will not be the $3 million to $4 million the supervisors requested, but between $2.5 and $3 million, a sum equal to the April property tax revenue.

The term of the loan will be for February and March and will expire April 10, when the property taxes are due.

Arrow also said he is in contact with three different counties about a short term loan, if the Plumas loan does not materialize.

Earlier in the meeting Treasurer Cheryl Knoch presented a cash flow report showing a positive cash flow until May, when the ending balance is a negative figure of ($74,177). For comparison, her Nov. 23 projection showed a May negative balance of ($404,330).

Arrow also said that even though the treasurer’s report shows positive balances through April, the Plumas short-term line of credit loan is “absolutely necessary given the unforeseen realities of cash flow.”

-- Barbara March

Modoc-gate: Analysis

$12.5 Million Loan - Is It On Track?


While most of the attention is being given to the need for a short term loan from Plumas Bank, the Modoc County Board of Supervisors still needs to replace $12.5 million it misappropriated from the treasury.

But before the board of supervisors can seek a private lender for the $12.5 million, Modoc County must have a viable audit acceptable to the state Controller‘s Office. The audit is reportedly scheduled to be completed by the end of March.

A lender will require the audit before it will make a long -term loan. If the audit is completed by the end of March that leaves just one month -- April -- for the county to secure a $12.5 million private loan.

If the county does not get the long term loan before May it could be forced into bankruptcy.

Treasurer Cheryl Knoch’s current cash flow projections show the county cash balances will go negative ($74,177) in May and dip even further into the red in June ($2,064,787).

Modoc-gate

Bloggers Rate Supes “Poor”

In the first of what we anticipate to be a series of survey questions, the Modoc Daily News Blog ran a six-day survey asking participants to rate the Modoc County Board of Supervisors’ performance in solving problems.

The question, we felt, was apropos considering the board is in the midst of a one of the most serious financial dilemmas to face any California county in memory.

The reason, least it’s lost in the supervisor’s confusion to find a way out of the money crisis, is the board’s illegal misappropriation of an estimated $20 million from the county treasury.

A total of 86 per cent of those responding to the survey rated the board’s performance as “poor.” Three percent said it was “fair,” and two percent rated the supervisors as “excellent.”

Of the respondents, four percent said they either did not know or had “other” opinions not available in the survey.

The survey is admittedly far from scientific. It ran from Dec. 14 to Dec. 20. There were a total of 44 respondents out of the 724 individuals who visited the blog during that same period.

-- The Editors

Editorial

Modoc-gate -- Managing the News


Since his appointment last Nov. 10, Modoc County Interim CAO Rick Rudometkin has repeatedly stressed the need for “transparency,” a trendy word most often used by politicians who want you to believe they support open and above board government.

So, what has Rudometkin’s record for “transparency” been since he was appointed by Supervisor Patricia Cantrall and her colleagues?

On Nov. 10 Rudometkin, acting on behalf of the Modoc County Board of Supervisors, with Pat Crantrall as chair, fired the one and only person who was openly honest with the press when it came to discussing the board’s illegal misappropriation of $20 million from the county‘s treasury.

That person was Mark Charlton, who had wisely tendered his resignation when he saw that the board would not support his idea of open government. Rudometkin then fired Paula Jessup, Charlton’s front office assistant. No one apparently knows why.

The same day, Nov. 10, Rudometkin deactivated the very Incident Management Team (IMT) that had originally come forward to help solve the county’s financial crisis and he appointed a new team of his, or the board’s, own design.

An interesting side note here: An IMT normally is activated during an emergency. Considering the board of supervisors rejected that notion, why do we have an IMT when there is no official emergency? We call this damage control.

On Nov. 17 Rudometkin sent this e-mail canceling a meeting with us: “I will let you know when I am available. My number is listed.” We are still waiting for Rudometkin to let us know when he is available for an interview.

Since then the IMT team has issued two progress reports which we have printed unedited, in their entirety on this blog, see Dec. 9 and Dec. 16.

And then on Dec. 16 we received this e-memo to the press from Rudometkin’s IMT public information officer Kelly Crosby: “Most of you are using me as your contact and I appreciate that. I am able to get your information back to you much faster when you go directly to me. I have been receiving forwarded email questions from people that have been contacted for PIO information. The PIO office is staffed almost 24/7 even when I am on vacation. We will do our best to respond to your questions in a speedy manner.”

We don’t consider this history, brief as its been, an honest effort by the board of supervisors or its interim chief administrative officer at achieving “transparency.” In fact, it smacks of an effort to manage the news rather than an attempt at open government.

And, in all due respect to those members of the IMT, we realize they are just trying to do their jobs (for fear of losing them?), but under Rudometkin’s interim reign “transparency” does not mean openness, it means just the opposite.

But, of course, that's what the board of supervisors wants. Good job, Rudometkin.

-- Ray A. March