Saturday, January 30, 2010
Casting Call:
The Princess and the Pea
All students are encouraged to attend auditions for the Missoula Children's Theatre's original adaptation of "The Princess and the Pea," scheduled for Monday Feb. 15 from 3:30 to 5:30 p.m. at the Niles Theater, 127 S. Main St. in Alturas.
For more information call Ken Franklin, Modoc County Arts Council, at 233-2505. Funded in part by the California Arts Council.
The Princess and the Pea
All students are encouraged to attend auditions for the Missoula Children's Theatre's original adaptation of "The Princess and the Pea," scheduled for Monday Feb. 15 from 3:30 to 5:30 p.m. at the Niles Theater, 127 S. Main St. in Alturas.
Plan to stay for the full two hours. Some cast members will be asked to remain for a rehearsal immediately following the audition. Rehearsals will be held the week of Feb. 15, Monday through Friday from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. and from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Performances will be on Saturday, Feb. 20 at 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. Tickets will be available at Antonio's at 220 S. Main St. and at the door.
The Missoula Children's Theatre is the nation's largest touring children's theatre and will visit nearly 1,300 communities this year with 47 teams of tour actor/directors.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Modoc County Fiscal Restoration ICS Update
Editor's Note: This report is published verbatim.
The Incident Management Team continues to work together during regular department head meetings.
Operational Period Accomplishments 01/19/10-01/25/10
1.The previously identified savings projection of $1.5 million will show Modoc County’s ability to successfully pay the debt services and assist in securing financing to restore the county treasury.
2.The short term financing, in the form of a line of credit, is still in process.
3.The 07-08 audit is now estimated to be completed by the end of February. To insure thoroughness and assist in constructing more sound procedures and policies, the time frame for the audit’s completion has been extended. At the completion of this process the steps necessary to complete the 08-09 audit will be streamlined.
4.The City and County continue to work together on topics to assist the County. At the last City Council meeting the City approved the 90 day special billing for water and sewer. The County has reimbursed the City 50% of the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) monies. The County is expected to release the remaining 50% as funds become available.
The Incident Management Team continues to work together during regular department head meetings.
Operational Period Accomplishments 01/19/10-01/25/10
1.The previously identified savings projection of $1.5 million will show Modoc County’s ability to successfully pay the debt services and assist in securing financing to restore the county treasury.
2.The short term financing, in the form of a line of credit, is still in process.
3.The 07-08 audit is now estimated to be completed by the end of February. To insure thoroughness and assist in constructing more sound procedures and policies, the time frame for the audit’s completion has been extended. At the completion of this process the steps necessary to complete the 08-09 audit will be streamlined.
4.The City and County continue to work together on topics to assist the County. At the last City Council meeting the City approved the 90 day special billing for water and sewer. The County has reimbursed the City 50% of the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) monies. The County is expected to release the remaining 50% as funds become available.
Frequently Asked Questions Updated 1/25/10
Editor's Note: This FAQ from the Modoc County Incident Management Team is published verbatim.
What factors led to the County’s cash deficit?
There were many factors, but the bottom-line is that cash balances within the County Treasury were not reviewed and controlled over a period of nearly 10 years. Many counties use funds in the cash account to operate. They then replace these funds by the June 30th deadline. This was not done. The Hospital remained open saving lives and the county carried its negative balance. The Hospital has been able to repay some funds back to the county treasury while maintaining a positive operating balance
What steps has the County taken to resolve the issues, such as
a. Budget cuts and cost savings -
Cuts and areas of cost savings were done at the beginning of FY 09-10 to balance the current year budget including cash flows. Each week the Fiscal team (Assistant CAO, Auditor, Treasurer and Department Fiscal Staff) review and update funds coming in and funds going out to assure balance and savings.
b. New policies –
Numerous policies and procedures have been put into place and will continue to be enacted including regular budget monitoring, warrant payable policies, prioritization and deferral of non-essential expenditures. The county financial audit will result in numerous additional policies and procedures in regards to accounting practices.
c. Financing –
Both short term (in the form of a line of credit) and long term financing (in the form of bonds) are being procured to manage the county cash flow and remediation of deficit fund balances in the county treasury by June 30, 2010.
What is the County’s cash deficit?
As of December 31st. the total negative cash balance in the county hospital operating fund was
$ 12,629,436.
What happens if the treasury is not restored?
If the treasury is not restored by the amount of unauthorized negative cash balances, then the County assumes a risk of insolvency or not being able
to pay obligations such as payroll, vendor checks or any other payments for all county programs and services. There may be personal and professional liability assumed by elected officials and others due to violations of various statutes contained within government, penal , and possible other code sections of both the US and State of California.
Is the hospital putting money into the County treasury? Yes. Do they have a payment plan? Yes, to the extent that there is surplus cash at the end of every month.
It has been suggested that the County file for bankruptcy. What is your response to that?
We do not believe bankruptcy is a viable option. The “debt” is not owed to outside lenders or creditors, but to the county treasury. Bankruptcy does not restore one cent to the county treasury or eliminate the requirement to finance the deficit. The bankruptcy process is very time consuming and expensive. If the county claimed bankruptcy, a trustee would be appointed by a bankruptcy judge to prioritize cash payments and would have the authority to usurp budgetary or fiscal governance decisions from the Board of Supervisors. This would take any and all local fiscal control away from the county.
We have been able to identify 1.5 million in cuts and savings necessary to pay loan/bond service. Upon implementation of these budget modifications we are capable of meeting the obligation of long-term bond/loan repayment. The bottom line is that to avoid insolvency, we must have the total deficit restored to the treasury by June 30, 2010.
What is the next step?
We are proceeding down several concurrent tracks:
Finalize the short term financing line of credit.
Expedite the county financial and single audits for FY 2007-8 and 2008-09.
Proceed with putting the long term financing (in the form of Bonds) in place by March, 2010 in order to restore funds within the county treasury.
Start the FY 2009-10 midyear budget reviews as well as start preparing the FY 2010-11 budgets with changes in place adequate to meet loan payment obligations.
What cuts are going to happen next?
Additional cuts and adjustments to department budgets are being reviewed. Mid-year budget reviews will be aimed at ensuring that reserves are sufficient to support the financial and single audits for FY 07-08 as well as developing the plan for long term financing repayment. All departments are dedicated to assuring that they support bond repayment to the extent allowable under their funding restrictions.
How secure are the funds in the treasury, such as the schools account? Can funds be used in the event of an “emergency?”
The school’s funds are in a separate school investment account that is linked to their checking account. Only the Modoc County Office of Education can draw checks on that checking account. In an “emergency” the county could borrow money from some depositors within the County Treasury within ‘dry period” loan procedures and policies established in the State Constitution.
What factors led to the County’s cash deficit?
There were many factors, but the bottom-line is that cash balances within the County Treasury were not reviewed and controlled over a period of nearly 10 years. Many counties use funds in the cash account to operate. They then replace these funds by the June 30th deadline. This was not done. The Hospital remained open saving lives and the county carried its negative balance. The Hospital has been able to repay some funds back to the county treasury while maintaining a positive operating balance
What steps has the County taken to resolve the issues, such as
a. Budget cuts and cost savings -
Cuts and areas of cost savings were done at the beginning of FY 09-10 to balance the current year budget including cash flows. Each week the Fiscal team (Assistant CAO, Auditor, Treasurer and Department Fiscal Staff) review and update funds coming in and funds going out to assure balance and savings.
b. New policies –
Numerous policies and procedures have been put into place and will continue to be enacted including regular budget monitoring, warrant payable policies, prioritization and deferral of non-essential expenditures. The county financial audit will result in numerous additional policies and procedures in regards to accounting practices.
c. Financing –
Both short term (in the form of a line of credit) and long term financing (in the form of bonds) are being procured to manage the county cash flow and remediation of deficit fund balances in the county treasury by June 30, 2010.
What is the County’s cash deficit?
As of December 31st. the total negative cash balance in the county hospital operating fund was
$ 12,629,436.
What happens if the treasury is not restored?
If the treasury is not restored by the amount of unauthorized negative cash balances, then the County assumes a risk of insolvency or not being able
to pay obligations such as payroll, vendor checks or any other payments for all county programs and services. There may be personal and professional liability assumed by elected officials and others due to violations of various statutes contained within government, penal , and possible other code sections of both the US and State of California.
Is the hospital putting money into the County treasury? Yes. Do they have a payment plan? Yes, to the extent that there is surplus cash at the end of every month.
It has been suggested that the County file for bankruptcy. What is your response to that?
We do not believe bankruptcy is a viable option. The “debt” is not owed to outside lenders or creditors, but to the county treasury. Bankruptcy does not restore one cent to the county treasury or eliminate the requirement to finance the deficit. The bankruptcy process is very time consuming and expensive. If the county claimed bankruptcy, a trustee would be appointed by a bankruptcy judge to prioritize cash payments and would have the authority to usurp budgetary or fiscal governance decisions from the Board of Supervisors. This would take any and all local fiscal control away from the county.
We have been able to identify 1.5 million in cuts and savings necessary to pay loan/bond service. Upon implementation of these budget modifications we are capable of meeting the obligation of long-term bond/loan repayment. The bottom line is that to avoid insolvency, we must have the total deficit restored to the treasury by June 30, 2010.
What is the next step?
We are proceeding down several concurrent tracks:
Finalize the short term financing line of credit.
Expedite the county financial and single audits for FY 2007-8 and 2008-09.
Proceed with putting the long term financing (in the form of Bonds) in place by March, 2010 in order to restore funds within the county treasury.
Start the FY 2009-10 midyear budget reviews as well as start preparing the FY 2010-11 budgets with changes in place adequate to meet loan payment obligations.
What cuts are going to happen next?
Additional cuts and adjustments to department budgets are being reviewed. Mid-year budget reviews will be aimed at ensuring that reserves are sufficient to support the financial and single audits for FY 07-08 as well as developing the plan for long term financing repayment. All departments are dedicated to assuring that they support bond repayment to the extent allowable under their funding restrictions.
How secure are the funds in the treasury, such as the schools account? Can funds be used in the event of an “emergency?”
The school’s funds are in a separate school investment account that is linked to their checking account. Only the Modoc County Office of Education can draw checks on that checking account. In an “emergency” the county could borrow money from some depositors within the County Treasury within ‘dry period” loan procedures and policies established in the State Constitution.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Modoc-gate
Analyzing the Bond Bombshell No. 1
The “bond bombshell” was dropped Jan. 26 by the Modoc County Board of Supervisors to the complete surprise of nearly everybody but them.
Defending their move to seek the sale of bonds in order to raise money they misappropriated from the county treasury, the supervisors steadfastly argued that the subject of bonds was an old one that had been publicly aired at previous meetings.
Not so, argued three prominent members in the audience, this was the first time they had heard the county was willing to try for a bond rating, let alone the actual sale of bonds.
First to counter the supervisors’ stance of “transparency” as stated by Chair Dan Macsay, was June Roberts, a member of the county planning commission and the Resource Advisory Committee, two bodies that work closely with county government.
“When was this decided, formalized?” Roberts asked the board.
Then came Lau Miller, a highly visible member of the Save Our Hospital Committee and also a regular attendee at board of supervisors’ meetings.
“You’ve talked about a line of credit or loan, but never a bond,” Miller challenged.
Next was Alan Hopkins, president of the Modoc Joint Unified School District and regular watchdog over county finances since the $20 million misappropriation was revealed last summer.
“This has never been discussed,” Hopkins said flatly.
Rising to the defense of the board’s intentions to go for a bond sale, Chair Mascay countered, “We have been diligent in transparency, we want everyone to know what’s going on. No one has held back information.” Which was not exactly the convincing answer Roberts, Miller or Hopkins were hoping to hear.
Apparently wishing to appease Roberts, Miller and Hopkins, County Counsel John Kenny said the question of bonds was generic, roughly meaning the same as going for a loan.
So, just what is a bond and what is a bond rating, which Richard Arrow, the county’s newly-named chief financial officer, referred to as a necessity in the process of re-financing the county?
We checked with Moody’s Investor Services and Standard & Poor’s, the two leading rating agencies to see if Modoc County has a bond rating. It does not.
This means the county, when it comes to seeking income from lenders, is literally off the chart.
To even get on the chart, so to speak, it has to get a bond rating. The following factors are what Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s consider when rating a county:
-- The economic basis of the county and how large and diverse it is.
-- Above average wealth and income levels.
-- How sound is the county’s financial position?
-- The county’s competitive tax rates and manageable debt levels and how limited are its debt-financed capital needs.
-- Does it have a modest debt burden?
-- How stable is the tax base?
What these factors add up to is the simple question: How well does the county manage the taxpayers’ money?
Once Moody’s or Standard & Poor’s assign a rating to Modoc County, if they do, that rating will help establish how high the bond's interest rate will be. If the agencies assign a high rating, that means there's little risk of default, so the issuer can obtain a lower interest rate.
The lower the bond rating, (in this case Modoc County isn’t even rated) the higher the interest rate. This fits nicely in the prediction of out-going CAO Mark Charlton, who said the county could expect to pay “junk bond” rates if it can attract a lender.
Junk bond rates mean high interest on the loan.
All the while Supervisor Patricia Cantrall argued rather incredulously that the county should be looking to local banks and such elected financial officers as Auditor Alice Marrs and Treasurer Cheryl Knoch.
“Modoc people know Modoc people,” Cantrall asserted, apparently ignoring it was the Modoc Board of Supervisors who put the county’s taxpayers in the financial bind they find themselves in today.
The “bond bombshell” was dropped Jan. 26 by the Modoc County Board of Supervisors to the complete surprise of nearly everybody but them.
Defending their move to seek the sale of bonds in order to raise money they misappropriated from the county treasury, the supervisors steadfastly argued that the subject of bonds was an old one that had been publicly aired at previous meetings.
Not so, argued three prominent members in the audience, this was the first time they had heard the county was willing to try for a bond rating, let alone the actual sale of bonds.
First to counter the supervisors’ stance of “transparency” as stated by Chair Dan Macsay, was June Roberts, a member of the county planning commission and the Resource Advisory Committee, two bodies that work closely with county government.
“When was this decided, formalized?” Roberts asked the board.
Then came Lau Miller, a highly visible member of the Save Our Hospital Committee and also a regular attendee at board of supervisors’ meetings.
“You’ve talked about a line of credit or loan, but never a bond,” Miller challenged.
Next was Alan Hopkins, president of the Modoc Joint Unified School District and regular watchdog over county finances since the $20 million misappropriation was revealed last summer.
“This has never been discussed,” Hopkins said flatly.
Rising to the defense of the board’s intentions to go for a bond sale, Chair Mascay countered, “We have been diligent in transparency, we want everyone to know what’s going on. No one has held back information.” Which was not exactly the convincing answer Roberts, Miller or Hopkins were hoping to hear.
Apparently wishing to appease Roberts, Miller and Hopkins, County Counsel John Kenny said the question of bonds was generic, roughly meaning the same as going for a loan.
So, just what is a bond and what is a bond rating, which Richard Arrow, the county’s newly-named chief financial officer, referred to as a necessity in the process of re-financing the county?
We checked with Moody’s Investor Services and Standard & Poor’s, the two leading rating agencies to see if Modoc County has a bond rating. It does not.
This means the county, when it comes to seeking income from lenders, is literally off the chart.
To even get on the chart, so to speak, it has to get a bond rating. The following factors are what Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s consider when rating a county:
-- The economic basis of the county and how large and diverse it is.
-- Above average wealth and income levels.
-- How sound is the county’s financial position?
-- The county’s competitive tax rates and manageable debt levels and how limited are its debt-financed capital needs.
-- Does it have a modest debt burden?
-- How stable is the tax base?
What these factors add up to is the simple question: How well does the county manage the taxpayers’ money?
Once Moody’s or Standard & Poor’s assign a rating to Modoc County, if they do, that rating will help establish how high the bond's interest rate will be. If the agencies assign a high rating, that means there's little risk of default, so the issuer can obtain a lower interest rate.
The lower the bond rating, (in this case Modoc County isn’t even rated) the higher the interest rate. This fits nicely in the prediction of out-going CAO Mark Charlton, who said the county could expect to pay “junk bond” rates if it can attract a lender.
Junk bond rates mean high interest on the loan.
All the while Supervisor Patricia Cantrall argued rather incredulously that the county should be looking to local banks and such elected financial officers as Auditor Alice Marrs and Treasurer Cheryl Knoch.
“Modoc people know Modoc people,” Cantrall asserted, apparently ignoring it was the Modoc Board of Supervisors who put the county’s taxpayers in the financial bind they find themselves in today.
Bombshell No. 2
Modoc County's courthouse may be used as collateral.
Assuming Modoc County actually gets a bond rating from Moody’s or Standard & Poor’s, and aside from the county’s ranking if it does get rated, and aside from how much it will have to pay in interest rates, just what does the county have for collateral?
It has only itself for collateral in the form of paid-for real estate.
That means buildings like the historic courthouse, the former administrative offices across the street from the courthouse, which now sit vacant, and any other property the county owns outright or that is not heavily mortgaged will be put on the line for a multi-million dollar loan.
If the Modoc County Board of Supervisors go for a bond rating and all its subsequent ramifications, it means it is willing to hock county properties that currently have an insured valued of an estimated $35 million.
This could require the formation of a Modoc Capital Authority, generally made up of county supervisors and possibly an Alturas city council member. The county-owned buildings would then be sold to the Authority which would then sell an estimated $12.5 million in loans or bonds.
Such a loan, it has been estimated, would run $1.2 million to $1.4 million in payments per year.
The entire matter comes down to the stability of the county, how it is managed and what the county is willing to guarantee regardless of the politics.
-- Ray A. March
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Richard Arrow Named County CFO
The Board of Supervisors named financial consultant Richard Arrow as Modoc County’s Chief Financial Officer at its Jan. 26 meeting. Arrow has been consulting the county on its financial problems for the last six months.
The reason for this “in name only title,” according to county counsel John Kenny and Arrow himself, is as the county moves forward in its quest for long-term financing it is important that potential lenders see a competent, professional staff in place.
“The county has to show it can sustain itself. It needs a CFO in place for the public and potential lenders. You’re going out to market (yourselves) and you have to put as pretty a face as possible on this package,” Kenny told the supervisors.
Arrow will continue in his capacity as consultant at the same rate of compensation.
Which leads to the recent informal six-day survey conducted by the Modoc Independent Daily News, asking readers, “Do you think the Modoc County supervisors who were in office when the misappropriation of an estimated $20 million from the treasury occurred should finish their terms in office, or should they resign before their terms are over?
A total of 69 percent of those responding to the survey said the supervisors should resign. Twenty-one percent said the supervisors should finish out their terms. The survey ran on www.modocindependentnews.blogspot.com. There were a total of 68 respondents.
The survey is admittedly far from scientific but it does point to the fact that when potential lenders look at county government makeup and see a new CFO on the one hand, but the same supervisors who are responsible for the misappropriation on the other, they may decline to take a risk on Modoc County.
That is a risk Modoc County is also taking. How can potential lenders be assured these same supervisors are not a liability and could jeopardize Modoc County’s chances of securing a loan?
Supervisor Patricia Cantrall, always leading the home guard, voted against Arrow’s appointment (and earlier against hiring two other financial-specialty consultants), and argued that the auditor and treasurer are, in her opinion, sufficiently competent.
Responding, Interim CAO Rick Rudometkin said, “It’s important we have solid people in place who can make logical, good decisions as well as the board, who must be well versed.”
-- Barbara March
Monday, January 25, 2010
Modoc-gate
Editor’s Note: Supervisor Dave Bradshaw is the first of his colleagues or other elected officials to publicly give his views on how an estimated $20 million was misappropriated from the Modoc County treasury. Bradshaw has been on the board of supervisors for nearly two terms, has served on the board’s finance sub-committee, and has said he will not seek re-election.
Q. This is a follow up to your meeting in Lookout of Jan. 16 in which you discussed the financial problems of the county. I understand it was very informative. Have you held any others or do you plan to?
Bradshaw: I have to give a report to Big Valley Chamber of Commerce, and I went to a fire district meeting and they had questions there, too.
Q. There is a need, as you’ve seen from your meetings with constituents and as we’ve seen on our blog, for the supervisors to explain -- or at least tell their side of the story -- as to what happened. How funds were taken and used from the treasury.
Bradshaw: Those meetings helped answer a lot of questions. Sure.
Q. On the subject of the misappropriation of funds from the county treasury, you apparently said at the Lookout meeting, “There were things going on that the board of supervisors wasn’t aware of, they didn’t realize they were dipping into other funds.” Is that correct?
Bradshaw: Not really. I wasn’t aware that we were using any school funds.
Q. Was there an awareness that an estimated $20 million was coming from the treasury?
Bradshaw: I wasn’t aware that we were that far in arrears. That may not be good (to say), but that’s true.
Q. What was county counsel John Kinney’s role as legal adviser to the board of supervisors when these transfers were being recommended and made?
Bradshaw: I don’t know if I can answer that. After everything came to light (he pauses)….he gives the county legal counsel.
Q. That’s his job description.
Bradshaw: That’s all I can say.
Q. You also said at the Lookout meeting, and please correct me, “that the board never had to be that involved, we didn’t need to know because the managers told us everything was okay. We’re getting information now, before we were taking information that was given to us to heart. We assumed if managers had problems they would speak up.” Is that correct?
Bradshaw: I didn’t say that either! I did point out we have had a number of audits and they didn’t raise a flag that anything was happening. At least they didn’t to me.
Q. Will the new audit clear all this up?
Bradshaw: I hope it will reflect what it is that exactly happened. A true picture would be what it really is.
Q. Are you in favor of a hospital district?
Bradshaw: They should have a chance to vote on it. That’s what they want. It’s fair that they get a chance to vote on a district. It’s their hospital. They should be able to vote on it. It’s an available option.
Q. Was the hospital so important to keep open that it justified taking money from the treasury, even though, as you say, the board didn’t know where the money was coming from?
Bradshaw: I wouldn’t agree to taking money from the treasury. I would not agree to that.
Q. So, what is the best answer to achieving accountability for the misappropriation?
Bradshaw: Well I guess I don’t have a real succinct answer to that. That’s what I’m trying to do in my own way. I feel very responsible for the county. I am a resident of the county and I plan to stay here. Its helpful to me to get some answers.
Q. Wouldn’t it benefit future supervisors from making the same or similar mistake to understand how and why the misappropriation happened? Would you agree?
Bradshaw: A lesson I learned would be the best way to prevent this happening again is to have a report from our treasurer. It shouldn’t get too far from where it is. We now have reports from the treasurer. It’s a matter of getting information to the board of supervisors in a timely matter and for us to be more aware. The prevention is there now. I don’t think it would happen gain.
-- Ray A. March
Warner Mountain Toastmasters Club
Comes to Cedarville
Join us at 7:45 a.m. on February 19th, 2010 at the Bureau of Land Management Office, 602 Cressler St., in Cedarville. Toastmasters International offers a program that will improve your leadership and speaking skills. Join us and improve your life! For more information, contact Dina McElwain at 530-233-4483 or Sandy Stevenson at 530-640-2007.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Modoc-gate
Self-serving Politics
Over the weekend one of our readers posted a comment saying that “Modoc County is just a microcosm of the fix that the entire United States finds itself in. The electorate is unwilling to pay for the services that it wants. No one wants to give up anything, so it borrows into the future.”
We couldn’t agree more.
This is not a partisan issue. It has nothing to do with so-called conservatism or so-called liberalism. People of both persuasions are equally guilty.
To selfishly demand services that can only be provided by taxes while not wanting to increase those taxes, is endemic not just to the nation, but to Modoc County.
At the last Modoc County Board of Supervisors meeting, despite an admonition from the assistant chief administrative officer that any funds taken from one department to fund another should go toward paying off the county’s debt service, the board voted unanimously to renew the contract of a trapper.
Yes, trapper services are needed this time of year as mountain lions and coyotes pick off new lambs. A voice from the audience suggesting that local ranchers and property owners help defray the cost of the trapper program was silenced by Chairman Dan Macsay.
The supervisors then went on to ignore our financial crisis, perhaps because it is easier and more politically expedient to put our tax dollars towards a trapper than it is to pay back the $20 million they took illegally from the county’s treasury.
We see this disregard for the consequences and refusal to consider alternatives as a systemic problem that has infected our entire nation, including Modoc County. We agree with our blog poster who concluded their comment with, “this has been going on so long that ‘a hard rain is gonna fall’ and we will reap the whirlwind of our selfishness.”
Shades of the 1994 Orange County bankruptcy. Those voters, both Republican and Democrat, also wanted more for less. In the end, their county government went bankrupt.
-- Ray A. March
Over the weekend one of our readers posted a comment saying that “Modoc County is just a microcosm of the fix that the entire United States finds itself in. The electorate is unwilling to pay for the services that it wants. No one wants to give up anything, so it borrows into the future.”
We couldn’t agree more.
This is not a partisan issue. It has nothing to do with so-called conservatism or so-called liberalism. People of both persuasions are equally guilty.
To selfishly demand services that can only be provided by taxes while not wanting to increase those taxes, is endemic not just to the nation, but to Modoc County.
At the last Modoc County Board of Supervisors meeting, despite an admonition from the assistant chief administrative officer that any funds taken from one department to fund another should go toward paying off the county’s debt service, the board voted unanimously to renew the contract of a trapper.
Yes, trapper services are needed this time of year as mountain lions and coyotes pick off new lambs. A voice from the audience suggesting that local ranchers and property owners help defray the cost of the trapper program was silenced by Chairman Dan Macsay.
The supervisors then went on to ignore our financial crisis, perhaps because it is easier and more politically expedient to put our tax dollars towards a trapper than it is to pay back the $20 million they took illegally from the county’s treasury.
We see this disregard for the consequences and refusal to consider alternatives as a systemic problem that has infected our entire nation, including Modoc County. We agree with our blog poster who concluded their comment with, “this has been going on so long that ‘a hard rain is gonna fall’ and we will reap the whirlwind of our selfishness.”
Shades of the 1994 Orange County bankruptcy. Those voters, both Republican and Democrat, also wanted more for less. In the end, their county government went bankrupt.
-- Ray A. March
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)