A Community Breakfast & Informational Meeting
Sponsored by the Modoc County Domestic Violence Community Response Team

Where: STRONG FAMILY HEALTH CENTER

When: FEBRUARY 19, 2010

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 11 a.m.

Join us for good food, and
information about the new

Batterer Intervention Program in Modoc County

with a powerful presentation on Domestic Violence,
and an update on the DVCRT collaboration.

RSVP - Dave Biossineau: 233-4591

Open Meetings - The Brown Act

Editor’s Note: This is the first installment in a three-part series about the Brown Act, also called the “Open Meeting Act.”

Modoc County District Attorney Gary Woolverton says no one has filed a complaint alleging Brown Act violations on the part of the Modoc County board of supervisors. Yet the Brown Act is called into play frequently by members of the board of supervisors themselves and citizen bystanders. But according to Woolverton, there has been no formal action taken on alleged Brown Act violations in Modoc County. Yet.

The Brown Act or Open Meeting Law states that “Meetings of public bodies must be ‘open and public,‘ actions may not be secret, and action taken in violation of open meetings laws may be voided.”

 David Green, executive director of the First Amendment Project told the Modoc Independent Daily News that “the public can take steps to enforce the Brown Act and ask the courts to void action taken by the board of supervisors because an issue was not openly discussed.” The first step in the process is to file a complaint with the district attorney.

For example, closed sessions may not be used for discussions about general employment, independent contractors not functioning as employees, salaries, the performance of any elected official, or member of the board, the local agency's available funds and funding priorities or budget.

The Brown Act, also called the Sunshine Law, states, "Closed sessions ... shall not include discussion or action on proposed compensation except for a reduction of compensation that results from the imposition of discipline."

Each member of a legislative body who is found to have violated any portion of the Brown Act is guilty of a misdemeanor. For more information on the Brown Act go to www.thefirstamendment.org/brown-act.


Next week: Examples of Brown Act violations.

Info Source for Monday Group’s Proposal

Editor’s Note: In response to requests from our bloggers for a complete copy of the “Monday Group’s” proposal for an ad-hoc citizens’ committee to work with the Modoc County Board of Supervisors in resolving its financial crisis, please contact Alan Hopkins by e-mail at: hopkinsa@citlink.net.

Cedarville Pinochle Night

(Advertisement)

Modoc-gate

“Monday Group” Comes Forward to Help

Assistance from the public sector in finding a way to replace millions of dollars from the treasury was offered Tuesday, Feb. 9, to the embattled Modoc County Board of Supervisors.

The offer came from Don Demsher and Alan Hopkins, (left to right above) both connected to the public schools, but in this instance representing the citizen-based “Monday Group.”

In taking the supervisors to task for its disregard of policies governing the use of county treasury funds and its failure to be accountable for its actions, Demsher and Hopkins told the board their ad-hoc group was ready to assist it in replacing the money and coming up with a sound financial plan.

“We suggest that a committee of persons who are Modoc County residents and have experience in public and private financing, be formed as an ad-hoc committee to consider and review, in detail, any and all options that could be available to restore fiscal solvency to the County of Modoc,” they told the board in a prepared statement.

Included in the offer of help was the necessary review of such issues as the amount of restricted funds actually taken from the treasury, an accounting of federal and state funds, such as restricted grants for mental health and road uses, and public exposure of discussions held with federal and state officials.

Whether the supervisors, who with other county officials, are responsible for misappropriating an estimated $20 million from the treasury, will extend a hand and accept the offer will not be known until the board acts on it Feb. 23, its next regular meeting.

The Monday Group, according to Demsher, has been meeting and working on ideas to recover the financial balance of the county since last July. Its intention is to make more public the board’s plan for “financing the current general fund deficit.”

“As citizens of Modoc County, we are concerned that there has been little transparency, insufficient discussion, and a lack of input from the general public,” Demsher told the board.

“A review of the past agendas of the board of supervisors do not show any public discussion of a coherent, rational plan for financing the current general fund deficit,” Demsher continued. “Items that relate to finance and budget have been couched as board reports, staff reports, or committee reports without a hint of the content or potential ramifications of each item. No plan has ever appeared as an agenda item for public discussion.”

Demsher said the board “needs to have formal agenda items regarding the progress of refinancing and full public discussion accompanied by relevant detailed information regarding the item being discussed.”

(Advertisement)

Dave Crenshaw

Horseshoeing & Day Work

530.233.5656 or 530.640.1783

(Advertisement)

Don’t Ask Macsay

Does the BOS Have a Code of Conduct?

The Modoc County Board of Supervisors, under heavy public criticism for its dysfunctional -- and at times rude -- handling of the county’s finances during public meetings, has been asked to produce a code of conduct.

Judy Mason of Alturas asked the supervisors at their Feb. 9 regular meeting if they had a code of conduct, or by-laws, governing the board.

Chair Dan Macsay responded by saying the board would look into it and report back at its Feb. 23 meeting, indicating that he did not know if the board was guided by a code of conduct.

After the meeting Mason told the Modoc Independent News that the board of supervisors was in need of such a code.

“I have a concern that they don’t seem to be effective and work as a team,” she said. “Effective boards work together, they must have trust to work together.”

As examples of what a code of conduct should include, Mason listed:

-- Attend meetings.

-- Be prepared.

-- Read materials.

-- Ask questions.

“There’s a lack of civility,” she said, regarding the supervisor’s behavior towards each other and the public. “If Modoc County can’t do it right, how can we expect the state or the federal government to do it right. There doesn’t have to be attacks on political parties or individuals.”

Mason’s request for the board to produce a code of conduct is similar to a movement called “Campaign for Civility in Public Discourse,” a widespread effort to curb ill behavior by public bodies. Adoption of the program by a number of agencies and boards in the Truckee region is an example.

The nine points to the “Campaign for Civility in Public Discourse” are:

1). Pay attention; 2) Listen; 3) Be inclusive; 4) Don’t gossip; 5) Show respect;
6) Be agreeable; 7) Apologize; 8) Give constructive criticism; and 9) Take responsibility.

More information on the “Campaign for Civility in Public Discourse” can be found at
http://www.dsacommunityfoundation.com/initiatives/Speak_Your_Peace.shtml

(Poster image courtesy of the Truckee Tahoe Community Foundation)

Audits To Be Completed in May

                               Auditor Alice Marrs and CFO Richard Arrow

The state Controller’s ordered re-audit of Modoc County has exposed that the county is 100 years behind the times and the audit will cost an estimated $360,000 -- or $60,000 more than expected.

And the fee could go higher.

Before the  auditors from Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co. (VTD) could begin the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 Modoc County re-audit ordered by the state Controller’s office Auditor Alice Marrs and her staff had to re-create the entire accounting system.

“We’ve done things wrong for the past 100 years,” Marrs told the board of supervisors at its Feb. 9 meeting, referring to the fact that proper accounting practices, policies and procedures were never implemented in Modoc County.

“We needed the building blocks before we could start the audit,” said Modoc County’s newly appointed CFO Richard Arrow. “It started from the ground up. All this groundwork will translate into more efficiency for the 2008 -2009 audit.”

Marrs said there were no written accounting procedures until now.

“It was all verbal,” she said.

 With the help of  Kevin Pulliam from VTD, Marrs reported that she and her staff have painstakingly brought Modoc County’s accounting files from what one observer previously referred to as a “cottage industry” to something approaching standard compliance.

The county’s bookkeeping system is emerging out of the dark ages. But this necessary groundwork has delayed the audit, which is integral to the county securing a long-term loan or bond financing.

Arrow and Marrs report that the 2007 - 2008 audit should be completed by March 31 and the 2008 - 2009 audit by the end of April or sometime in May, as previously reported by the Modoc Independent News.

-- Barbara March

Museum to Reopen In April

                            Dixie Server of the Modoc Historical Society
                            and Valerie Lantz of The River Center
                            


The Modoc County Historical Society, Alturas Chamber of Commerce and The River Center demonstrated creativity and thought “outside the box” when they put their heads together and developed a plan to co-locate their respective organizations at the Modoc County Museum.

Their collaborative effort as stated in the Memorandum of Understanding adopted by the Modoc County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, Feb. 9 “is strategically important because it provides a sustainable manner of staffing the museum facility, promoting local services, and providing resource and educational materials to our community and the community at large.”

The county will retain ownership of the property and be responsible for basic utility costs. Electricity must remain on to protect the museum artifacts, regardless of whether the museum is open or not. The county will cover liability insurance and the oversight of basic maintenance. Phone and Internet costs will be shared by the three organizations. Fees and donations accepted at the museum will be used for museum maintenance.

The museum will be staffed by volunteers from the three participating organizations with a goal of operating the museum year-round, five days a week, Tuesday through Saturday with scheduled volunteer staff.

The target re-opening date is Tuesday, April 6.

Modoc-gate

       New CAO Rudometkin (left) talks with Supervisor Bradshaw

BOS Okays Rudometkin “Sweetheart” Contract

    On a 3-2 voted the Modoc County Board of Supervisors yesterday (Feb. 9) handed Rick Rudometkin what critics called a “sweetheart” contract with excessive powers in his job as the county’s new -- and permanent -- chief administrative officer.
   
Under the contract approved by the supervisors yesterday, Rudometkin will carry the titles of both CAO and director of transportation. -- at an annual salary of $150,000, plus numerous perks.

Supervisors Patricia Cantrall, Dan Macsay and David Bradshaw, arguing that the new dual-job arrangement will actually save the county money, voted in favor.

Supervisors Shorty Crabtree and Jeff Bullock voted against Rudometkin being named permanent CAO, countering that he had not demonstrated in his three months as interim CAO that he could handle the position.

Crabtree was particularly critical.

“You’ve been CAO for three months and I haven’t heard a word from you. You’re a good man, too good for Modoc and you should go on down the road,” Crabtree told Rudometkin who did not respond.

While the $150,000 salary and various benefits attracted vocal opposition to Rudometkin’s appointment, one clause in his contact worried at least one department head.

Karen Stockton, head of health services, spoke about the language in the contract, that the contract sets a precedent in giving Rudometkin actual chief executive officer authority instead of a chief administrative officer’s limited powers.

“It’s very unjust,” she said questioning the legality of the contract.

Her reference was to the wording in the contract that Rudometkin will have authority over all department heads under “the direction of the board.”

Contrary to Chair Dan Macsay’s assertion that no precedent is being set, this is a departure from previous contracts for CAOs who did not have that level of authority.

Asked by the Modoc Independent News how he intended to use that authority, Rudometkin listed three areas where he thought the county could save money during its struggle to replace an estimated $12.5 million it misappropriated from the treasury.

“I need to make certain changes to pull us out of the dilemma we’re in.” he said, explaining he anticipates changes being made first in department budgets, then the possibility of combining unnamed departments and lastly reducing the number of employees in those departments.

While the contract is for two years it is apparent Rudometkin could work himself out of a CAO job before the two years are up, according to a statement made by Macsay.

“We’ll send him back to his position (with the road department) after we get out of this mess,” Macsay told the Modoc Independent News.

As for Stockton’s concern for the contract language and it setting a precedent, Macsay said the contract wasn’t any different than previous ones.

“It’s a reporting thing, legalese,” Macsay said. “Maxwell and Charlton had the exact same authority. The department heads will still report directly to the board.”

And then Macsay added: “We will begin department head evaluations at the end of February.”

Rudometkin has acted as the county’s interim CAO since his appointment by the board last Nov. 10, a position he held in addition to being director of the department of transportation and public works.

-- Ray A. March
-- Barbara March contributed to this article

Modoc-gate

BULLETIN
Plumas Bank Backs Off Loan

The long-awaited short-term loan from Plumas Bank is dead.
   
The bank, with a branch office in Alturas, backed away from loaning Modoc County $3 million to $4 million in the form of a line of credit because it was leery the county could go bankrupt and leave Plumas holding a bad loan, according to Richard Arrow, recently named CFO for the county.

The amount of the line of credit was later reduced to $2 million to $3 million during negotiations with the bank.
   
“They were concerned about bankruptcy,” Arrow told the Modoc Independent News, “even though we explained to them only the board of supervisors could put the county in bankruptcy and there has never been any discussion by the board in regards to that.”
   
Arrow said he learned of Plumas’ decision late Friday and will be making a report to the board of supervisors at its Feb. 9 (today) meeting.
   
Plumas, according to Arrow, was advised by the bank’s internal legal counsel that if Modoc County did go bankrupt the bank would be left holding unsecured creditors.The county had offered to use property taxes as collateral.

“I don’t believe that is correct,” Arrow said, “but we are still going for a short-term line of credit with two larger banks, U.S. Bank and Bank of America. It may be that at the end of the day we will not need a line of credit.”
   
Asked if Plumas’ decision not to provide a line of credit to the county would have any impact on the county’s ability to pay bills and make payroll, Arrow was optimistic.
   
“It will not affect the county’s ability to make payroll,” he said. “Obviously we can’t let the treasury go negative. It may mean holding up some payments temporarily. It’s a disappointment because we have been working with Plumas since September."
   
Although Plumas’ explanation goes to the potential bankruptcy, it has been learned from other sources that asked for anonymity that the bank’s decision was also based on the county’s lack of preparation in taking care of its current debts, that Modoc Medical Center is a financial albatross, there have not been enough cutbacks in county expenditures including layoffs and that the board of supervisors is not taking responsibility in managing its financial affairs adequately.

-- Ray A. March

Modoc-gate

Rudometkin Contract Criticized

A quiet storm is brewing among some Modoc County department heads over the proposed contract conditions in naming Rick Rudometkin chief administrative officer with an annual salary of $150,000.
   
The Modoc County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to take up the contract at its regular meeting tomorrow, Feb. 9. The contract calls for Rudometkin to continue as full time director of transportation in addition to the CAO duties.
   
At issue is what some are calling a “sweet heart deal” made in a recent closed session with the board, and at a time when the county is facing the serious possibility of bankruptcy.
   
What apparently is irritating to some department heads is that the board of supervisors has not provided any factual background information on Rudometkin’s administrative experience and ability to manage the county’s finances.
   
“He doesn’t have a track record in county administration to back up his requests in the contract,” said one county employee who asked for anonymity because he did not have authority to speak to the issue.

The contract, if approved by the supervisors, would give Rudometkin independent authority over all department heads, subject to the direction of the board of supervisors. This is a departure, critics point out, from all previous chief administrative officers who had no authority over department heads.

Rudometkin is also asking for the option of reverting to his former job as director of transportation and public works in the event that he is either fired from the CAO position or resigns -- at an annual salary of $112,000.

Other conditions of the contract, which so far, is only available on the county’s web site, (see http://www.modoccounty.us, then click on board of supervisors page) include:
   
-- Term of the contract is for two years.

-- If Rudometkin is fired from his dual position  he will receive salary and benefits equal to five months, or the remainder of the unexpired term of the contract, whichever is less. The salary portion is equal to $62,500 for five months.

-- Unrestricted use of a county vehicle.

-- An annual five percent pay increase conditional to a satisfactory rating by the board of supervisors.

-- The county  pays 100 percent of Rudometkin’s retirement benefits.

Critics say the unrestricted use of a county vehicle, along with automatic pay increases is excessive during the fiscal crisis, and that some department heads, who serve at the will of the supervisors, have not seen a pay increase in three or four years.

-- Ray A. March

SOH Complaints Set for Feb. 23

The much anticipated renewal of the Save Our Hospital’s (SOH) complaints against the Modoc County Board of Supervisors, election officials and county counsel has been set for Feb. 23, according to a SOH spokesperson.
   
The public airing of SOH’s charges that the county is stalling the process required for getting the issue on the June ballot was expected to be tomorrow, but SOH members apparently opted for more time to prepare.

In the interim, SOH has announced it will be holding an “informational” meeting Feb. 11.
   
Mike Mason, SOH chair, informed the board Feb. 2, that its attorney, John Kenny, is 30 days overdue in returning a written, impartial, legal description required for the ballot measure and that the board and Kenny are in violation of state election laws.

At its Jan. 28 meeting, SOH members voted to file a complaint against Kenny with the State Bar of California, the state’s bar association. At this posting the complaint has not been filed because the SOH is conducting research “to make the decision to proceed or not,” according to a SOH representative.

Mason also alleged that the reason for the county’s delay in working towards a ballot measure is that the board of supervisors intends to use the Modoc Medical Center, valued at an estimated $5 million, as collateral for a long-term bond sale.
SOH has also filed a complaint against the board of supervisors with District Attorney Gary Woolverton, who said he intended to meet with SOH representatives at an early date.

In its demand for action legal against the supervisors, SOH stated, in part:

“We request that you take appropriate legal action against the Modoc County elections official, board of supervisors and county counsel for violating California Election Code 9105 (a) and for the violation of civil rights of citizens in Modoc County who filed this request to circulate the proposed measure as of December 18, 2009.”

Snow Survey

The Modoc National Forest has conducted its first snow survey for the winter of 2009-2010. A roughly average amount of precipitation was found in the local mountains with snow fall amounts average to slightly above average. Water content was found to be average to slightly below average.

The Adin Mountain (Sweagert Flat) snow survey was completed on 1/28/10.  Snow depth was 34.4 inches compared to the long-term average of 28.2 inches.  Water content was 8.2 inches compared to the long-term average of 8.2 inches.

The Blue Lake Ranch snow survey was completed on 2/01/10.  Snow depth was 24.4 inches compared to the long-term average of 24.8 inches.  Water content was 6.2 inches compared to the long-term average of 7.2 inches.

The Cedar Pass snow survey was completed on 2/02/10.  Snow depth was 36.6 inches compared to the long-term average of 34.6 inches.  Water content was 9.2 inches compared to the long-term average of 10.5 inches.

The next survey will be conducted during the last week of February or the first week of March.

SOH vs. BOS

DA Woolverton Hopes AG Takes Over

Modoc County District Attorney Gary Woolverton has confirmed he received a complaint from the Save Our Hospital committee (SOH) alleging illegal infractions by the board of supervisors, its legal counsel and the elections office.

The SOH committee alleges that “Due to the lack of response from the Modoc County elections official, board of supervisors and county counsel, we feel they are violating the legal state and federal constitutional rights of residents of Modoc County by not allowing the citizens of Modoc County the right to vote upon a very important issue facing this county.”

Mike Mason, SOH chair, told the board on Feb. 2 that its attorney, John Kenny, was 30 days over due at that time in returning a written, impartial, legal description required for the ballot measure and that the board, its elections office and Kenny are in violation of state election laws.

Mason alleged that the reason for the county’s delay in working towards a ballot measure is that the board of supervisors intends to use the Modoc Medical Center, valued at an estimated $5 million, as collateral for a long-term bond sale.

At its Jan. 28 meeting, SOH members voted to file a complaint against Kenny with the State Bar of California, the state’s bar association. It is not known if the complaint has actually been filed.

“We have played fair and by the rules with the county, but they appear to be stringing us along and we need to take these steps to get a ballot on the healthcare district," the SOH committee charged at a recent meeting.

“I have reviewed their complaint and see their concerns,” Woolverton told the Modoc Independent News over the weekend.

“It appears after limited research based on what’s available to me, that I may not have jurisdiction. It all depends on how big a conflict I have.”

The conflict Woolverton refers to are the financial strings the board of supervisors holds over the district attorney’s office. While Woolverton is an elected official of the county and a constitutional officer, his and his staff’s salary and office expenses are paid by the county.

Woolverton said he intends to arrange a meeting at an early date with the SOH representatives who signed the complaint, along with Sheriff Mark Gentry, whose office has jurisdiction over an investigation.

“It may be that the Secretary of State and Attorneys General’s Office will have to be consulted,” Woolverton said, adding that “I hope the AG takes it over.”

-- Ray A. March

Modoc-gate

Woolverton Open to Investigation

One of the most common complaints from our bloggers is the lack of accountability by the Modoc County Board of Supervisors when it comes to taking responsibility for the misappropriation of nearly $20 million from the treasury. Another question has been, “When is the district attorney going to do something?”
   
The following question and answer session was conducted last week with DA Gary Woolverton, and in particular responds to the question of his jurisdiction and ability to investigate the county’s misuse of public monies.

Q. My understanding is you intend to run again for District Attorney. Is that so?

Woolverton: I am leaning in that direction.

Q. In regards to your possibly running again, you are aware that the board of supervisors and others are considered parties to the misappropriation of monies from the county treasury, are you not? Certainly one can anticipate the misappropriation is going to be a question you will asked in your campaign for reelection? How do you intend to answer it?

Woolverton: That’s a very complicated subject. You’re not the first person to raise the issue. We have not received any formal complaints that anyone has misappropriated money. We have received word-of-mouth from many sources. When this initially became a hot issue it went to the state Controllers’ Office, which referred it to the Attorney General’s Office, which has authority to (investigate) it. There was an agreement that was reached with the schools, and the Attorney General’s Office decided to put it on the back burner. No one of an official nature has filed anything with me concerning the misappropriation of money.

Q. Does the Attorney General’s position preclude you from making your own investigation of the misappropriation?

Woolverton: I don’t think it precludes me from going further. The only boss I have is the Attorney General. The district attorney is a constitutional officer. There is no supervision over the district attorney at the county level. Generally, if  the Attorney General opts not to investigate, we would at least work with them before we would take any independent action.

Q. You have confirmation from the state Controller’s Office that there was an investigation and a referral to the Attorney General?

Woolverton: Correct. We do have a letter from the chief counsel of the Controller’s Office. Yes, they did investigate and confirmed that the Attorney General’s Office has put it on a back burner.

Q. Then, you’re saying if the state Controller’s Office has looked into the misappropriation and the Attorney General has placed its investigation on hold because the schools are satisfied, that it’s a moot matter? If there is no victim, there is no crime?

Woolverton: Moot is a logical interpretation. I have not spoken with the deputy Attorney General who investigated. The next step, if it were to go further, would be to check with the Attorney General’s Office to see where they are going, such as what codes might have been violated.

Q. Has anyone filed a complaint of misappropriation with your office?

Woolverton: No one has brought any reports or anything so we could proceed forward. If we had a request for prosecution we would have to pursue an investigation through the appropriate police agency that would want to cooperate with us and move foreword.

Q. Presumably in this matter it would be the Modoc County Sheriff’s Office?

Woolverton: Yes. We don’t have an investigator. For us to investigate we have to go through the responsible police agency. The sheriff or police. They are our investigators. We have requested a full time investigator every year, through the board of supervisors, and they all say it’s a good idea, but it’s never appropriated.

Q. Sort of a Catch-22?

Woolverton: Yeah, it is.

Q. In effect, the board of supervisors would be paying for an investigator looking into an alleged misappropriation by them?

Woolverton: That’s probably true.

Q. Can a complaint come from a citizen?

Woolverton: Which would trigger a request from me to the appropriate police agency to look into it for me.

Q. Again, the sheriff’s office?

Woolverton: It’s kind of a knotty thing. The District Attorney’s staff is so short.

Q. Is it fair to say you are open to an investigation?

Woolverton: Yes, I am. I have to say yes. The mere fact if someone were to make a formal complaint and request an investigation, I would be mandated to investigate. I would not have a choice. Every complaint that comes to this office is given full consideration.

Editor’s Note: In response to what codes may apply to the Modoc County Board of Supervisors’ misappropriation of an estimated $20 million from the treasury, we found the following: Penal Code 424 and California Corporations Code 25401. Of interest is the fact that the Orange County Treasurer, his assistant and that county’s budget director, were all prosecuted under provisions of those two codes. It should be remembered that Orange County went bankrupt in 1994 and there are significant parallels between that county’s fiscal crisis and that of Modoc County.
-- Ray A. March