Supervisor Byrne Responds
To Criticisms of Modoc BOS
Editor’s Note: On Tuesday, Feb. 14 Sheriff Mike Poindexter and Auditor Darcy Locken went before the Modoc County Board of Supervisors and in prepared statements criticized the board for working in secrecy and excluding them from budget discussions. See previous blog post. The following is Supervisor Geri Byrne’s response to those criticisms. No other supervisor to date has come forward with public responses of their own.
From Supervisor Geri Byrne
“There are two sides to every story and only one side was presented in the letters to the board on Tuesday. Although they tried to say they represented department heads, there are just as many department heads unhappy with their side and their actions.
I am not going to get into a he said, she said, contest. That serves no purpose. Let's just say no one is blameless. They state in their letters that they were on the right course before and we are going backwards.
The fact of the matter is, if we had continued on that course, we would be bankrupt.
The 2010-2011 budget supposedly had the $1.5 million set aside for the bond payment but at the end of the year there was only $900,000 left in the 'set aside.'
The taxpayers as a whole are not in favor of a large borrowing. What the board and the CAO (Chester Robertson) are trying to do, is do things upfront (as an example the sale of buildings) to lower what we would need to borrow in order to lower the cost of financing.
We cannot afford to borrow the entire amount and if we finance and only partially fill the hole, the rate is much higher.
I do remember having a conversation with Darcy (Auditor Darcy Locken), but I remember it quite differently than she portrays. I tried to talk about working together civilly and cooperatively.
When I asked for that she asked for an example of her not doing so. I replied that her tone came across demeaning when we were on one of the conference calls. She replied that she meant to be demeaning. That in my mind is not truly trying to work with us. I have great respect for Darcy's talents, skills, intelligence and ability to do her job.
Yes, the sheriff's department had had substantial cuts. So have all the other departments in the county. So have almost all the other counties. Modoc was spending more than it had to spend. Income has been reduced and expenses have to be too.
Both the CAO and the assistant CAO voluntarily took pay cuts. That is something that no other department head has done. The consultant fees in the admin budget are there to help get us out of this mess.
For many issues, the bankruptcy firm helping with our insolvency issues is worth the nearly $500 an hour they get. However, there are many times that consultants working at 10 per cent of that cost can provide way more 'bang for our buck'. Our agenda item did not say to stop using the retainer. It just said to make sure that we were using it efficiently. Conference calls where we argue amongst ourselves were not an efficient use of that money.
I do agree that we need to work together, yet not try to do each other's jobs. The board and the CAO have developed a plan which they feel is in the best interests of the county. Are we willing to take input from others? Yes.
But are we willing for others to take over our job? No. Anyone wishing to have the thankless task of serving in a decision-making capacity can run for the Board of Supervisors. (And by the way, take a substantial pay cut in the process.)
As stated by law: ‘The board of supervisors is the legislative and executive body of county government. The supervisors pass all ordinances governing the county and are responsible for seeing that functions delegated to the county are properly discharged. They adopt the budget, set employee salaries and make determinations in personnel matters when there is no independent personnel board or civil service system."
42 comments:
Nice of Ms. Byrne to respond, however the fact that she and the rest of the board have allowed for less ongoing public input (budget committee is one example) and reduced the already almost nonexistent department head input is the crux of the matter.
In plain terms - they are being hypocrites. They say one thing yet do another.
Nothing different here than what Mike Maxwell and the rest did - try to control the public information.
Both new supervisors ran on having a more "open, honest, and transparent" government, yet what has been proven by the restrictions of effective public input says otherwise.
If the BOS had been doing things "up-front" all along, particularly with ongoing public budget committee meetings, we would not be having this discussion right now.
Geri I would like to beleive you but since the budget was developed under such extreme secrecy and then shoved down our throats with insufficient time or materials to study it for a response and you have been the main driving force of the recent move to more secrecy I have many doubts. Now we are told that some people have been told they are not welcome at BOS meetings.
You state "there are just as many department heads unhappy with their side and their actions." Those are the department heads we don't need. A department head that will discourage open discussion is useless and should be fired.
Secrecy in government ALWAYS BREEDS CORRUPTION.
I'd like to know why we pay that idiot Kenny if a different lawyer has to be paid just for Robertson's purposes, and the former D.A. at that? That guy can't be trusted any better than Kenny.
There were three or four days of extensive budget hearings open to the public. They went over each department, damn near line item by line item. It has been by far, the most informative budget hearing I've seen the Board do in quite some time. Information was gathered prior to the presentation, which is the same as any item. I don't understand how anyone can say this wasn't upfront and open to the public? All you had to do was attend and ask questions.
FACT-CHECK: Geri - The taxpayers as a whole are not in favor of ANY borrowing. What they are in favor of is:
1) Beginning now: An open and transparent process involving all elected officials, dept. heads, and citizen taxpayers who wish to attend using a public budget committee format with regularly scheduled meetings that cover all areas of the budget (no sacred cows).
2) This process should be covered by open meeting laws and have agendas posted and minutes taken.
Geri is wrong if she thinks the way things are being handled now shows "a willingness to take input from others," and she and the others on the BOS are, quite frankly (and this is the most charitable way to say this): In denial.
Until Modoc County actually implements these rather simple and verifiable procedures, we are doomed to continue as we have before – leaderless and pointing fingers, while we all grow another day older and sink deeper into debt.
More importantly here is that what the BOS are doing is actually against the Brown Act and is unethical. I know that it is messy and takes a long time to listen to us stupid public with our ignorant opinions, time you could better use conferring with each other and making decisions on spending OUR money. But putting all the cards on the table, the BOS sets the amount each department gets, the department heads should properly decide how to deliver their services within that budget, and it is all done while the PUBLIC observes. It is NOT your money, it is PUBLIC money, thus the public has a right to know.
Again, it is not that we think it would be nice to know, we have the RIGHT to know. Making decisions about even a special meeting (set for 2/22) with 3 supervisor signatures is very possibly a Brown Act violation. It is an agreement of more than two Supervisors, who are discussing public business (how to organize their Board) in private, not in public as is required.
This is wrong and so very tiresome to us, the Public. Sick and tired of Modoc doing everything wrong. Start with a County Counsel who will actually tell you the truth about the law to begin with.
Geri, thank you for answering. I must disagree with your assessment, however.
The Auditor and Sheriff, both elected officials, did not say they represented department heads; they clearly spoke for themselves and their offices. So your first paragraph is either a misunderstanding, or an attempt to misrepresent what had actually happened.
Granted, you may have felt that way, but that is not what they said.
Regarding your second claim, that "we would be bankrupt" had we not become more secretive; please provide documentation supporting that claim. Just saying it does not make it true.
I'm sure that the budget committee minutes will support your stance - so please, be open with the public and share this public information with us.
Regarding your claim that the taxpayers "as a whole are not in favor of a large borrowing;" this is almost certainly incorrect as well, because I have spoken to literally hundreds of taxpayers throughout the county that say, without any prodding by anyone, just the opposite. No borrowing is their preference. Perhaps if you had had actual open budget committee workshops and/or meetings with public involvement long before the actual budget hearings, then you would know that too.
But again, please provide the budget committee minutes or other data that will support your stance on borrowing and be open with the public, and share this public information with us as well. I look forward to seeing it soon.
Regarding your reaction to Auditor Locken's "tone of voice" over the telephone, and her alleged response - that she had “meant to sound demeaning” - although I was not there, I agree with her statement, because “demean” in this case means to "to humble," and that is what I believe you and most of the other BOS members need - a good dose of humility.
In the end, Geri, your actions speak louder than words; and rather than leading us towards a consensus that builds relationships and strengthens the fragile public trust, yours and most of the other board members actions since you have been elected have done just the opposite.
“How can people trust the harvest, unless they see it sown?
~ Mary Renault
Calling the special meeting was done exactly as required by law and not a Brown Act violation. Two members signed on to the agenda item. The third member was called by the clerk of the board to ask if they would be willing to sign on to call a special meeting. That is how it is prescribed in law and this is how it was done.
As the earlier person stated, we did have an open, very detailed budget hearing before adopting the budget. I know of no other county (and I have asked around) that has the public involved in the initial fact gathering meetings with the department heads. I am so tired of people mistakenly asserting that we are meeting in secret or violating the Brown Act. Please check with other counties and municipalities. Budget hearings by law are open to the public and we did that and we will again. Just as other counties do and as two attorneys have told me is legal, acceptable and best practice to do so, the information gathering meetings are not part of the public process.
We are listening to department heads and have received several good ideas from them. We are not, however, abrogating our duties and responsibilities to other elected officials.
Geri likes to selectively quote law like the rest of them but always leaves out the parts they don't like or they claim an interpretation that defies reason. Along with setting policy and passing ordinances they are supposed to do it in compliance with state and federal laws, that's the part they never mention.
I got a different take on what the sheriff and auditor were objecting to: Being excluded from discussions that directly affected their job.
Supervisor Geri Byrne tried to justify secret budget committee meetings by saying all of our neighboring counties do budget research the same way - secret committee meetings. I checked on that and found it to be incorrect. Even if other counties did budget committee meetings in secret why do we need to do that? Secrecy when dealing with other people's money is very atractive to the dishonest, just like leaving keys in the car at a mall. Now you add in-law relatives to the mix and there is no way we should feel safe when budget meetings are secret and the public is not given the state required time or materials to examine the budget proposal.
Hi Mrs. Byrne, thank you for taking the time to respond. I also would like to personally thank you for taking the time do the “thankless task” of serving the public as one of our county supervisors. That does not, of course, mean to say that I agree with you in this instance.
Unfortunately, because you, the new CAO, and the board majority have decided to do most things in relative secrecy and without public input or records, the public lacks the information to verify if what you are saying is true.
Regarding the CAO and assistant CAO voluntarily taking pay cuts, that does not show leadership on your part, In fact, just the opposite.
Had there been any true leadership from you and the rest of the BOS, as the "legislative and executive body of county government" whose job it is to "set employee salaries and make determinations in personnel matters," you would have taken the lead in unilaterally reducing expenditures and freezing and/or reducing wages and all hiring long ago.
In addition, you would have taken quick and decisive action regarding the county librarian, who overspent her budget by deficit spending, and therefore wasted hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars and inflated the salary schedules without the funds to continue paying for these expenditure increases; this, despite the fact that she was told not to do this years ago.
So, until you address this obvious lack of transparency to the public on matters that the taxpayers have every right to be a party to, and until you show the public that you can “make [taxpayer appropriate] determinations in personnel matters” by taking disciplinary action on department heads that deficit spend or misspend public funds right under your noses, your credibility among the taxpayers is nil.
“He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else.”
~ Benjamin Franklin
The Special Meeting of the BOS on February 22nd further casts a shadow on the integrity of this Board. The choice of location for that meeting calls to question who is it that they are trying to keep from the meeting. The upstairs chamber of the Board room is not ADA compliant, and as I understand it no longer supports the audio system that the public often utilizes to listen to the meetings. The view from the outside is that they are further trying to hold back room deals that the public cannot hear live, and where there is limited accessibility to some of the frequent participants that might have health issues.
Ms. Byrne you completely missed the point. Back room deals are what led this county to it's demise. Former BOS and CAO bullied the Auditor and Treasurer into submission. This Auditor and Sheriff won't be bullied, and hats off to them for bringing these issues into an open forum.
Thanks 5:23 PM. Well stated. I would add only that they don't even comply with the meeting rules they established for themselves. If those rules were followed the meetings would proceed much better instead of insults and arguments wasting time.
These three county supervisors sure try to keep things simple and expediant. Trouble is, democracy is not a simple or expediant form of government. In this system public involvement is crucial or we get what we got. Now our new officials want to bring back those past officials and pay them more of our tax dollars as advisors. How can one get good advice from someone that totaly screwed up everything? No changes, just different faces.
We all should be glad to have one supervisor trying to stay informed by reading and occasionally commenting on this blog. The others seem to hide their collective heads in the sand. All may not agree with Geri but she's the only one that ever communicates here with us commoners. The others don’t even pretend to want to hear from the ordinary resident. This blog is wide open to anyone and if they can’t figure out how to turn on the county furnished computer and navigate here they need to learn. This self imposed ignorance they perpetuate needs to end and they need to come out of hiding and listen to all, not just what they want to hear.
Some of our county supervisors don't seem to realize that they are not the supreme authority in the county. They share it with other elected officials and all are subordinate to the public. In the past years officials elected to treasurer and auditor have relinquished that authority to the BOS by their failure to exercise the authority given them to facilitate the necessary checks and balances.
Geri, you say that there are many dept. heads that are not unhappy with the way things are. How can you possibly know that when, for years, the dept. heads were afraid to say anything because so many people were being persecuted, fired and belittled publicly for daring to oppose the BOS on anything they did. If you are to deny that truism you will never know how they really feel.
Addressing the stated concerns about the backroom secret ways decisions seem to be made now is what geri should be adressing but, like a true politician, she responds as if the concerns were about the amount of money cut. She and the other three need to face reality: we've all had our fill of secret backroom politics with twisted, phony excuses for it. The public citizen is not your enemy so quit treating us like we are.
Geri makes a good effort regarding at least trying to communicate via this blog, for which credit is due.
With that said, however, her contention that the “public hearings” are an appropriate amount of public input given our financial situation and everyone it involves misses the mark. The years preceding Geri's election brought an abundance of voices asking collectively that the budget priorities begin early and often - and more importantly, with ongoing public input.
History shows us that you do not get the much needed public input with just the budget hearings that are at the end of the process - by then it is simply too late, particularly given our current fiscal situation.
Hence the budget committee meetings. Not the "informational meetings" with department heads often quoted by Geri (what are now incorrectly called "budget committee") meetings. These meetings should be ongoing throughout each year with all of the department heads and elected officials included in the process. But apparently the county is abandoning this little used practice already.
But the real “standing committee” budget meetings were meant to be open to the public and ongoing throughout the year, to address the ever-changing concerns as they arose – before they became a $20 million elephant-in-the-room. But Geri changed all that. Not because it was the right thing to do for the taxpayers – but because it was the easiest thing to do for the committee members.
But just as a horse needs to be put in front of the cart to take you where you want to go, these "information meetings" need guidance from the public, in order to take the public where it wants to go.
In other words, if you have these “informational meetings” before the public input - or in our case almost without any public input – the department heads and the supervisors are making decisions on what they think the public wants, and not on what the public tells them their priorities are, because the public is not allowed input until the department heads, board supervisors, and the elected officials (if they are included) have their say first.
In effect the method that Geri and the BOS are using now to develop the budget has the “tail wagging the dog,” because public spending is being determined before public input is being asked for to shape those decisions and form the priorities that govern public spending priorities.
The Brown Act does cover what the intent of having public meetings is all about, which this and past boards have all but disregarded in their self-proclaimed “I won’t let others do my job!” or what have you. Poppy-cock.
The common sense thing is to “allow the public to address the covered board at regular or committee meetings on any item in the agency's jurisdiction not addressed by the agency at an earlier open meeting” just as the Brown Act wording calls for…(§ 54954.3(a)).
Until Geri and this board allows significant public input before they and others have decided the budget priorities in “informational meetings” without meaningful guidance from the taxpayers, then the taxpayers simply have more of the same: which is the few (the BOS et el.) deciding for the many (the taxpayers) what is good for us.
And we have seen where that has gotten us, thus far. Do we really want to let them do it all over again?
“If the tail really was smarter, then the tail would be wagging the dog.”
~ Anonymous
Mary Renault. I can answer your question about minutes of the budget committee. There are none. I requested to see those minutes last year and was told they kept no minutes or records of the activities of that committee. That is why I keep refering to it as secret meetings rather than closed door. The committee has had meetings this year in secret and now the county lawyer states that the BOS clerk can change committeee disignations as she sees fit without BOS action first in order to cause the committee to fit the way they want things done rather than the other way - the cart pulling the horse.
Supervisor Byrne doesn't seem to want to respond to the main concern being expressed: government secrecy and acountability. Where is the meeting anouncement for 2/22 posted?
This is not a personality conflict, as Ms. Byrne, Mr. Allan, Ms. Cantrall and Ms. Stockton would have us think.
This is a conflict over procedures.
Geri Byrne, Dave Allen, and Pat Cantrall want to continue their procedures that limit public input. No matter what they say now, their actions speak volumes in this regard.
Most of the public, and now two elected official with enough community conscience to speak out want open and honest procedures that allows for more public input.
I know which set of procedures got us into this mess, and I want none of it.
With many thanks from a weary and frustrated taxpayer: to Auditor Locken and Sheriff Mike Poindexter, for having the wherewithal to actually stand up and say that how things are going is not in the taxpayers best interests, and to tell the other elected officials "I have nothing to hide, let's see if you do."
"As a leader, you have to not only do the right thing, but be perceived to be doing the right thing. A consequence of seeking a leadership position is being put under intense public scrutiny, being held to high standards, and enhancing a reputation that is constantly under threat."
-- Jeffrey Sonnenfeld and Andrew Ward in 'Firing Back'
Supervisor Byrne.
You and the other supervisors need to rethink what you call keeping the public informed. After all of the past problems caused by secrecy and now public knowledge of family connections within our county government (nepotism) you and the other supervisors should be avoiding anything resembling secrecy but you seem to look for any excuse to keep the public out of the fact finding process. With so many family members working for the county, Mr. Robertson shouldn't even be considering so much secrecy about our money. Now we are told of secret meetings with the old cronies that caused this mess and even paying them for their time. I don't recall any mention of this in any CAO reports to the BOS.
SECRECY IS THE ENEMY OF DEMOCRACY, THE FRIEND OF TOTALITARIASM.
We want to be allowed to be involved in the fact finding process used to create a budget in a manner timely enough to have input. Now we are told after the fact and no information about how these financial decisions were made and no time to make any changes even if needed. In short, it was shoved down our throats.
The meeting notice is posted the same place that all meeting notices are posted. That is at http://www.modoccounty.us/index_files/Page1674.htm .
I have tried to address the issue of so called 'secret' meetings several times but to no avail. I am in the process of surveying counties and so far all of the counties I have heard from do their budget process just as we do. No decisions are made in these pre meetings. The public is not included and should not be every time the CAO meets with department heads or a board member. These fact gathering sessions are just that- a sitdown with admin and department heads where the chair and vice chair are invited to take part. The proposed budget is available on line prior to the OPEN and NOTICED budget hearings. Nothing is done in secret or behind closed doors. Formal minutes are not taken as they are not formal meetings. I took notes on my spreadsheet as we went along. Others involved took their own notes.
As I have said before, I did my due diligence and am confident through legal opinions from two attorneys and practices of other counties that what we are doing is legal and correct. I am sure there are those on here that disagree but if they have a legal opinion from an attorney stating otherwise, please provide such.
Hey anonymous at February 17, 2012 4:06 PM where did you hear that the 2/22 meeting would be held upstairs? The anouncement states that it will be at the rgular place.
OOPS!! Just checked the BOS web site for the latest 2012 listing of standing committees. The budget committee is still listed as a standing committee with chair and vice chair as standing members. Now how do you reduce that to a "fact finding group", not a committeee? You can't have it both ways and the Brown act requires all meetings of all standing committees to be open. The chair and vice chair meet with the CAO and dept. heads and even though that is the group described as the standing budget committee you say it is not. You keep refering to other counties but no other county does the budget research the way we do. Please name any county that has their budget committee meeting in secret? So far you have mentioned fact finding meetings between dept. heads and CAO as not being public in other counties but that is not the same as the budget committee we have. Most counties don't have a budget committee and the BOS relies on the CAO/CEO to make regular, detailed reports that are public. The budget committee here was formed because the BOS didn't totally trust the CAO to do "the right thing". Now that we have the committee you must comply with the open meeting rules of the Brown act. You are starting to sound too much like a politician: You double speak rather than answer the question asked. You respond about how other counties hold informal fact finding meetings but the question was about a standing committee.
Just a small part of the actual record of Supervisor Byrne, the BOS, and transparent government and public involvement:
First, Geri Byrne rightfully states that "Modoc's problems will take lots of good minds working together in a positive way to solve."
Geri Byrne -
April 3, 2011 11:01 AM
***
So, how has Geri’s follow through actually been on this noble idea? Let’s take a look:
Taken from various public comments via this blog and at BOS meetings:
“Geri, when is the first special/public meeting going to be held on the Budget priorities/bond/loan/COP's issues?"
This never happened. Apparently Geri does not think that the "good minds working together in a positive way" includes the public.
***
"Why hasn't the ad-hoc committee consisting of the MNG and others been reporting monthly per the board policy?"
This never happened either. Geri doesn't even follow BOS policy on this, much less common sense and her own "good minds working together" mantra.
***
"Since the reporting is mandated by board policy or rules... why hasn't this citizens committee been allowed to be on the agenda?"
Any explanation?"
April 4, 2011 10:55 PM
Again, the MNG never got to be heard. Geri and her cohorts violate the BOS rules again.
***
"Ms. Byrne, as far as hearing from folks with suggestions, your comment implies that no suggestions have been forthcoming, which has certainly not been the case. The BOS has an ad-hoc citizens committee that was formed months ago, yet has not been allowed to participate in any way, simply because the actions of the BOS and/or whoever determines what finally gets on the agenda show that they don’t want public input. Why haven’t they been allowed to report or participate?”
Nothing happened here either. Public request ignored again.
***
"Also, posters on this blog, as well as Mr. Hopkins, Mr. Demsher and others have mentioned for some time that an interim CAO that does not have a local bias might serve the public needs more effectively. Was this considered at all? If not, why not?"
April 16. 2011
Again, this public input was never even publicly considered by Geri and the BOS.
***
“What Modocer's want to see is this transparency happen more so at the board meetings...That is the supervisor's place of work, and where this transparency and collaborative public discourse needs to take place."
Has anyone heard of any collaboration involving Geri's desire for "good minds working together in a positive way" at any BOS meeting? Me neither.
***
"Have a well thought-out and well described agenda item, have the discussion at a public meeting, get input from the public, and then make a decision."
Anyone seen this process at work in Modoc? Geri said it was going to happen - see top of page:
"good minds working together in a positive way"
Geri Byrne -
April 3, 2011 11:01 AM
***
In the end, particularly since Auditor Locken and Sheriff Poindexter have been openly excluded from the decision making process on the public’s behalf, Geri's promise of "good minds working in a positive way" depends entirely on if you agree with her and her cronies, and not if you are a member of the public, a department head, or an elected official.
No wonder folks are still concerned about openly speaking out.
“People may doubt what you say, but they will believe what you do.”
~Lewis Cass
Geri, regarding the budget committee, there have been several citations of the California Attorney General's position regarding what makes a committee "ad-hoc" (not normally open to the public) or "standing" (open to the public).
Here it is again:
"AG: The analysis of whether an advisory committee is a “legislative body” subject to the Brown Act, California’s open meetings act, is not entirely straightforward. The relevant provision states that a legislative body includes:
‘A commission, committee, board, or other body of a local agency, whether permanent or temporary, decision-making or advisory, created by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of a legislative body. However, advisory committees, composed solely of the members of the legislative body that are less than a quorum of the legislative body are not legislative bodies, except that standing committees of a legislative body, irrespective of their composition, which have a continuing subject matter jurisdiction, or a meeting schedule fixed by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of a legislative body are legislative bodies for purposes of this chapter.’
The budget committee obviously was created by “formal action of the board” and obviously has "a continuing subject matter jurisdiction" and therefore is a "legislative bodies for purposes of this chapter."
Geri, you can get all of the online attorney opinions from out of state lawyers you want - but the budget committee was and should still be a standing committee and open to public.
Why? Because that is what the law says, and that is in the public's best interests.
And here's a favorite quote:
"Modoc's problems will take lots of good minds working together in a positive way to solve."
-- Geri Byrne - April 3, 2011 11:01 AM
Anonymous at 12:48, You beat me to the punch by publishing that info again. They like to misquote that paragraph by placing a period after "are not legislative bodies," and not include the rest of the sentence. Even lawyer Kenny has done that to help them justify secret meetings. The sentence continues after a comma "except that standing committees of a legislative body," --- and so on to make it clear that a budget committee is a standing committee open to the public. More doublespeak.
Reply to February 20, 2012 11:08 AM
The first posting of the agenda went out via e-mail on February 16, 2012 at 10:57 a.m. It was listed as being at Room #203, at 204 S. Court Street.
E-mails were exchanged between County Employee's questioning the change and the audio feed.
February 17, 2012 8:58 a.m. the Clerk of the Board sent out another e-mail with the change of location due to a request.
I'm sure that you could probably request a copy of those e-mails from the Clerk of the Board to substantiate the information.
When will this BOS realize that trying to reach a "consensus" on a non-action agenda item (discussion or information) is exactly the same as taking action on that item, and thus violates the Brown Act?
It is against the law to take action on agenda items that have not been noticed for the required period of time. Making it up at or outside of the board meeting just doesn't cut it.
Which brings up another meeting issue: Serial Meetings.
Most likely, the real topic of the upcoming "special" BOS meeting on the 22nd (to vote Bullock out) was arrived at by "collective concurrence;" namely, these three sups - a majority of Byrne, Allan, and Cantrall - reached an agreement amongst themselves (took action outside of a public meeting) to decide to take action at another, upcoming public meeting.
This is what the Brown Act says about this kind of behavior:
"A: The serial meeting rule in the Brown Act provides that “any use of direct communication, personal intermediaries, or technological devices that is employed by a majority of the members of the legislative body to develop a collective concurrence as to action to be taken on an item by the members of the legislative body is prohibited.” Govt. Code Section 54952.2(b). The attempt to develop a collective concurrence is therefore a necessary element of a prohibited serial meeting."
Odds are this is what they did in order to try and overturn their own majority vote of just 2 months ago.
Yet another indication of how these bullies treat those who do not agree with their policies.
Bottom line...........the BOS members have minimal business experience, none out in the 'real world' and they are intimidated by their on ignorance. They are frightened of an open meeting for fear a member of the public will ask a question and they won't know how to intelligently answer. One member even threatens to pull a gun. If that isn't fear born of ignorance I don't know what it is.
Supervisor Byrne,
I don't believe that the Sheriff or the Auditor stated that they were representing any Department Heads.
Karen Stockton would probably be classified as one of the Department Heads that is "unhappy with their side and their actions". Health Services also has a couple of others that are under her that probably are "unhappy with their side and their actions".
Talk to the departments that were furloughed, I'm betting they weren't very happy with the BOS and the CAO. And not everyone was furloughed, only some departments. The CAO and the ACAO you stated chose to take a furlough. I'm assuming then that you must have rewritten the CAO's contract for the cut as he is an "At-Will" employee under contract.
The "tool kit" created a budget increase of 60 plus thousand, which would have possibly saved a furlough. Now we're finding out that he's hired the former DA and a former Modoc County Auditor, which must be being paid from these funds? And as these are contracts, I'm sure that both came to the board for approval? Tedrick did, however I can't find Wolverton.
Also, you state that there was a $1.5 million set aside, but at the end of the year it was only $900,000. Correct me if I'm wrong, but would it not have taken a board action to decide to spend or move those funds if they were used for various budgets? When a budget is changed by an increase/decrease in revenue/expenditure does it not take a 4/5 vote. You were on the board last spring when that $600K went else where. Is there a mis-allocation of funds again? Do we know where the $600K went? This all falls under this current BOS, and what your saying is that the budget was not adhered to and that $600K was spent. Where?
One question that the MNG came to the BOS with a couple of years ago was to negotiate a "write-off" with the State first, then that would determine what if any amount would need to be "borrowed". Isn't the sale of the buildings a little premature, as you don't even know what the total balance is? Or do you know, and the negotiations have already taken place with the State and you haven't disclosed that to the public? Then there is the question of the price that CAO Robertson is saying he can get for them. From who? Can we see a copy of the appraisals? Where were the comps taken from? Are they going out to bid? Isn't it a policy that they would have to go out to open bid? Is it even legal to sell those buildings?
And Supervisor Byrne, you are sadly mistaken about the CAO and ACAO being the only ones who have voluntarily taken a pay cut. I believe the Sheriff and Auditor both forwent pay in the form of a raise for the Auditor, and the entire salary for the Sheriff in the first few months that they were appointed to their current positions as their predecessor's fled from the County with their retirements and buyouts intact. I believe that the Sheriff still doesn't receive any benefits either. You can add yourself to the list of individuals who probably weren't willing to take a pay cut either. If your insured through the county that cost alone would make up for at least one furlough, maybe 1.5.
And finally your reference to "For many issues, the bankruptcy firm helping with our insolvency issues is worth the nearly $500 an hour they get. However, there are many times that consultants working at 10 per cent of that cost can provide way more 'bang for our buck'." Are you looking for quantity or quality? Though the hourly rate of a consultant may me less, is the efficiency greater? I see little to have faith in, in regards to the consultants that you've hired thus far. Your choice in former DA Wolverton, and former Auditor Tedrick give the voters little confidence in your ability to choose consultants. Though you might think they are the "'best bank for our buck;" rest assured the masses probably don't agree.
We, the public, are expected to blindly accept these secret budget meetings as being the best for all. There are too many family and long time friendships ties in our county government to accept that premise.
We are expected to have unquestioning trust in Mr. Robertson and friends and ask no questions. When pigs fly!
In God we trust. All others please do the public's business in public.
The BOS has a special meeting for Feb. 22 to "reorganize the board of supervisors," whatever that means.
As usual, the requesting parties do not follow their own rules regarding agenda posting and action items, despite written assurances from the board clerk that these rules would be followed.
In this case, as in all others, it is required for the requesting party to "LIST REASONS WHY THE ACTION IS REQUESTED" and also to "Give sufficient detail so that it is clear why the action is necessary," but this information that is meant to inform the public of what the county supervisors are doing and why they are doing it is left blank.
This is a quote from the board clerk from almost a year ago regarding her assurance this would not happen again:
Stephanie Northrup said...
To 12:17
“I apologize for the misconception that all five Supervisors placed this item on the agenda. I had two of them ask if I would add this, Supervisors Byrne and Allan, and it probably would have been better suited to put their names instead of the Board as a whole.
As for your second part, I didn't put anything under the explanation because I was not given any more information than is provided on the agenda request and I didn't want to put words into anyone's mouth. But you are right, it should be filled out completely, and I will make sure that next time it is. Again I apologize.”
April 11, 2011 2:16 PM
So, why aren't the "REASONS WHY THE ACTION IS REQUESTED" and also the "Give sufficient detail so that it is clear why the action is necessary" portions of this form filled out?
Was the board clerk told not to? Doesn’t this violate the boards own written procedure that requires an adequate explanation as to why the board (or other requester) wants to have consideration and/or action of any item placed on the public agenda?
Having poorly written, or in this case, completely missing information on the agenda request form not only hides from the public what public business the Board of Supervisors wants to do and why they want to do it , it also continues the past practice of keeping information from the public that would not only keep them informed, but also allow the public to ask reasonable questions on this item.
Perhaps the folks at the First Amendment Coalition could help answer these questions:
http://firstamendmentcoalition.org
Phone: (415) 460-5060
Please note: the complaint is not about the subject of the agenda item itself, per se, but rather about having the BOS adhere to the law and do the public's business in public.
This agenda request should be pulled until it can be properly filled out per the boards own policies as well as to meet the spirit, if not the legal requirements of the Brown Act and open meeting provisions.
This Feb. 22nd agenda request in its current form not only violates the spirit of open government for the people, but it is also a direct contradiction of the board clerks assurance to the public that she made on April 11, 2001, where she stated that agenda item request forms would be “filled out completely, and I will make sure that next time it is.”
This special BOS meeting on Feb. 22 is confusing and lacks the appropriate amount of information with enough specificity for the public to know what is going on; i.e., what specific action is to be considered and voted upon, and in particular, why the action is needed, especially at a "special meeting."
If, as it has been said, that in fact the meeting is to have a vote (to take action) on removing Bullock as chairman, then why isn't that listed? The way it is being done seems underhanded, to say the least.
And if the action to be taken is specifically to address action taken at a previous meeting (voting in Bullock as chairman) then this Feb. 22 meeting agenda should not be for some nebulous thing such as "to take action to re-organize the board," it should be, according to the BOS Rules of Procedure, a "Motion to Reconsider."
Per the BOS policies:
* Motion to Reconsider *
"Any member of the Board who votes in the majority on a question, as well as any member who was absent, is eligible to make a motion to reconsider. A motion to reconsider shall be in order during the meeting at which the action to be reconsidered took place provided members of the public in attendance during the original action are still present in the Board chamber. In all other cases, motions for reconsideration must be placed on a future agenda for action. A motion to reconsider shall require a majority vote. A motion to reconsider, if lost, shall not be renewed nor shall any subject be a second time reconsidered within twelve (12) months except by a 4/5ths vote of the Board."
In other words, the BOS took a vote (to make Bullock chairman) and some members didn't like the outcome, so their own rules allow them a one-time shot to reconsider that vote within 12 months, unless 4/5ths of the members want to reconsider it again.
So the question becomes: Why don't Byrne, Allan, and Cantrall have the integrity to actually follow their own rules, because what they are actually doing is reconsidering the previously taken vote to elect Bullock as chairman?
And since the Board Clerk is responsible for enforcing these Rules of Procedure, then she should have told these board members who requested this agenda item that it was not worded correctly or with enough information to inform the public.
The Board Clerk should then have told them that what they were requesting as an action item was specifically a “Motion to Reconsider” and the agenda item should show the specific board action that these members wanted to reconsider – for example the vote taken to elect Bullock chairman – with the date of the meeting that the particular vote being reconsidered was acted upon, ond who voted for it.
Reconsidering previous actions is allowed, but why in the world should the public have to try and guess in this case?
The public deserves to know from its elected officials exactly what actions they are proposing to take, and the specific action items that were previously voted upon needs to be listed on the agenda so the public knows exactly what these elected public official are going to be voting on.
To 12:29 and 3:54...........You are correct about the Board Clerk's responsibility in ensuring items on the agenda have all the proper/legal verbage. Not happening in Modoc. BOS members are overpowering her duties, plus she is young and inexperienced and apparantly doesn't avail herself of years of knowledge that her fellow clerks will readily share. Another instance of that "we know everything, don't ? us" attitude that so many in Modoc seem to have. Ignorance breeds fear and fear in government isn't working in Modoc.
Ironic how unspecified rumors about official conduct can be used by Cantrall, Byrne, and Allan to remove a county official (Bullock) who is accused of doing the exactly the same thing.
Do as we say, not as we do...
And Cantrall, the bloviated hypocrite, actually has the nerve to cite that anybody making such charges needs to do it right and put the charges on a board agenda...But wait!...Where in the hell were the charges against Jeff???
Doesn't anybody else in Modoc see what’s wrong with this picture?
If Supervisor Byrne and the other supervisors wanted to further damage public trust in our elected officials they did a good job today of destroying any public trust and hope they may have gained in the last two years. The special meeting was used as a platform to make unsubstantiated acusations and inuendo against Bullock. No comments were necessary but Cantrall and Allen used it as a way to make vague acusations but never would explain. Nearly everyone in the standing room only audience loudly expressed displeasure with the way the meeting was used to put somebody down in front of the public and furnish no proof of any illegal or immoral activity. It seems Jeff asked too many questions and demanded that too many people do the job they were hired to do.
As a grand finale they elected Cantrall as the new chairperson. Now they have a chairperson that commonly uses threats of "I'll blow his head off", and other intimidating statements in public. So much for any openness or transparency from this BOS. They will now accellarate back room deals and secret meetings. They made the worst choice possible.
Todays BOS meeting was a sham. The question is who is running the County. It would appear that CAO Robertson is at the center of the controversy by Cantrall's remark that "we all swore to support Chester" as well as the comment of "support him 100%". What exactly does that sworn support mean? Does it mean that irregardless of his actions or lack thereof, you will support him.
A little over two years ago Supervisor Cantrall led the charge to fire Mark Charleton. Apparently he didn't get the same sworn support. Whether he was the right man for the job or not is debatable, however he brought to light the debt, and presented an outlined plan to start the restoration of the treasury. The group on 4th Street, which consisted of Roads, Environmental Health and Ag., led the charge to remove him. Supervisor Cantrall supported those department heads 100% and if memory serves me correctly put an agenda item on that in effect called the board to cancel Mr. Charleton's contract. Then who turns up as the CAO but Mr. Rudometkin, who was also the head of the Road Dept. Then an election year hit, Byrne and Allan won, and Bryne who really "disliked" Rudometkin decided that she would lead the charge to get rid of him, and thus the hiring of CAO Robertson.
Supervisor Cantrall listened to two open letters last week regarding a lack of transparency and conflict with their hired CAO. Apparently being the Sheriff or Auditor of a County is not enough to persuade the Supervisors that all is not well. What does it take? Apparently the BOS prefer those that know how to lay asphalt and plow snow. The Sheriff who is sworn to serve and protect the citizens of this County doesn't bear as much weight as the asphalt guys? The Auditor who is elected by the County to safe guard the funds, and provide the checks and balances bears no voice. However, the one who has zero liability in this, CAO Robertson, has the strongest voice of all. He is hired by the BOS to do a job, that doesn't mean he's hired to do their job of running the County.
Most disconcerting of all is the fact that obviously this County is in the hands of a CAO that has little experience, doesn't meet the minimum posted job qualifications, and obviously has the power to restructure a board that has been elected by the voters. This board showed by its actions today that they have little regard for the voice of the voters and tax payers of this County.
On Tuesday the BOS elected to return to the old methods of intimidation, bullying, death threats and lies to run the county by electing the champion of intimidation as chair of the board. It was a shamefull display of absolute disregard for the public and honest government. Before they did that they had to publicly trash Mr. Bullock with vague acusations without details. Just when some of us thought there may be some hope, the BOS threw it all out the window with this action to return to the old ways that caused the financial mess we are in.
There will now be no possibility of county employees speaking out. They will very quickly be told to keep quiet or be fired. We've been thrown back twenty years to total dishonest secret government doing special favors for friends and family with our money. Now we know why they tried to hold this meeting in the little room at the courthouse with no recording equipment and little room for spectators. We can now expect to hear "By gawd I'll blow your head off" to anyone daring to disagree with the chairperson of the BOS. To disagree with Robertson is now considered sacrilege and not allowed under any circumstance.
Byrne wrote "...are we willing for others to take over our job? No."
Hard to believe that when she insists on Robertson being all things and unquestionable. As long as you keep the public only informed and not included in the process you will always be suspect. Telling us what has been done and then asking for public input when it's too late to make changes and withholding information (super secret budget meetings) is not the same as allowing public participation. You people don't even want county auditor participation or input from our sheriff. SHAME on you for what you did at the special meeting. If I can help with recall efforts I'm available.
my advice to anyone in Modoc interested in a recall election......call the Secretary of State for all of the legal filing requirements etc. You need the advice of people who know, people with experience.
Post a Comment