Editorial
An “Unbecoming” Star Chamber
By Ray A. March
"Drawing on my fine command of the language, I said nothing."
-- Robert Benchley
If only Supervisor Patricia Cantrall had such humility and humor as Robert Benchley.
Instead, she lets the gavel go to her head and flies forth with surely what must be “conduct unbecoming.”
But, we leave that judgment to Dave Allan, her fellow supervisor, who offered “conduct unbecoming“ as the reason for knocking Jeff Bullock off the chair of the Modoc County Board of Supervisors without even defining the meaning of such a damaging description.
So Dave, tell us, in your opinion are these following utterances from Cantrall considered “conduct unbecoming” a supervisor?
“You, sir, have called the CAO everything but a white man.” That racist accusation by Cantrall was aimed at an unidentified man in the audience after she took the chair vacated by Bullock.
How about this one?
"All I ever said to you was take a deeper inhale of my cigarette smoke and maybe you'll drop dead, and maybe that's not a bad idea." The object of this life-threatening remark was Ron Rutledge, a regular board attendee and thorn who relies on an oxygen tank for breathing.
Cantrall let loose with these notable quotes in the space of a Modoc minute. Just think what she might have achieved if she had had more time.
Of course, one might argue Cantrall’s quotes were among the very first words that slipped her lips after assuming the chair of the Modoc County Board of Supervisors and are only two examples.
Therefore, one could argue, they may not qualify as sufficient evidence to purge her from the chair a'la Bullock for “conduct unbecoming.”
Then, no one stood up and gave Bullock or the unbelieving audience at that infamous meeting on Feb. 14 the slightest suggestion of what he was guilty of beyond Allan’s “conduct unbecoming.”
We never thought we would come to Bullock’s defense, but in a round about way that’s what we are doing when we say the Board of Supervisors was star chamber all the way on this one.
95 comments:
Bullock got removed due to questioning the CAO about the Auditor not being included in the mid-year budget reviews. He happened to do it in front of the Road Dept., and they complained. Though they were the first ones to speak up against hiring Chester, it would appear they've since mended the fence. In this County those that speak the truth or question the illogical actions of the Board and the CAO find themselves being thrown to the murky depths of character assassination.
Cantrall is not fit to be the Chair of the Board, however she was the path that would cause the most distraction when Byrne, Allan, and Robertson chose her. Buy her lunch, sweet talk her, and she'll bend to your will, charm the socks off her and she's yours. She's but a pawn in the game. I suspect though that she is one of five pawns, Bullock was just the first to be sacrificed. Who pray tell do you think is the Chess Master? My money would be on Chester. The man child is brilliant, he has four experienced grown adults fawning for his attention, and bending to his every whim. Watch out each and everyone of you Board members, your only one ill maneuvered move away from being the next sacrificed pawn.
Cantrall conducts the BOS meetings like it is club Cantrall. She uses a lot of time just blathering about her personal opinions and wishes and interupts speakers with comments that are often out of line and allows others to inteupt too often. She takes advantage of the captive audience to express her personal views quite often. I think 9:06 is correct also.
What is most interesting is what the CAO is not telling us, and the Auditor and Treasurer are.
As I understood it, the Auditor basically stated that the County Treasury, not including the school and special district funds, has made about a $13 million dollar turn-around, from -$4.9 million when this mess first started, to +$8 million as of today.
Why this is interesting is because this means a vastly improved bargaining position for the county taxpayers with the state regarding the illegally borrowed funds, which CAO Robertson, Byrne, Allan, and Cantrall have decided we taxpayers did not deserve to hear about.
So instead of squashing public information such as the bankruptcy attorney's legal opinion regarding Modoc's potential to negotiate effectively with the state, the taxpayers need to get CAO Robertson, Byrne, Allan, Cantrall, Tedrick, Dederick and the rest of the bunch that are keeping things from the public out of the "control the information" and "let's borrow our way out of this mess" cabal.
This borrowing path is not in the taxpayers best interest anymore, if it ever was in the first place.
Instead, let's get more open discussion by all of the elected officials that are now being ignored, listen to legal advice from the "stay out of bankruptcy" attorney regarding negotiating with the state, and follow through on the performance bond insurance claim and the legal action against the awful audit company that the taxpayers have filed a lawsuit against.
This is the type of "multi-pronged" approach that is in the taxpayers best interest - not the "behind closed door" borrowing deals being crafted by CAO Robertson, Byrne, Allan, Cantrall, and the other cronies "for the greater good of the taxpayer," and yet for some reason, they are doing it behind the taxpayers backs.
That era of "open and transparent government" needs to end right now.
Well said 1:11 PM, well said. You bring up very valid points, and we all need to take notice of those points.
Saying it though won't bring action. What would be your thoughts on how to get this information out to the taxpayers to apply the pressure needed to alter the direction that the current CAO and board are taking?
How about buying a full page ad in the newspaper? No, NOT THAT newspaper!!!!!
1:11 PM, Find someone or several someones that are immune to retribution by the BOS and its cronies, and also able to convince the Modoc Record to allow a guest editorial on this subject.
Having the Modoc Record and the Modoc Independent begin to publish articles that ask specific questions of every member of the "back door budget committee" would be welcomed as well.
And here's another favorite quote:
“Too many stairs and back doors make thieves and whores”
~ Balthazar Gerbier
It seems that Supervisor Bullock violated the BOS secret secrecy agreement to keep the public in the dark until all supervisors agree on any subject so as to appear united against public input. If one listens to all that Cantrall and Allan said during the special meeting it is that action that was "unbecoming". He wanted openness with the treasurer and auditor.
How can the budget committee possibly do a good job if the auditor and treasurer are locked out of discussions? That is what is happening and it is ridiculous to say the least and probably not legal. There are no checks and balances in a government that allows this type of secrecy. Not all of us believe that Mr. Robertson is the new savior of Modoc. This is what Mr. Bullock’s great crime was. He does not pledge his total allegience to Robertson.
The City must be happy right now. They were able to reduce their costs for the Public Works Director from 60k to 40K and still get full benefit of him. He's always there apparently, as he's a hard man to track down at the County.
I wonder though....who's tracking his time and where might the accountability be? If you try to find him at the County they say he's working at the City that day. You call the City and they say he's working at the County that day. So who is it exactly that he's accountable to? What a life, he's got both the Council and the Supervisors so snowed that they don't track his time, they pay him 120K a year plus benefits, and for all everyone knows he's farming his 80 acres at the tax payers expense.
The borrowing madness may finally be realized for the senseless solution that it is. Why has it taken so long?
Because, in typical Modoc fashion, the "powers-that-be" (PTB) refuse to change course when presented with new information. In this case, the PTB have been trying to suppress information that the Auditor, Treasurer, Sheriff, hired legal staff and others feel would not only save the taxpayer’s money, but also allow the taxpayers to have a stake in the deals being made on their behalf which, thus far, have been done almost completely behind closed doors.
And since the PTB can’t fire most of these folks, a good, old fashioned shunning is their best defense against ideas that are different from their own.
Speaking of conduct unbecoming:
Supervisor Byrne, on her Facebook page, quotes Ronald Reagan (who was an actual realist if ever a conservative was one) in saying that “Man is not free unless government is limited.... as government expands, liberty contracts.” But Byrne is missing the point of this Libertarian ideal, where personal freedom is unregulated by government heavy-handedness. How? By acting like she and her followers (as our elected representatives) are somehow more “free” than the rest of us when it comes to what suggestions we can entertain that might get us out of our fiscal fiasco. Byrne et al. get to regulate what the taxpayers can hear.
How heavy-handed of them.
What Byrne and company fail to recognize is that government expansion isn’t just about size, it is about reach as well. As we have seen with this illegal borrowing, a miniature government like Modoc’s can waste the taxpayer’s money just as resourcefully as the big boys in Sacramento or Washington, D.C.
So, what has been Byrne’s “transparent and open” answer to combat this encroachment of our personal liberties thus far? Paradoxically, Byrne and her cronies, by silencing elected officials and not allowing the dissemination of legal advice to the public (that the taxpayers have already paid to hear) are, in contradiction of their own beliefs, limiting the taxpayers’ freedom to participate in their own government.
Even Ronny Reagan couldn’t miss the unashamed irony of their political position on these issues.
6:41 PM, Looks like Geri Byrne has pulled the rug out from under all of you Modoc taxpayers already:
Read it all here -
http://www.heraldandnews.com/viewpoints/columns/article_8651a014-7084-11e1-ad74-001871e3ce6c.html
Supervisor Byrne. Why did you choose to make this anouncement in the Klamath Falls newspaper? What information do you have to justify that conclusion? Why do the citizens of Modoc County have to read an out of state newspaper to find out what you are planning? Why are the citizens of Modoc County kept in the dark about the information that precludes that decision? Super secret meetings to make these decisions and then they are anounced in an out of state newspaper. What's wrong with this picture?
Ron
Maybe she just want to use her position as a springboard for other positions in government. I mean really look at her picture in the article, a portrait in front of an American flag, if that dosent scream "I'm planning a career in politics" I dont know what does! And if history is a lesson she wont let anyone get in her way!
There is a possibility that she just doesn't understand what has been presented to her over the past few months. She cannot get past where the County was at 3 years ago. No matter the presentations made, no matter what the Treasurer and Auditor say, it would appear she is stuck on borrowing.
This all seems pretty straight forward. Finish what was started with the Attorney. After that the rest will be clearer. Nothing can be determined until there is a settlement so to speak. The County owes itself, so it will just be a matter of whether the State will allow the County to forgive itself.
Talking about loans is premature. Some people cannot move past where the County was, to where it is. Geri who rely's upon the advise of the CAO, appears to be one of them.
This is getting beyond ridiculous. David Allan writes a nasty letter to the editor, then decides that City Hall might be a better place to hold the BOS meetings. They oust Bullock, put in Cantrall, and then make statements that the other elected officials are trying to run the County. Now Geri does this everyone needs to get along statement in the Harold and News. The common denominators here are the CAO and two board members, Allan and Brynes. If they want to blame and project, they really all need to go look in the mirror and point the finger, they'll quickly see the culprits of the discord.
Supervisor Byrne posts an article in an out of state newspaper explaining her vision of Modoc's problems. Geri Says we all need to work together, stop spreading rumors, suggestions are overly simplistic and our financial problems are because the hospital was saved.
It's difficult to work together when we get only partial information from our leaders and we are locked out of the important meetings. She states: "Turf wars are going on when we all need to be pulling together to meet Modoc County’s needs." Is that like the dumping of the BOS chairman because he wanted honesty, is it a "pull together attitude" when citizens are verbaly attacked and threatened by county supervisors for the crime of disagreeing or making a suggestion? Or worse: Rooting out corruption and taking action as I have done more than once. Seems to me the supervisors need to start working with the citizens honestly and openly instead of all of the secret meetings and delayed voting on budgets until it's too late to make changes and telling some elected officials to stay away from BOS meetings unless called.
Geri needs to look in the mirror and point if she wants to know who is devisive. Removing Mr. Bullock and replacing him with pure corruption was not a helpful, cooperative move.
Geri, you need to apologise to the residents of Modoc for not keeping us first in announcements and opinions. Are you planning to run for an Oregon political office?
Allowing the chairperson to publicly insult, threaton and humiliate citizens who dare to disagree is not a sign of cooperation either, so just who is devisive?
To 9:39 PM and Ron Rutledge, would both of you please consider posting your thoughts on the Herald and News website? What you have described is dead-on about Geri and others trying to put the "shoe on the other foot" when it is in fact they who should be taking the responsibility for the poor public perception because of the actions that they unilaterally have taken without letting all concerned parties be involved in their own futures.
The link to Geri's opinion piece is here:
http://www.heraldandnews.com/viewpoints/columns/article_8651a014-7084-11e1-ad74-001871e3ce6c.html
"Comments on blogs and letters to the editor often are overly simplistic and in response to rumors and half-truths instead of facts. Many are guilty of spreading discord and dissension, which does nothing to advance a solution"
Want to know why she would post this somewhere else...
You get more ants with sugar than salt...honey!
Mr. Rutledge - I appreciate your openness, but you should not criticize a BOS member over an article in the Herald & News. That newspaper serves Modoc County also. I seriously doubt that Ricko would print anything like it.
A bunch of very vague reasons were used to justify the removal of Bullock from the chairmanship. Generally just character assassination without any proof. Then they install the most openly corrupt bully on the board as chairman. They selected the one that makes open threats against citizens, publicly insults and humiliates anyone daring to disagree with her or expose her wrongs. The four supervisors obviously had a secret meeting to decide to oust Jeff and then a public character assassination without any evidence of wrong or details of what "conduct unbecoming" is. They could have had a closed session meeting with Jeff but chose the public humiliation route which backfired on them. Bullock may have done some wrongs but nothing compared to what the gang of four did at that meeting.
After reading Geri Byrne's opinion piece in the Klamath Falls Herald and News, it is becoming even more apparent that Bullock was removed from the board chair because a deal has already been made, behind our backs, on borrowing more money to keep the taxpayers around here in debt.
And if you think that the "public hearing" at the end of this process to hear from the taxpayers in an open meeting will in any way change these supervisors votes, then you have not been paying attention.
Absolutely nothing will stop the back door deals until we get more supervisors on board with more integrity and less private agendas.
FYI - Share your thoughts and what you think is really going on in Modoc County.
Geri's opinion piece is here:
http://www.heraldandnews.com/viewpoints/columns/article_8651a014-7084-11e1-ad74-001871e3ce6c.html
To 4:59 PM, Mr. Rutledge is able to exercise his right to free speech to criticize any elected official, here or anywhere else, regardless of what newspaper prints Geri Byrne's views.
The fact that one American would ask another American to refrain from doing so goes against everything our Founding Fathers worked for in giving birth to this great nation we all live in.
It's not only our right to critique our elected representatives, it is our responsibility.
"It is a paradox that every dictator has climbed to power on the ladder of free speech. Immediately on attaining power each dictator has suppressed all free speech except his own."
Herbert Hoover
Geri states that the poor financial record of the county causes difficulty in getting a loan. In her Herald And News statement she never says a word about all of the unlawful and secret dealings of past boards including the present chairwoman causing the problem. She would have everyone think "It just happened". She says other countie's budget committees meet in secret but after checking, I find that to not be true. No other county in california has any standing committees meet in secret including those with budget committees. The counties she mentions do not have a budget committee, they have a CAO who makes regular and detailed reports that are public. Geri is either mistaken or she is lying to us. She made the statement publicly so I ask publicly, which counties have a budget committee that meets in total secrecy? There are only two reasons for extreme secrecy in a government: war or corruption. We are not at war so that leaves corruption. When so many county employees are related by family there is need of exceptionally open government but we get phony excuses for total secrecy.
I'm still waiting for the BOS to condemn Cantrall for her threats, intimidation and general bully attitude toward the public. If they do not condemn it they are part of it and in agreement with Cantrall's methods. Many do not go to meetings because they fear her.
Great going Darcy and Cheryl! You two should join the circus with as many times your opinions have flipped over the past two years!! Now you two have resorted to stealing others ideas about the Fiscal Restoration to the County. Anyone who contests this just look back over the past two years of board minutes and see how many times our dear Auditor can flip! She should enter the Olympics!!
3/21 7:18 pm - read that post again. You entirely missed the point. The remark was regarding publication of her views in the H&N. The poster's point was that maybe the local editor would not print her viewpoint, so she had to go to the Oregon newspaper.
If you can't comprehend it the second time, read it a third time. Maybe it will sink in. Geez.
To 6:04 PM - When people change their minds due to having new information, that is not called "flipping," that is called being unbiased.
Honestly evaluating the world around you based on facts, and changing your mind as the facts change, and giving your reasons for that change to the taxpayers who elected you or the readers that buy your newspaper is what has been missing in Modoc County for a long, long time.
If the previous CAO, BOS, the Modoc Record, and others had changed their views over ten years ago based on the fact that deficit spending and borrowing restricted funds could only lead to the fiscal disaster and long term debt we are now currently facing, we would be a whole lot better off today as a result.
So, indeed, thank you Auditor Locken and Treasurer Knoch.
Better late than never.
March 22, 2012 6:04 PM The situation of the County is ever changing in that the cash flow forecast has changed due to many factors. To be steadfast on one's path without reviewing the data, would be idiocy. To make comments about the Auditor and Treasurer in such a negative light due to their ability to adapt as the situation has changed, only shows how a small mind works.
The circus act has been the BOS and the CAO. Yes, lets do sell assets that may not need to be sold, and yes lets get a loan, though one might not be necessary at this time. Lets do all of this because three years ago the then ACAO Darcy Locken, and Treasurer felt that a loan was the only way out. Based on the lack of data at that time, due to a poorly ran Auditors Office that was just a glorified bookkeeping service, there were two choices, bankruptcy or a loan. Neither happened because the County couldn't afford it. Now the cash flow is better, the County is 3 1/2 years past the crisis, the cash flow forecast is brighter, and your bashing the Auditor and the Treasurer because they aren't sticking to the "Lets get a loan" plan. One might call them progressive as they aren't stuck to convictions that the County cannot afford, and options that increase the liabilities and risk.
I don't know that they've stolen anyone else's idea, and if this is now a race to see who can be the "hero" to take credit for the fix, then you must belong to the "CAO Fan Club".
Personally I'm thankful that they have "flipped", and that you would think this to be a circus act only shows that your probably not a progressive thinker yourself.
It's overdue for someone to attack the auditor and treasurer to draw attention away from the real culprits. Decisions about where to waste our money are made by the BOS not the treasurer or auditor. Updating information to the BOS is not "flipping". The treasurer and auditor can refuse to pay based on law but cannot spend a dime on their own. Refusal to accept updated and corrected information is how we got in this mess.
7:21 PM - Re-read the post in question, came to the same result, even after three tries.
Also came to the conclusion that it was poorly written.
The post in question was bashing another for speaking out, while claiming (without evidence) that another newspaper would not print Geri's opinion piece.
Ron can still opine about Geri's or any one else's standpoint on any matter whatsoever, even if that view is found rolled up on tattered parchment, inside a corked bottle, and washed up on high tide on the beach at Easter Island.
Geez...
has anyone noticed that the price of living in modoc county just keeps going up. We now have a new trash fee,outragious water bills, phone bills etc. a high percentage of retireies on fixed incomes are not going to want to move to Modoc. I just wonder if their is anything the board can do to counter this trend, or is the elephant in the room just ignored
Geri Byrne's article in the Herald and News provided a good forum to make some very good points, mainly detailing that the public has not gotten a fair hearing from the BOS. The recommendations that Geri and the BOS follow the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) principles for ensuring adequate public involvement are especially needed; after all Modoc County is a member of CSAC, so we should join the rest of the civilized world and start practicing good governance.
It will be interesting what the BOS does at this next meeting. The link to Geri's idea of how things should be done is here:
http://www.heraldandnews.com/viewpoints/columns/article_8651a014-7084-11e1-ad74-001871e3ce6c.html
Please go there and share your thoughts as a Modoc taxpayer as to what should happen and how involved you think the taxpayers should be regarding going into debt - just because Geri and the BOS say that we should.
3:44 PM - If you have been following Ray March's investigative journalism regarding "Balancing the Budget on the Backs of Children" you would get a very good run-down of how ex-CAO Maxwell, the BOS, the First 5 commissioners, the previous County Superintendent of Schools, and the resulting cronyism, the nepotism, and the selective reporting by the Modoc Record have been the foremost reasons of our indebtedness and therefore the resulting high cost of living here.
The BOS, the ex-CAO, the county Auditor Judy Stevens, the First 5 Commissioners, the Modoc Record and others were the ones who were told about illegal borrowing of restricted funds and decided to do nothing about it, other than try to cover it up - which they did for many years.
If these folks had decided instead ten or so years ago to cut costs, not gives raises without money to do it, not borrow restricted funds illegally, and to stay within their respective budgets (i.e., the county library) the taxpayers of Modoc County would not be facing anywhere near the high cost of living increases that we would have otherwise.
The bottom line is that all of these folks made these decisions without the taxpayers knowledge or consent, and yet they still expect us to pick up the tab by increasing our taxes (the library), raising our fees (waste management) or have the taxpayers borrow money to pay it back (the BOS and new CAO).
So go to the next BOS meeting and let them know how you feel about them not only putting us in this horrible position in the first place, but also how you feel about them wanting to borrow even more cash with interest so that they can keep their unearned salary increases, their benefit and retirement packages, all while we taxpayers continue to just pay, and pay, and pay....
Put some excitement in your life. Put your name on your post if you don't work for the county. Our elected officials pay very little attention to posts by anonymous. If you work for the county or contract to the county I do not encourage you to place your name on any negative statement about county officials. There is a long history of retaliation against "troublemakers" and "non-team players". Look what they did to Bullock, Charlton, Locken, Michelson and many unnamed people daring to try to rid us of the corruption. "Honesty is a bad policy" is the Modoc government motto.
Byrne wants us all to work together but is not willing to do anything about citizens being threatoned, humiliated, lied to and defamed at open BOS meetings by a fellow supervisor. This is a good case of action (or inaction) speaking louder than words. If Geri wants us all to work together she should make it known that she does not support those tactics every time it is done. To be silent is to agree with the speaker. Geri, I hope you are not afraid of Cantrall!
8:11 post, Don't hold your breath waiting for any real investigation or any charges against any of these people. The BOS controls the DA by controling the money. The previous DA has even stated the same openly. There seems to be an unwritten agreement that elected officials protect one another from consequences.
I am the poster of the 4:59 comment taking Mr. Rutledge to task for criticizing Geri for her publishing her views in the H&N. I did not intimate that the former should have his rights to free speech circumscribed. I have read every single post by Mr. Rutledge and still appreciate his information.
After showing my post to family and friends, they understood what I was criticizing Mr. Rutledge for. So it was not poorly written, only poorly understood by 10:37/7:18, and I appreciate whoever 7:21 is for standing up for me and "getting the point".
So 10:37/7:18 I agree with you that anyone can exercise their rights to free speech.
And Mr. Rutledge, keep up the great
posts. Anyway, 10:37/7:18 you can have the last word, I'm done with this.
Darcy Locken, rogue Auditor for the County of Modoc, at the BOS meeting today secured for the taxpaying public two (count em'...2) public workshops to discuss the budget issues.
What this does for the taxpayers is it shines the light of public scrutiny onto how best to meet the taxpayers needs based on real numbers and with public input, and removes at least some of the back-room deals and deliberations that have gotten Modoc County into the financial hell-hole that the behind-closed-door meetings have brought us to today.
The first public meeting is on Monday, April 3rd at 1:00pm in the Sheriff’s Annex with the county department heads and elected officials on hand to answer the public’s questions and to brain-storm alongside them. This is all about gaining a better understanding of the concerns of those who pay the bills (the taxpayers) as well as those we hire to do the taxpayers work (the department heads, and all of the elected county officials).
The second meeting is tentatively set for April 17th, in the evening, and both (we have been promised) will be recorded and put up on the website for those unable to attend.
So, a huge thanks to Auditor Darcy Locken, and a reminder to the public to attend both meetings, and insist on getting real answers and not the same after-the-fact rationalizations that we taxpayers have been getting thus far.
The two public workshops would be a great time for the public- especially the PUBLIC, to express their views on the whole situation. Take a look through the back postings and call the CAO and the BOS to task for their misrepresentations of what is actually occurring. The county could save over $100,000 by getting rid of the administration department, probably closer to $150,000.
In the current political wreck, it may be best to regain some of the publics confidence by actually listening BOS members. Not spouting off about irrational history or trying to talk circles around the question without ever answering it.
March 27, 2012 1:05 PM
Actually it isn't budget issues as much as fiscal restoration. Do you want a large bond hanging over your heads and no county buildings left or do you follow along the lines of the Auditor's suggested plan of begging forgiveness and paying ourselves back.
Actually, trying to separate the budget and fiscal restoration into separate issues is not only a mistake, but from a practical standpoint, impossible. They are intertwined to such an extent that they must be considered as a whole - something that this BOS seems to have a difficult time wrapping their heads around - or giving up their perceived power to share with the other officials and the public in coming up with solutions.
Good work today Auditor Locken. Thank you for being strong enough to do what the public elected you to do; safe guard our tax dollars. You've shown yourself to be a strong leader with the taxpayers and the County's best interests at heart.
Without you, the CAO would probably still be pursuing the sale of County assets and securing a loan that would put the County into a position of more debt with interest.
Your presentations have been enlightening, refreshing, and inspired. The Board should be very thankful that they have you, and should be questioning why they need the expense of a CAO who apparently cannot perform. What an expensive disappointment he's turned out to be.
Do not think for a moment that the bond/loan/COPs/sale of buildings is off the table.
These folks have proven both their greed and indifference to what the taxpayers want, by such acts as:
1) Accepting the continued illegal borrowing of funds as "business as usual," and
2) Allowing the county librarian to give herself and a select few raises without the funds to support it, to the extent of actually firing one of their own neighbors in order to keep these raises.
Once you decide that these types of activities against your neighbors is ethical and moral, then those in power will do whatever is possible to keep the money for themselves.
“At times to be silent is to lie. You will win because you have enough brute force. But you will not convince. For to convince you need to persuade. And in order to persuade you would need what you lack: Reason and Right.”
― Miguel de Unamuno
March 28 11:11 AM I don't think that the bond/loan/COPs/sale of buildings is off the table. However I do think that having the workshops is a great start towards fixing the issues. The public needs to stay involved and keep the pressure on the BOS to do what is right.
The Auditor and Treasurer have provided the ground work for the BOS to look at the options and make their decision. If they choose to ignore the Auditor and the Treasurer, and go with what the CAO has put forth then the County will definitely be heading towards more trouble. I realize that the BOS doesn't have a positive proven track record, but let's give them the opportunity to succeed before we start bashing them again. I have faith that this can be turned around, and that those that have been poor performers (CAO) will no longer be part of the equation and this County will start the journey towards fiscal health.
This BOS not having a positive, proven track record is not only an understatement, but a gross mis-characterization of how these public's officials actions have been a disservice to the public that they are supposed to serve.
In particular, the Modoc County voters hired Miss Byrne and Mr. Allan a little over a year ago on the promises of more open and transparent government, and a relationship which allowed for public input into our county’s debt resolution dilemma from the get-go.
What we have received so far from these two supervisors and the select individuals that they do care to speak with has actually been the opposite. Budget committees that were once open to the public no longer exist. The taxpayers, top elected officials, and community business leaders are left out of the information circle, only to find out after the decision has already been made that the taxpayers are going to pay private financiers to allow us to remain in debt.
These supervisors and their cohorts have even decided, behind closed doors and without telling the public about it, to ignore the legal advice of an attorney retained to advise the taxpayers on ways to stay out of bankruptcy and assess our capabilities of negotiating with the state on the moneys that are owed.
Democracy demands otherwise: In the poker game of consensus for which Byrne and Allan were hired, all of the stakeholders get to sit at the table, play by the same rules, and abide by the results obtained by that cooperation.
These two public meetings being held at the request of Auditor Locken are a great start.
This is specifically because Supervisors Byrne, Allan, Cantrall, and the select individuals who have been at the table until now have not allowed the taxpayers a more equal stake in this game of restitution; what we have had thus far is not representative democracy in action at all, but a continuation of the oligarchy and the political practices which created Modoc County’s debt in the first place.
But with that said, the public does have to hold our public officials feet to the fire, because what our past history with these folks has shown us is that they will obfuscate, hide, deny, and blame the public and anybody but themselves for the problems we all face and the lack of progress in resolving them.
One can hope for better from this BOS, but to expect it at this point is pure folly. The public must take a stand here against their ongoing foolishness, or expect to be in debt for years longer than we have to be.
“It does not do to rely too much on silent majorities…for silence is a fragile thing, one loud noise, and it’s gone. But the people are so cowed and disorganized. A few might take the opportunity to protest, but it'll just be a voice crying in the wilderness. Noise is relative to the silence preceding it. The more absolute the hush, the more shocking the thunderclap. Our masters have not heard the people's voice for generations…and it is much, much louder than they care to remember.”
― Alan Moore
The CAO has been following the direction of this BOS, therefore the "poor performers" are actually the BOS themselves.
March 28, 2012 7:32 PM Your wrong about the CAO. Allan declined comment at the State of the Valley Address informing them that Robertson could explain it all better than he could, as Chester had a greater understanding of what the plan was. That doesn't tell me that Allan knows much, and according to what Byrnes writes she's not much better. Chester came up with the plan to sell the assets and made comment that he would be pursuing a loan by the end of this FY.
I believe that he and his mother in law first came up with the bond idea 3 years ago. He has been pushing this for 3 1/2 years, telling anyone that would listen that he could sell the buildings, and get a loan for the rest. I don't know exactly where he thought he was going to get a buyer to pay the pie in the sky prices that he was quoting, but make no mistake Chester owns that plan.
There are pictures of him and Geri a few years ago at the airport, which shows there is a connection. She has also very publicly made comment that she really believes in Chester's plan. He's been working the board over for awhile, he just had to wait for them to get elected so they could hire him.
9:18 PM - Regardless of the multiple insinuations that may in fact be going on, until someone says "Chester made me do it!" then the responsibility remains with the BOS.
Chester's ideas may or may not be what the county needs, but in the end it is the BOS and the taxpayers who should decide, not faceless individuals who will refuse to face the consequences of their actions - as past CAO's and BOS members have done thus far.
Public trust could be improved if Robertson would make thorough reports at BOS meetings as required and have copies of said report to hand to the public. He sits there with that painted on politician smile and tells us nothing, allowing everyone's imagination to fill in the large blank. Super secret meetings are bad enough but we are not given any regular reports of those meetings. To trust a stranger only because he holds public office is pure foolishness.
Some county supervisors seem to think he is Jesus, Mohamud, Ghandi and Mother Therresa all rolled into one body and is, therefore, not to be questioned and need not make regular reports. I have said it before: In god we trust, Chester must make regular reports.
A buyer for the county owned buildings, even at sky high prices is not a problem to find at all.
There are folks in our own community who could raise that kind of capital.
The county simply needs to agree to an inflated price leaseback of the buildings after they are sold, and it will be no problem getting top dollar and then some for the buildings.
It would be win for the purchaser who would make a margin on the deal, a win for Chester who would get a ticker tape parade down Main
Street for his role as the Messiah in saving the county from itself, a win for the BOS who could show that they were smart to hire an unproven, unqualified individual with numerous conflicts of interest in the CAO job, and it would be a win for those responsible for this debacle who would have the pressure off because the problem would be solved, and the public's memory is short.
The only group this would be bad for would be the taxpayers who will be paying for years. Cold hard cash at inflated rates to a landlord. Where will the money come from? Further reductions in services by county departments.
Besides, just think of the great things our BOS can do with 10 or 15 million in the bank? It will be an orgy of spending. The Toyota dealerships can't wait.
The current concept of "paying ourselves back" is not new. It was first proposed by Mark Charlton in Late 2009. He said then that it was risky and things would have to line up just right to make it work. Short term cash flow was his concern.
According to the Auditor and Treasurer, good management, competent accounting and a lot of hard work by a lot of county employees have brought us through the short term cash crisis Mr. Charlton was concerned about.
Great.
Sure seems like some people have motivations and reasons to execute a building sale/leaseback scheme that have nothing to do with the county's fiscal situation or needs.
Follow the money.
The selling of certain county property need not be as scary as it sounds, because if it were structured as a sell, coupled with lease-to-own stipulations ensuring the buyer a realization of a, say, three to four per cent return on the investment, that would protect the taxpayers.
However, I am not favoring that option but instead advocating the "pay ourselves back" approach.
The state informed Mr. Charlton that the "pay ourselves back" formula was not allowable, the rationale being that if Modoc County were able to misuse restricted funds while incurring no penalty, the rest of the counties would likely follow suit. The problem currently is that the State of California is practically exercising the same poor decision making process that characterized our BOS.
So, the rhetorical question: Why is it OK for the State to do the same thing with impunity, while Modoc County is penalized?
I formerly supported the loan idea as the right, moral, ethical thing to do but no longer. Let's follow the State's example.
Another aspect of the sell/lease back option, is not only the inflated price that would be negotiated for that lease, but the duration. If for example the County were to sell those buildings with a guaranteed lease, would the general fund be able to sustain those leases. Though they may start out as being leased by non general fund departments there are no guarantee's that those departments would continue to receive the funding to sustain those leases. If that were to happen the County's general fund would then have to pony up the cash to cover them. There is a huge risk with this option.
March 31, 2012 9:41 AM, are you implying that the CAO is sticking to this option due to his ego? That he is so blinded by his ego that he cannot possibly change his position because he NEEDS to be right? A ticker tape parade for the CAO would mean that he's not being a good team player. He is inexperienced, has a limited ability to see the big picture, and a pretty high and mighty attitude when it comes to speaking to the public. He is unable to speak without being condescending, as he doesn't appear to think that the general public is capable of cognitive thoughts that are valid.
Funny you mention the purchase of more Toyota's. Doesn't Karen Stockton drive one of those as her personal vehicle? The RAV 4's are really cute little vehicles, I think the Chevy version is the Equinox, with starting MSRP of $23,530. RAV4 starting MSRP $22,650., Equinox MPG 29-32, RAV4 26-28 MPG. Maybe the Toyota bid would have come in cheaper, however there are variables that would have to be considered. For instance if they would have bought local, they would have local service for any issues, therefore no staff time burned getting this vehicle to a dealership that can do the warranty work. And had they gone to bid, the BOS could have made that determination for them as they would have reviewed those bids. The public needs to be requesting the back-up documentation on those vehicles. A CAO that was NOT the son-in-law of the Dept. Head that purchased those probably would have done a little better job of monitoring that situation.
10:35 AM, Karen Stockton knows the more she spends today, the more she gets tomorrow. It can't hurt if your son-in-law is making the budget though.
The amount approved by the board at the February 14th meeting for the RAV4 was $36,000.00. (along with another $30,000 for a Camry which was later increased to $32,000)
If MSRP for a RAV4 is really $22,650, then why the big difference? That's more than a 50% increase over MSRP.
Even with leather seats and a sunroof, this seems like a lot of money.
Can anyone explain what I am missing here?
9:38 PM. You are correct about the RAV-4. I checked price on the internet and found: Base price is $22,650. After adding every extra available the price went to $33,278but somehow they were able to pay $36,000 for this car. The Camry could have been purchased for #21,995 without all of the fancy goodies that increased the price to $32,000. I have the same question: HOW DID THE PRICE OF THESE CARS GO SO HIGH WHEN WE ARE ALL SUPPOSED TO BE ECONOMIZING? Could this have happened if the head of this department weren't Chester's mother-in-law?
The $23,795 wasted on extra frills and goodies for the two cars could have been used to purchase a third car or for patient needs.
This is exactly the type of waste we can expect when the budget is worked out behind closed doors and the CAO's mother-in-law works for the county. If there is an explanation for this I would ike to hear it.
Our BOS needs to stop rubber-stamping every purchase request they get.
This first public meeting regarding the budget fiasco was a success, in that it showed that the "balance of powers" that is supposed to exist between the BOS, other elected officials, and the public can truly function for the taxpayers when the decision-makers and the process being used are brought into the light of day.
With that said, however, there remains several unanswered questions that need addressing at the next meeting, as well as constant monitoring by the taxpayers as things move forward.
The first question to nail down is whether or not the county has sworn off this illegal inter-fund borrowing completely, as well as the deficit spending.
The CAO mentioned that "generally speaking" they were no longer deficit spending - an answer that needs to be more definitive as far as what our fiscal policy going forward actually will be.
It still sounds, unfortunately, like the county will be borrowing amongst the general fund departments - a fiscal policy which should be put to an end as soon as possible. Restricted fund departments, hopefully, are no longer going to be allowed to borrow from the general fund, something that needs reconfirmation and placed in writing as well.
Secondly, while everyone acknowledges the increased workload on the remaining county staff due to furloughs and layoffs, what goes unsaid is that the county employees and the county supervisors had a choice to make in how to get the cost reduction needed to ensure the county’s solvency:
A) Either cut staff costs (wages and health benefits) for all existing employees before the layoffs and furloughs began, in order to get the savings needed, or
B) Let those laid-off and furloughed employees take the brunt of the cuts, while the remainder of the employees kept their salaries and benefits mostly intact.
Because the county and the employees chose to reduce staffing rather than cutting costs equitably among all of the county employees, they therefore accepted higher workloads as a part of that deal.
So the remaining question is: Just because the county and its employees decided to cut some positions completely and reduce (furlough) others in order to make these savings, is that choice in the taxpayer’s best interest?
The reason this question is important for the taxpayers to answer as soon as possible is because some department heads, county employees, and taxpayers are asking that the furloughs be rescinded, and that some employees be rehired. The problem with this idea is that the lay-offs and furloughs are how the county and the county employees have thus far decided to “pay ourselves back” in order to keep out of bankruptcy, etc…
So, it’s up to the taxpayers to decide whether they want:
A) More county employees than they have now (paid a bit less, perhaps contributing more to their retirement and health benefits than before), but with more jobs in the community and better services for the taxpayers because they are not so overworked, or
B) Less employees, higher workload, and less taxpayer services because there are simply too few bodies to get all of the work done.
What cannot happen if the taxpayers are to get out of this mess without more borrowing is to allow the present county employees to keep their current salaries and health benefits and then subsequently allow some furloughs and lay-offs to be rescinded just because the existing county employees have suddenly decided they don’t like the increased workload after all.
In order to be fair to all concerned, the cost reductions should have been spread out more evenly, thus reducing the number of layoffs and furloughs in the first place.
With all due respect to the department heads and the county employees, if they want to alleviate the workload issues that were originally created because of the layoffs and furloughs in the first place, then they need to reduce costs across all of the county employee’s compensation packages in order to get there.
Many taxpayers already feel that this is what should have been openly discussed and considered when this fiasco began years ago – and it is definitely one that should be placed on the table at this upcoming budget “committee” workshop for the taxpayers, the department heads, the auditor, the treasurer, and the BOS to consider openly – and not behind closed doors as usual.
Well, County Librarian Cheryl Baker is going to ask the taxpayers to continue to fund her job, her retirement and her health care, even after she deficit spent for years, and then fired an employee and reduced services to the taxpayers just 3 months ago. Hopefully the voters around here can spot the stripes on this skunk before it sprays us all again!
Ray and Barb, this sounds like a good poll question suggestion:
"As a taxpayer, if the savings to the county are the same, would you rather have (or employ):
A) More county employees (paid a bit less, perhaps with them contributing more to their retirement and health benefits than before), but with more jobs in the community and better services for the taxpayers because they are not so overworked
OR
B) Less employees, higher workload, and less taxpayer services because there are simply too few bodies to get all of the work done."
The status of the performance bond/insurance claim against Modoc County officials and the misused funds was not mentioned at this last meeting. Is it still moving forward? It would not be in the taxpayers best interest to let that drop for lack of attention, and someone (perhaps Alan Hopkins?) will bring that up the next meeting.
Auditor Locken has said that the debt can now be assigned to somebody/funding sources/departments (to get the audits qualified) and that losses can begin to be ascertained.
This is also what is needed to keep the performance claim moving forward as well.
The roughly $23,000 we are wondering about on the cars could possibly have been used to pay the costs of the bringing back a furloughed employee who could have actually provided some services to the county taxpayers.
I looked at the RAV4 prices too. In order to get over $30,000 for one you are putting on options like heated leather seats, satellite navigation and oversize wheels. Someone is sure riding in style.
Whatever happened to the days of government agencies buying fleets of plain white no-frills mid size sedans with our tax dollars?
You all should quit bitching about the Toyotas. County code mandates a very strict competitive purchasing procedure be followed on all major purchases.
Even though I can't find any evidence of it in the BOS agenda or minutes, the law must have been followed or else the BOS would not have approved the purchases.
4:56 PM - The restricted fund departments were not the ones borrowing from the general fund. It was the other way around.
Most ludicrous statement of the year:
"Even though I can't find any evidence of it in the BOS agenda or minutes, the law must have been followed or else the BOS would not have approved the purchases."
This is what others said (even to this day - and probably the Modoc Record too) when the illegal borrowing began over ten years ago.
Well 10:13 PM, "just because the BOS approved it" certainly has proved to be wrong in the past, and it just doesn't cut it any more.
"Faith in government is stupidity - instead, give me numbers and data based on reality."
Anonymous....
10:13 post, you must be correct. There is just no reason to believe that our county officials would overspend our money. I must have made a mistake when researching the prices of the cars. I will continue my research to find a justification for these prices. Possibly I misread the info and we are actually purchasing two of each car.
The meeting on the 3rd moved along very smoothely. Could it be because a certain supervisor was missing from the meeting? Had Supervisor Cantrall been chairing the meeting it would have been at least another two hours long.
Thank you Geri Byrne for a well conducted, peaceful meeting.
Oh. My. God. 10:13PM, where have you been the last several years?
Saying that the county has a "very strict competitive purchasing procedure [that must] be followed on all major purchases" may be technically correct, but to follow it up with "Even though I can't find any evidence of it in the BOS agenda or minutes, the law must have been followed or else the BOS would not have approved the purchases" is naivete beyond belief.
It's like saying that the county had very strict laws it was supposed to follow regarding not illegally borrowing funds (or using them for another purpose, same thing) from the First 5 Modoc moneys or schools (among other accounts in the county) so, therefore, they must not have illegally borrowed those funds.
Pure poppycock.
To 11:28 PM - Prove it.
Ron, regarding the RAV-4 purchases, two things:
1) Unless your figures included taxes, license fees, etc...then the amount they paid for these cars, although top dollar, is likely correct.
Wonder if a competitive bid was used? That may have saved some money.
And to 10:03PM:
2) The cash potentially saved by purchasing less expensive cars cannot (in most circumstances) be spent on bringing back furloughed or laid-off employees. The money is typically "one time funds" that cannot be used to pay for recurring costs (employees) and is therefore budgeted for capitol expenses such as cars, equipment, etc...
Yes, a good meeting, however Geri Byrne and Dave Allan had to be forced into having it.
Thankfully in the end all of the protests to Geri's letter in the Herald and News, and Geri and Dave's continuing attempts to silence the Auditor, the Treasurer, and the Sheriff, along with having the other elected county officials requesting the meeting be in public made these two new board members actually do their jobs in public, which is what should have been happening from the very beginning.
So don't thank Geri for the meeting, thank Darcy Locken, Cheryl Koch and Sheriff Poindexter, who in this case showed Byrne and Allan what effective public policy making should be about - open discussion and compromise - and not this ongoing sneakiness of making decisions out of the public eye, shunning other public officials, and then attempting to stuff these ill-thought ideas down the taxpayers throats.
Refer to County Code and you'll find all of your answers regarding the purchases of the Toyota's. The legal process did NOT appear to be followed, there were no formal bids, however Chester said they didn't have to follow that process as it's restricted funds and it was less than a $100,000.00. Why, because it was his Mother-in-Law?
Essentially the BOS approved a purchase for two luxury vehicles at the expense of the County, and the CAO failed to inform them of the County Code Section 3.24. What is it that we're paying the CAO for again?
However, Karen Stockton and Company will enjoy their heated seats, surround sound, navigation, and all the other bells and whistles provided on a top of the line vehicle. Chester has done well for his Mother-in-Law, I'm sure he's worthy of pat on the head for being such a dutiful son-in-law.
What the general public and even some of the departments fail to understand about the furloughs is that they were done so that the CAO could increase his budget.
There were NO realized savings to the general fund....NONE. He just robbed from the other departments to increase his expenditure budget.
Given the plan that was presented to the public the other day, they factored those employee's back in at 100%, and still have the ability to reach the debt payment.
As far as spreading the reductions County wide, it won't work, the State has proven that. Get your figures correct before you start messing with peoples pay checks.
1:48 PM - It does not matter where the money being saved comes from; whether it is through layoffs, furloughs, or salary and benefit reductions across the board.
The problem is not with the math involved, as your post implies, but in the political will needed to follow through on whichever savings plan (or more likely, combination of plans) the taxpayers decide to utilize.
As far as "messing with people’s paychecks," let's get something straight - taxpayers provide those paychecks to county employees via taxes, and they have every right to decide how those funds are to be spent.
What has been lacking here is openness regarding all of the saving options available, and the pros and cons of each. The money can certainly be saved just as well with across the board decreases in wages and benefits as it can be via furloughs and layoffs – the problem is that so far nobody has been making those decisions other than the ones who get the paychecks. The taxpayers, who employ and pay all of the county employees, have thus far been left out of the discussion.
Finally, during tough economic times and to keep a business, city, or county afloat, both private businesses and public agencies have used across the board pay and/or benefit cuts successfully thousands of times in order to save money. It works all over the world, and it can work in Modoc County as well.
April 6 1:41
What is this Code Section 3.24? You mention it, but didn't post it...Could you post it, and provide context...
4:46 PM There wasn't any money saved this year through furloughs. The CAO furloughed employee's and cut services to the tax payer to increase his own budget. What services is it that he is providing that the tax payers are benefiting from? There have been layoffs in the County, and in every general fund department those numbers are significantly decreased just in the past 3 years. The Auditor stated the other day that there was a 15% decrease in employee costs since 2006, and a 4% decrease in operational costs. There have been cuts, plenty of cuts. The majority of these employee's are making 25 to 35 thousand a year, which by today's standards is very low. They are happy they have their jobs, however when you furlough an employee that makes that little to start with by 5% that has an impact. Don't forget these employee's own homes, pay taxes, and vote. What make's you so much better than they are, when we all pay taxes. Are you so ignorant as to think that your the only one that pays taxes and expects an amount of services for those taxes?
Code Section 3.24 is the County's Procurement Code. I don't have it to quote from it, but as it's public record the Clerk of the Board should be able to provide you with a copy of that Code Section.
Whether across the board salary and benefit cuts are the best (or even the only) solution for all involved is another question – but keeping the idea for saving taxpayer money by using across the board wage and/or benefit cuts off the table for discussion and away from the taxpayers just because the county employees and elected officials think it’s best for us is the wrong thing to do.
Whether we like it or not, we are all in this together, and if the county officials or county employees want to alienate the taxpayers even more than they are right now, then it’s going to be very interesting if they try giving employees raises from the funds that have been set aside and are meant to pay ourselves back.
4:46 PM The taxpayers spoke when they voted in their supervisors. That has been the problem in the past. Which special group of taxpayers should dictate what goes on? The trapper came up, that position was slated to be cut, however a special group of "taxpayers" decided they didn't want the trapper cut, so he wasn't. So what you say makes no sense at all, as the "taxpayers" all have their idea of what should or shouldn't be. When you voted for your supervisor, that person represents you, and is the person you need to talk to if you disagree with the way things are being done. Other than that, you spoke when you voted, if you don't like it, change your vote or run next time.
I was the original poster of the comment that county code must have been followed in regards to the Toyota purchase or the BOS would not have approved the purchase. Let me provide a clue..... my post was blatant sarcasm. Sorry some people missed it.
With regards to the money that could have been saved being spent on something else.... Someone stated to the effect that that could not be done... you're wrong. With skillful planning and a thorough understanding of the grant conditions there are perfectly legal, legitimate ways to funnel money into things besides luxury cars. It takes a solid understanding of your program, accounting practices and a willlingness to think creatively.
Even if you couldn't spend the money on something more useful, why spend it to excess? It is still taxpayer $$$$. The taxpayers deserve to have their money spent with care and respect regardless of what agency or level of government it is funneled through.
As far as the county purchasing ordinance goes, it seems pretty obvious that it was knowingly violated in this case. To knowingly violate the law and quote some bogus reasons for doing so is reprehensible. Someone should be held accountable. Where does the Sheriff and District Attorney stand on this issue?
I don't think there is a question about trusting the decisions of the BOS. But the employee's really are subject to the votes of the Board. I agree that little has been consistent in the past in regards to employee raises etc. However those employee's have unions, and negotiations have been weak at best in the past regarding those MOU's.
The bottom line is that those tax dollars are for services provided to the public. The BOS needs to set priorities, hopefully with the aid of their constituents as to what those priorities need to be. The salaries are all over the place, with the Auditor who does a substantial amount of work, which includes cleaning up after the CAO, being paid nearly half of what he makes. The Treasurer Tax collector is the same as is the Assessor. However, when you look at the DA and the Sheriff, that wage is higher. I'm not debating whether we need to be paying the DA and the Sheriff at the rate they get, but I am debating that the other elected officials need to be brought in line with them.
I've always wondered if the County needed the expense of a CAO as there is an amount of duplication of services, that the Auditor and Treasurer take care of. The County has not had good luck with CAO's, i.e., Maxwell, Charleton, Rudometkin, and now Robertson. That position alone just for part time now runs nearly 100K annually. If that department were cut, some of those funds could be applied towards the debt service.
In regards to the purchase of the vehicles. Whether it's restricted fund or general fund, those dollars need to be spent with the best interest of the taxpayer. To purchase luxury vehicles is beyond stupidity. It would be doubtful that they received a grant to purchase vehicles solely. There are funds to run their programs, and it is likely an allowable expense, however to the excess that they went should hold some accountability for mis-allocation of funds,as well as violation of County Code. Again, would this of happened if the CAO was not the son-in-law of the department head. Public employee's don't get to ride in luxury at the taxpayers expense. And if they had bought under the State contract, they would be driving Ford sedans, at a fraction of the cost.
Substantial cuts have been made in the past three years. Cutting employees that make 30 - 35K annually, just doesn't make sense. These people buy homes, pay mortgages, property taxes, income taxes, buy supplies, fuel, groceries etc., locally. They are not being paid an excessive amount. Are there places that can be cut, definitely, but only after the Board has set the priority of services for the County.
12:40 PM - Well, you have to factor in that the taxpayers have been footing an over-sized bill for many years now because of the illegal borrowing.
Therefore, the idea that you propose regarding "Cutting employees that make 30 - 35K annually, just doesn't make sense" ....actually doesn't make sense based on actual circumstances.
In other words, these folks (great as they all are) were given raises and benefit increases with money the county illegally borrowed (and did not really have).
Like another poster said before, if the county and its employees decide on cutting postions rather than salaries they will (obviously) get a higher workload and not be able to provide services to the public as before.
On the other hand, if the entire range of hired and elected county employees would agree to cost reductions in salaries and benefits equal to the savings needed, then many more jobs locally (and mortgages, and groceries, etc..) could be saved as well.
11:50 PM. Your jumping way ahead of yourself. You don't even know if these employee's need to be cut. As I understand it, the debt service payment was factored in with zero cuts, the 5% COLI, and full restoration of furloughed employees. And it was my understanding that the deficit spending was due to supporting the Hospital. Your screaming cut, cut, cut, and you don't even know if that's necessary.
Your blaming the County employee's, and the truth is the General Fund employee's are not the highest paid, they are actually the lowest. The high paid employee's that you refer to work for the Non-General Fund Departments who's funds were used to help pay the staff at MMC.
That's not to say that there may be more area's to cut expenses, but the County is running pretty lean right now. You have this idea that cuts still need to be made. What hard factual numbers is that based on? Or are you just giving your opinion without the actual knowledge of whether what you write is fact or fiction?
11:49AM, The poster at 4:56PM spelled it out pretty well:
"Secondly, while everyone acknowledges the increased workload on the remaining county staff due to furloughs and layoffs, what goes unsaid is that the county employees and the county supervisors had a choice to make in how to get the cost reduction needed to ensure the county’s solvency:
A) Either cut staff costs (wages and health benefits) for all existing employees before the layoffs and furloughs began, in order to get the savings needed, or
B) Let those laid-off and furloughed employees take the brunt of the cuts, while the remainder of the employees kept their salaries and benefits mostly intact.
Because the county and the employees chose to reduce staffing rather than cutting costs equitably among all of the county employees, they therefore accepted higher workloads as a part of that deal.
So the remaining question is: Just because the county and its employees decided to cut some positions completely and reduce (furlough) others in order to make these savings, is that choice in the taxpayer’s best interest?
The reason this question is important for the taxpayers to answer as soon as possible is because some department heads, county employees, and taxpayers are asking that the furloughs be rescinded, and that some employees be rehired. The problem with this idea is that the lay-offs and furloughs are how the county and the county employees have thus far decided to “pay ourselves back” in order to keep out of bankruptcy, etc…
So, it’s up to the taxpayers to decide whether they want:
A) More county employees than they have now (paid a bit less, perhaps contributing more to their retirement and health benefits than before), but with more jobs in the community and better services for the taxpayers because they are not so overworked, or
B) Less employees, higher workload, and less taxpayer services because there are simply too few bodies to get all of the work done.
What cannot happen if the taxpayers are to get out of this mess without more borrowing is to allow the present county employees to keep their current salaries and health benefits and then subsequently allow some furloughs and lay-offs to be rescinded just because the existing county employees have suddenly decided they don’t like the increased workload after all.
In order to be fair to all concerned, the cost reductions should have been spread out more evenly, thus reducing the number of layoffs and furloughs in the first place."
And for the last time, nobody is "blaming" the county employees - the fact that they got the raises and health benefit increases for many years through the illegal borrowing wasn't their fault.
We now know the hospital was not the only recipient of the illegally borrowed funds; the county library is just one of many entities within the treasury that has admitted to participating in the illegal lending and borrowing schemes.
11:49am, You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the money that the BOS took from restricted accounts was spread throughout the county for at least ten years - mostly in the form of county employee salaries and benefits.
So, in fairness to the taxpayers, those increases that were due to this use of restricted funds do not belong to the employees at all, they were funds intended for other uses, and the BOS and employees need to recognize this fact and make a real effort to return the money that wasn't theirs in the first place.
This is very important to make clear - all county employees, including those at the hospital, have had their salaries and/or benefits increased with the use of these restricted funds over the last 10+ years.
Therefore, all of the county employees should be a part of the cuts.
The idea that it was only the hospital that benefited from this misuse of restricted funds is incorrect. All of the county employees benefited the entire time while this theft was occurring.
How so? Simple. Because the BOS, lawyers and county agents misused restricted funds for over a decade, the cuts or savings that should have occurred during this entire time never happened. In other words, the dollars have been misspent by the County for many years on increases in personnel and benefit costs that the county really couldn’t afford. This in effect makes them “unjustified” expenditures that should never have happened, and thus they need to be retracted or given back to account for the misuse of the restricted funds.
It not that the county personnel are “bad” or “undeserving,” mind you, it’s simply that money was spent that was not there on employee wages and benefits that now have to be paid back.
11:49 - If this county had made the economic decisions that it needed to when it began using restricted funds to deficit spend over a decade ago, the raises and benefit increases simply COULD NOT have taken place.
The only way the pay and benefit increases continued during these past 10 years for ALL county employees was because of this illegal spending; otherwise the county wouldn't be so broke now.
The point of the matter is that the only place left that these illegally spent funds are to be found in any amount than can be returned to the county coffers is within the ALL of county employee benefits and salaries.
Common sense would indicate that since the county was basically spending money it didn't have during this entire period - essentially throwing all of the incoming cash into a virtual slush fund and using it wherever it saw fit - that therefore all of the employees received salary and benefit increases that they otherwise would not have if the books were done right.
In other words, the county employee salary and benefits of today are not based on real numbers, but on the “cooked-books” that the county has been using for years. Had the county been doing its due diligence, those raises and benefit increases for all of the county employees could not have happened. We are broke now because there simply wasn’t the money there to do it, yet the county did it anyway.
As others have mentioned, that is not the employee’s fault, but if the money went somewhere that it shouldn’t have (into all of the employee salaries and benefits) then by rights that is where it should be returned from, to the largest extent possible.
The only place to get that money back is from where it was improperly paid to - which was to all of the county employee salaries, health benefits and retirement over the past decade.
It would be truly unfortunate if the employees or their associations allow the cuts to just come from layoffs and reductions from the lowest ranks, since the misspent funds went to everyone and at a much higher rate to those who get paid the most.
But unfortunately we are seeing exactly this type of selfish behavior going on.
The county librarian gives a perfect example of how this works, when she spent her reserve funds on recurring costs (salaries and benefits) and then instead of taking a cut in pay or benefits when she finally ran out of the taxpayer money, she fired another employee and reduced taxpayer services instead.
How selfless of her.
The cuts should come from across the board and be shared as equally as possible - the lowest shouldn't pay just so the highest can retain those ill-gotten gains and hence, their jobs.
That is just not right.
Is there an equitable way to make cuts to wages. Some of the funding comes from State and Federal programs, which would not create a cost savings to the County. Or at least that is what Health Services has said. They said that their employee's taking a cut would not be fair to the employee's as it would not generate any savings for the general fund. So now it's back to the general fund employee's and should they shoulder the cuts for the entire County?
KISS. Keep it simple, stupid. Not meant to be derogatory here, but the main reason for the debt in the first place is because the county ignored the simple fact that different departments are funded differently.
In other words, over the years the county tried to keep giving all of the employees and department heads raises and benefit increases, despite the fact that the individual budget for a particular department might not have the income to support it.
Just one example of this most recently is when county librarian Cheryl Baker kept giving everyone raises by deficit spending the reserves (and borrowing from the other departments) instead, until she had to reduce hours and fire another employee rather than give those poorly planned raises back.
Foolishly, nobody wants to give up their raises, even though they were based on the lie that the county actually had the money in each departments budget to support them.
The bottom line is that each department needs to live within its means, and if that means restricted fund departments have the ability to give raises while general fund departments do not, so be it.
The only alternative is to continue the fantasy budgeting that got is into debt in the first place, by borrowing money we do not have to pay employees not based on actual numbers, but based on what we want those numbers to be.
Why is there an assumption that the only thing to do with extra money is to provide raises to employees?
Why not use the "extra" money to provide "extra" services?
Anonymous said...
4:46 PM The taxpayers spoke when they voted in their supervisors. That has been the problem in the past. Which special group of taxpayers should dictate what goes on? The trapper came up, that position was slated to be cut, however a special group of "taxpayers" decided they didn't want the trapper cut, so he wasn't. April 6, 2012 11:38 PM
This wasn't because of a special group of taxpayers. Everyone benfits from the trapper. Who do you think comes and takes care of the skunk under your house? Who do you think takes care of the mountain lion roaming too close to city limits? This is a Karen Stockton's belief- that we are subsidizing livestock producers by paying for the trapper. Well, guess what- Rancher's pay taxes too! They should get some of the benefits from it. They probably don't use social services, health services, IT department, etc.
Chester furloughed to pad his own budget. I hope someone at the April 17th meeting can get him to publicly admit that. About 9 departments were furloughed or about 15 employees. If he garnered $110,000 from those employees in 6 months. I want their job. I think it is closer to about $8,000. Well worth it to the public to have those reduced services, well worth it to the departments to have poor morale, and well worth the effort for Chester to have a tool kit.
12:30PM - Wrong. There was no public procedure to allow the taxpayers input into any part of the budget process in order to prioritize public services.
The BOS makes these decisions with little or no real public input.
That's why we need a budget process that includes public input much earlier in the budget cycle - to enable the taxpayers to decide for themselves what level of services they can live with.
After all, what the BOS has been deciding certainly hasn't been working for us very well.
WHAT........Chester padded his own budget to furlough County employee's. That's not what he said on the 3rd, he said he "saved" the County about $110,000.
As long as everyone is talking about raises and wages, Dr. Stockton got a substantial raise here recently. Coupled with the Toyota's, looks the County is doing just fine. At least for those related to the CAO.
Post a Comment