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."

Modoc Supervisors, CAO
Criticized by Sheriff, Auditor

Two of the county’s elected officials publicly criticized the Modoc County Board of Supervisors and its chief administrative officer Tuesday for not including them in strategic budget meetings at a time when the chance of bankruptcy appears to loom ever closer.

Charging the board with “a shift towards secrecy” and “bad business practice,”  Sheriff Mike Poindexter and Auditor Darcy Locken cast political diplomacy aside and bluntly told the supervisors they are fostering mistrust, dissension and double standards by failing to publicly address the county’s financial status.

“I find myself being pushed aside and kept in the dark by the board and the county administrative officer (Chester Robertson),” Locken said in a prepared statement read to the board. “It begs the question, why are we being excluded, and what are we not being told?”

Poindexter, reading from his prepared statement, went further.

“It all seems suspect to me and I would submit to the public that the elimination of necessary checks and balances is being accomplished behind closed doors,” Poindexter said.

Locken and Poindexter’s discontent with the Board of Supervisor has apparently been building for months. At issue is the board’s efforts to restore a treasury deficit caused by a “rob Peter to pay Paul” principle that for an estimated 10 years depleted the treasury by a reported $20 million, resulting in a state-ordered mandate to make restitution.

Asked just how serious the county’s financial condition is, Locken told the Modoc Independent News blog, “I'd rate it an eight on a scale from one to 10, with 10 being bankruptcy. The reason I put it so high is that the rug could be pulled out from under us at any time.  A bad storm that causes an expensive emergency or flood could bankrupt us, although that doesn't seem to be much of a threat so far this season.”

Unnecessary spending by the board at a time of fiscal crisis was attacked by Poindexter.

“I am asked, it seems, at every corner to cut further, while I watch the precious dollars cut from my budget (then) reappear to pay outside professionals for duplication of services,” the sheriff told the board without elaboration.

Explaining her reasons for chastising the board, Locken said she saw no other alternative.

“The reason I came to the board publicly the way I did is that I've exhausted all other avenues,” she told the Modoc Independent News blog in an e-mail exchange.  “I've tried to work with Chester Robertson. No go. I've talked to Geri Byrne. I've talked to Dave Allen. No go.
   
“Jeff Bullock and I are actually on the same page on this subject, but he's obviously on the outs,” she said in reference to an internal move on the board to oust Bullock as chairman. “We ask questions,” Locken continued.  “We want to see proof, backup and results.  I do believe that there are other ‘pressures’ behind the scenes.  I've got nothing to hide, let's see if they do.”

Poindexter asked the board to reassess its methods of managing the county’s business by being more open.
   
“Please take a close look at the current county government management style,” he asked. “Include the public, your elected and appointed officials in the loop, especially in areas that pertain to their lawful duties. We simply cannot continue in the direction we are moving.”



   

Balancing the County’s Budget Deficits

 on the Backs of Children

By Ray A. March

Part 13

Oct. 10, 2001
First Hint of Misappropriation Appears

Buried in the minutes of  the Oct. 10, 2001 meeting is a comment by commissioner Phillip Smith that Auditor Judi Stevens told him “we (meaning the commission) have run out of money in our operating account and the county has continued to honor our warrants.”

Smith went on to report that Stevens told him, “We should have money in our operating account from the (Prop. 10) Trust Fund to cover all our expenses. I suggest we get an idea of what those expenses are monthly.”

A source familiar with the auditor’s office who would not speak publicly explained the underlying message in the Smith’s comments.
   
“When a county auditor says a department has run out of money, in this case Auditor Stevens, she is most likely saying that the department has spent what was budgeted for it,” the source explained. “This is a troubling statement. Prop. 10 funds can only be used to fund certain activities and only those activities.”
   
The fact that the commission did not know what its monthly expenses were goes to Michelson’s argument that Prop. 10 Trust Funds should be kept in a separate account accessible to the commission.
   
“When Judi Stevens said the county will continue to honor the department’s warrants, that meant the county would supplement whatever was budgeted,” the source said.
   
“It also implies that the county would continue to support the expenditures,” the source explained. “Now, Judi Stevens cannot just say the county will do this. Because this department has spent all funds budgeted and allocated to it, the Board of Supervisors needed to take a new action to amend the budget and allocate additional funds to the Children and Families Commission.”
   
Revealing is Stevens’ purported statement, according to Smith’s comments in the minutes “that there should be money in our operating account from the Prop. 10 Trust Fund to cover all our expenses.”
   
“It implies that Judi Stevens was using Prop. 10 funds for purposes other than First 5 (Children and Families Commission),” the source said, referring to a section of the state law requiring that “monies allocated and appropriated to county commissions shall be deposited in each local Children and Families Trust Fund administered by each county commission, and shall be expended only for the purposes authorized by this act and in accordance with the county strategic plan approved by each county commission.”
   
The minutes of the Oct. 10, 2001 meeting also reveal that Supervisor Cantrall apparently had a discussion with Kristin Domenichelli, the certified public accountant, who “suggested having another officer for the commission such as treasurer to keep the books and give a monthly budget report.”
   
While it is not clear in the minutes as to the “treasurer” reference, or who that person might be, there was discussion of “separation of duties” by establishing both a bookkeeper and treasurer to avoiding any conflict of interest. However, no action was taken by the commission.
   
Later in the meeting Supervisor Cantrall made a motion, which was unanimously passed, to hire Lynn Talbott as its outside auditor to examine the commission Prop. 10 funds for the fiscal year ending June 2001. Talbott apparently shared office space with Domenichelli, according to records made available to the Modoc Independent News.
   
While the commission took no action on Domenichelli’s recommendation that an officer of the commission keep the books and provide a monthly budget report, Domenichelli wrote a critical letter to Michelson detailing her audit to date of the Children and Families Commission and included a strong recommendation that the commission’s Prop. 10 funds should be kept separate from the county treasury and auditor.
   
“There appears to be a problem in getting questions resolved with the various county offices,” Domenichelli stated in her letter. “Some of this may be due to personality conflicts or uncertainty as to whom is ultimately responsible for maintaining the commission’s financial records.
   
“Again, it is your responsibility as the executive director to know exactly what funds you have and what expenditures have been made. It appears the only way to accomplish this given the circumstances is to maintain the records independently,” the outside auditor wrote.
   
Domenichelli went on to observe that there was “confusion regarding the trust fund” and apparently a lack of cooperation from the treasurer and auditor’s offices.
   
“You have repeatedly requested information on the whereabouts of the trust fund, with no results,” she wrote in confirming what Michelson already knew -- Prop. 10 Trust Fund monies were not being openly accounted for.
   
Michelson, the only person arguing for a separate Prop. 10 Trust Fund account, now had an ally. Ironically, that ally was the very outside auditor the commission had agreed to hire to investigate its financial records.
   
But, Domenichelli’s letter to Michelson was to trigger a sensitive response -- not from either commission Chair Philip Smith or Vice Chair Dr. Edward Richert -- but from Supt. of County Schools Carol Harbaugh, who did not specifically respond to Domenichelli’s remarks of confusion and unaccountability, but instead suggested the Prop. 10 funds could be better managed by Harbaugh’s county office of education.
   
Next: Part 14
    As we shall see in the next installment, this is not the last encounter
 between Harbaugh and Domenichelli.

Bullock Asked to Resign Chair

Editor’s Note: This is a corrected version of the original article which stated the Modoc County Board of Supervisors unanimously elected Jeff Bullock chairman. The vote was actually 3 to 2.

Just two months after being  elected chairman by the slim margin of 3 to 2, Jeff Bullock is under pressure from some of his fellow supervisors to resign his leadership of the Modoc County Board of Supervisors.
   
While no one on the Board of Supervisors will speak publicly, the Modoc County Daily News blog learned from reliable sources that a majority of the board is dissatisfied with Bullock’s performance as chair.
   
Bullock confirmed that he has been asked to resign, but said he has no intention of doing so.
   
“Yeah, someone asked me,” Bullock said. “I’m supposed to think it over. I have and I’m not going to resign. We’ll just see what happens.”
   
What will happen, according to sources close to the board that spoke anonymously because of the sensitivity of the matter, is that Supervisor Loren “Shorty” Crabtree is expected to ask for Bullock’s resignation because Crabtree made the original motion in January to name Bullock chair.
   
At the time Crabtree rationalized that Bullock had seniority on the board and the other candidate, Geri Byrne did not. Byrne was elected vice-chair. Voting against Bullock being named chairman were Supervisors Byrne and David Allan.
   
Complaints against Bullock, according to sources, include intimidation of both elected officials and department heads and a lack of respect for him by state officials the county is working with to resolve its financial crisis.
   
“It’s exhausting for the other members of the board because he fosters discontent and disruption,” one source said.
   
It is not clear if the Board of Supervisors can actually take action tomorrow to vote Bullock out as chair because the issue is not on the agenda.
   
If he fails to resign, it is expected that a move to vote him out will be placed on the board’s next agenda.
   
In July 2010 a citizen’s group circulated a petition to recall Bullock, but that effort did not materialize when the group failed to get enough signatures to place the matter on the November 2010 ballot.

Editor’s Note: Regarding the recall move against Bullock see “Bullock Recall Attempt Falls Short,” July 27, 2010.

Balancing the County’s Budget Deficits

on the Backs of Children

By Ray A. March

Part 12

Aug. 22, 2001
A Michelson Ally Appears on the Horizon

The commission was occupied most of August 2001 polishing the concept paper and sub-committee workshops. There is no mention in the minutes of the Aug. 22, 2001 meeting of the issue of Prop. 10 Trust Funds.
   
The closest the commission came to venturing into the treasurer-auditor controversy was when Patricia Cantrall complained that Auditor Judi Stevens refused to pay Cantrall’s mileage for attending commission meetings.
   
Donna Michelson pointed out that the commission’s bylaws provided for mileage reimbursement.
   
It was at this meeting the commission voted to hire Kristin Domenichelli, a certified public accountant based in El Dorado County, to set up the commission’s ledgers and computerized bookkeeping.

Sept. 6, 2001

In a hand written note to CPA Kristin Domenichelli, Michelson said in reference to Carol Harbaugh’s earlier tactic to place Michelson under her authority, “There are no minutes stating that the board (commission) approved this change of status unilaterally by Carol Harbaugh. What the board approved was leaving the money with the county treasurer and auditor until these books (the current audit that was underway) were done.”

Sept. 19, 2001

The commission could not seat a quorum. While there was discussion on agenda items, the agenda was carried over to the commission’s Oct. 10 meeting.
   
However, documents reveal that acting chair Dr. Edward Richert appointed a subcommittee specifically mandated to “straighten out” Michelson’s employment benefits including  taxes, deductions, unemployment insurance, retirement and health -- all still unresolved by the commission in the nine months Michelson had been its executive director.
   
Named to the subcommittee, according to documents, were Carol Harbaugh, Supervisor Patricia Cantrall and Michelson. It appears this subcommittee never met with county auditor Judi Stevens and an outside auditor, but that Harbaugh alone met with Stevens and relayed information second hand back to Michelson.

Oct. 2, 2001

An outside auditor, Lynn N. Talbott, Jr. of El Dorado Hills, was contracted to exam the Children and Families Commission’s books for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2001. While documents do not reveal to what extent,  apparently Talbott appears to be associated with Kristin Domenichelli, also of El Dorado Hills, who would actually conduct the audit.

 Next: Part 13
    Public documents show that Judi Stevens overstepped the boundaries of her auditor’s office authority.