Hello all! Here we are in VA and "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" on Turner Classic Movies. Brings back not so fond memories of Sierra County politics. As does the political campaign. 30 year old Jimmy Stewart as Mr Smith says, "I can promise you one thing. I'll do nothing to disgrace the office of the United States Senate." No small promise, that! Would that we could count every politician in that camp. And every Sierra County official and Department Head in that camp.
As much as I miss the beauty of Sierra Valley, I hardly miss the daily recounting of how our public servants fail to do that: serve. The Dept. of Planning and Transportation in our county was somehow integral in the drafting of a proposed ordinance to stop dredging/mining in the river that goes through Downieville. (What part of Planning and Transportation is that? Maybe one of those "other duties as assigned"?) According to reports, there were requests from unnamed/anonymous citizens for this.
How refreshing that the people who cared about this issue actually showed up to challenge what has become an annoying repetition: the tendency of this particular Sierra County Dept. Head to self service rather than "Service above Self". Or perhaps he was serving someone, but how can one know when the infamous "anonymous" complaints surface yet again?
Perhaps we should make a screening of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" mandatory for all Sierra County employees.
On another note, ABC airs an interview of Governor Sarah Palin by Charlie Gibson. Charlie Gibson, who earlier this year gave Obama a pass. His interview with Obama was more of a Sunday visit, but in the Palin interview, he tries to be a tough guy. Shame on you, Charlie. No doubt you were disappointed in her coherent, concise answers, but once again we see a severe double standard being imposed. He did not see fit to ask the hard questions when the Presidency was on line. Shame on you.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Chairman Huebner tries again....
I have it on good authority that our esteemed chairman of the Sierra County Board of Supervisors tried to slip one by the citizens again today. Word has it that he tried to get the raises for the Supervisors,which we spent much time and effort contesting, into the final budget. Will post the actual comments here as soon as we get them.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Well, folks, Chairman Huebner did return my call, but did not have time to talk. I informed him that I intended to make a statement at today's meeting and that statement is now history and recorded below. As it was during a public comment period, the Supervisors could not discuss or respond. However, I told Chairman Huebner yesterday, that he could call me any time. He indicated that that might not be for several days as he has meetings all week.
Hopefully, we can get this discussion back on sensible ground. The DA happened to be in the audience during the reading of the statement and the citation from the Brown Act. Some sanity needs to prevail here. These are, after all, public servants. Hopefully, we don't have to provide a definition of that for them. Let me know what you think.
Mr Chairman and members of the Board of Supervisors of Sierra County,
Section 54950 of the Brown Act of California states:
“In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.
The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”
In the interest of open dialogue, I called Chairman Huebner yesterday to ask for some clarifications surrounding the Letter to the Editor that he published on April 20, 2007. Unfortunately, Chairman Huebner did not have time to answer any of my questions. In the interest of public debate I will ask these questions today, in the hopes that when Chairman Huebner does have time to speak with me, he may answer them. In addition, it is necessary that these questions be asked in this venue in order that the rest of you may understand our determination and our unwillingness to be bullied.
1) Chairman Huebner, you asserted in your letter that statements made by this “elected perfect spokesperson” were misleading. Please explain what exactly was misleading. The facts, please. And, by the way, none of our statements claimed that I was “elected” or “perfect”.
2) How many people and from what areas of
3) Speaking of serious debate, which is all we have asked for over the past few months, how exactly are we to “trust you to make the right decisions” when you admitted, in this very room at the last meeting where the salary raises were discussed, that you had no recollection voting for 11% raises for the dept. heads last year?
We look forward to hearing the answers to those questions in the interest of actually moving the debate forward. You see, Chairman Huebner, the real issue here is that you have, on several occasions, starting in this room and now in a news vehicle, made an attempt to stifle public opinion and ridicule citizens who hold the sovereignty mentioned in the previous quote from the Brown Act; the same citizens who have an obligation to ensure that the decisions made by this legislative body are correct.
Your statement that the 70+ people. from every corner of our county who have signed our letter, are “a few people from Loyalton, or
I speak regularly with my Supervisor and I will continue to appear before this body in the interest of those who wish to see
Friday, April 20, 2007
Chairman of Board of Supervisor casts 70+ Sierra County Citizens as "self-centered and misleading".
In a Sierra Booster article published today, Peter Huebner, Chairman of the Sierra County Board of Supervisors says that the 70+ residents of Sierra County who have signed the letter protesting the Dept. Heads' and Supervisors' raises are "a few residents from Loyalton, or Sierra County are not only self-centered, but also somewhat misleading."
He starts his letter by thanking "all of the people who called me with their support". Who are those people, Mr. Huebner, and how many were there? We have our names and numbers documented.
It appears that Mr. Huebner also thinks the spokesperson for the group is "perfect", claiming that he is not having a senior moment. Not sure what that is all about.
His biggest issue seems to be that the "spokesperson has never contacted me by phone, or in person, before or after the many meetings with their concerns." He seems ignorant of the fact that he is not my supervisor. I have contacted and spoken with my supervisor. Despite that, he apparently did not hear our last assertion that as citizens of the United States of America, we can (and intend to) speak for ourselves.
As for Mr. Huebner's plea that the people in Sierra County "trust me to make the right decision", he seems to have forgotten that at the last Supervisor's meeting, he had to admit that he had no idea that he had voted to give the Dept. Heads an 11% raise in 2006.
So, stand by (film at 11!). The "perfect" spokesperson intends to give Mr. Huebner a call and try to get some clarity on all of this. Stay tuned!
He starts his letter by thanking "all of the people who called me with their support". Who are those people, Mr. Huebner, and how many were there? We have our names and numbers documented.
It appears that Mr. Huebner also thinks the spokesperson for the group is "perfect", claiming that he is not having a senior moment. Not sure what that is all about.
His biggest issue seems to be that the "spokesperson has never contacted me by phone, or in person, before or after the many meetings with their concerns." He seems ignorant of the fact that he is not my supervisor. I have contacted and spoken with my supervisor. Despite that, he apparently did not hear our last assertion that as citizens of the United States of America, we can (and intend to) speak for ourselves.
As for Mr. Huebner's plea that the people in Sierra County "trust me to make the right decision", he seems to have forgotten that at the last Supervisor's meeting, he had to admit that he had no idea that he had voted to give the Dept. Heads an 11% raise in 2006.
So, stand by (film at 11!). The "perfect" spokesperson intends to give Mr. Huebner a call and try to get some clarity on all of this. Stay tuned!
Monday, April 16, 2007
Current status of salary raise protest 16 Apr 2007
We have established this blog to provide a documented record of the steps being taken to continue our protest of the Sierra County Dept. Heads and Board of Supervisors' requests for raises in addition to the 11% they received last year (2006). If you would like to go on record as supporting this effort, please make a comment to that effect. Once moderated, it will be posted here. You will need to provide your full name and place of residence (e.g., Sierra County, Loyalton, Satley, etc.) We currently have over 70 signatures on our original letter which is the first post on this blog. There are other issues in the county which need addressing and feel free to use this as a sounding board. If appropriate, we will forward your comments to the appropriate people.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Third presentation to Sierra County Board of Supervisors, 20 March 2007
This presentation was made to the Sierra County Board of Supervisors at their second meeting in March of 2007 in Loyalton. It was our 3rd appearance before the Board and was a direct response to the uncivil comments made by the Chairman and the Director of Transportation and Planning to the citizens who had come before them to plead for fiscal responsibility. At the outset of the meeting, the Chairman stated that he intended to tender his resignation if the Board of Supervisors did not vote themselves a raise. He did not get much of a response from his fellow Supervisors. An abridged version of this letter appeared in the Sierra Booster.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Board of Supervisors,
Well, here we are in what we hope is our final appearance before you to provide an update on citizen activity regarding the pending proposal from the Sierra County Department heads for a salary and benefits increase.
I continue to represent concerned citizens of
That being said, we would like to make several observations.
First. At the last Board of Supervisors meeting, Chairman Huebner stated that “This meeting today and next week, it’s ridiculous. The only objection we have hear is from Loyalton. Is there any one from Goodyear’s Bar or Allegheny? No. It’s disgusting. I’m disgusted with the process in
Second. We have as yet, not received any interest in this story from any of the outlets we have contacted. We anticipated this, considering the size of our county. However, we have not lost heart that as this develops and unfolds, we will get some interest. Especially since we anticipate having the same issues arise as the Supervisors discuss the potential for approving their own raises. Consequently, we will continue to pursue this avenue as a way to raise awareness and bring some needed attention to the plight of our county and its citizens.
Third. Chairman Huebner stated that he was personally appalled by the presentations made by our citizens group. He used the words disgusted, ridiculous, threatened, cheap shot, repeatedly in characterizing the citizen effort to have an open debate. He was joined in this “disgust” by the Director of Planning and Transportation who characterized the debate as “spiteful, …a campaign to discredit the employees, …personal attacks,…and the distribution of material that is less than factual.” As was stated eloquently by Mr. Tom Dotta, Sierra County resident, all of these behaviors served only to be an attempt to discourage the citizens from what is their right – to participate in a discussion about how taxpayers’ dollars are being spent. We have been nothing but forthright about our concerns and particularly open and above board in what our intent and process was. We did that in good faith, hoping to achieve a discussion. So much for the “Opportunity for the public to provide input” as stated by
Fourth. Contrary to what was asserted by Chairman Huebner and the Director, this is not and never has been a campaign to discredit the work of the Dept. Heads. It remains only about the future solvency of the county. Unlike Chairman Huebner and the Director, we have not disparaged people by names or innuendos. All of the rhetoric in the local paper and provided by the County Auditor, notwithstanding, the facts are that the County Dept. heads’ salaries are out of line with their peers in other counties in the state, regardless of how many duties are ascribed to their job descriptions or the numbers of years of service. Certain statements were made to the effect that they could easily be compensated at outrageously higher salaries in the private sector. That, we maintain, is the tradeoff. You live and work in
Fifth. In answer to Chairman Huebner’s assertions that his preference for this process would be that citizens would go through their respective Supervisors and trust them to make the right decisions, I quote Thomas Jefferson. “The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent… or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen.” He goes on to state “that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” In this case, consider us armed with a stern resolve and a willingness to discourse. Several comments made by the Supervisors, including Chairman Huebner, have indicated that there have been decisions made in the past about salaries and benefits that bear some scrutiny. Consider us your impetus for that.
Sixth. And on a lighter note. The Director of Planning and Transportation indicated to the tune of 6 times that he is not ashamed of his salary. In the words of the immortal bard, adjusted of course to context, “We think the gentleman doth protest too much.” We are not proposing that his salary or any department heads’ be taken away. As to his assertion that he “works his butt of for it”; it would be unseemly for us to discuss his physical attributes. (and I promise not to put that in the paper.)
Seriously, gentlemen, hear us. We are not speaking from spite, threats, disgust, or the venom that has, wrongly, been attributed to us. We are speaking from concern for a county that is being pushed to its limits. Despite Supervisor Nunes’ staetment that “
Thank you.
Leroy and Marie Silver, Sierra
Jack and Betty Thatcher, Sierra
Bert and Marilyn Whittaker, Sierra
Second presentation to Board of Supervisors, 6 March, 2007
This second presentation to the Board of Supervisors was read during the regular meeting in Downieville in response to an agenda item where the Supervisors were discussing the proposed salary raises for the County Department Heads. During and after the meeting, both the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the Director of Transportation and Planning castigated the citizens who were present. They asserted themselves to be "appalled, disgusted and threatened" by our attempt to voice our opinions on how the County spends our tax dollars. While we made a brief statement that a closer reading of our letters would evidence no threats and that our comments had been much more civil than anything that had been utter by a County official, the third posting in this series responds, formally, to this behavior. This letter was published in the Sierra Booster and the Mountain Messenger.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Board of Supervisors,
While one story appeared in a local newspaper in favor of the raises, the level of inaccuracies and poor reporting bear some scrutiny. One can only imagine the fuzzy logic or new math employed by the individual in that paper reporting that “the annual cost to the general fund will be slightly more than $30,000.” (Please note that this error was acknowledged by the Board of Supervisors prior to my statement. The figure of $31,000 was only for 6 months.)
While we were, previously, content to focus on salary and benefits as a way to keep clarity around the situation, we will, if necessary, delve into the additional economic impacts presented by the MOU. These are significant when we consider dept. heads that may be on the verge of retiring. For example, department heads who retire or leave county service after only 10 years of service receive fully paid premiums on their health insurance until the age of 65. For certain department heads, this means that we, the taxpayers, could pay up to $1,000/month for several years for a single individual. We invite the local paper to do the math on that.
Also not previously discussed in this forum are the longevity increases received after 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 15 and 20 years of service. Nor have we addressed the retirement contributions included in the MOU. We assert and are prepared to publish statistics that
What are we getting in return? The same local paper asserted that “
To date, we are compiling and documenting a list of instances where this is not true. Some citizens and public agencies in this county are not getting their money’s worth now. A raise in the face of the examples we are following would only be adding insult to injury. We will be providing this data at a future time should it become necessary. We have not yet decided whether we should publish it at the public hearing in Loyalton or wait for the outcome of the vote on this matter. We are confident that once even the few examples that we are documenting are published, some of the county’s department head’s least concern will be whether they receive raises. Not in every case, certainly, but since this is what amounts to a collective bargaining situation, we feel that we must treat every one of the dept. heads as part of the group.
One point that the local paper made that rings true is “Many of the current crop of department heads are so firmly rooted in their jobs and the community that there is little risk of losing them.” Given the salaries and benefits that they are currently receiving, none of the citizens involved in this effort are surprised that they don’t want to leave. 4 out of the 9 newly elected department heads were elected from within their departments. This fact completely contradicts any purported arguments about the difficulty of retaining expertise in the county. On the contrary, that statistic alone is higher than job retention in almost any private business sector, a typically more competitive environment. .
Further, we have recently submitted this story to the following media outlets:
Bill O’Reilly, of The O’Reilly Factor
The
The Center for Investigative Reporting, and
Fox News
We will continue to submit updates to these organizations and to further disseminate our position to other media outlets. Our goal is to send information out to one news agency every day until this matter is satisfactorily resolved. We reiterate our possible consideration of a recall and/or a tax initiative.
In closing, we continue to urge you to do the right thing.
Thank you.
Leroy and Marie Silver, Sierra
Jack and Betty Thatcher, Sierra
Bert and Marilyn Whittaker, Sierra
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
