ARCHIVES

                                                                                                    2013 page one

Drive  Sober

or

Get Pulled Over

The life you save will be yours

Kan We Help

Files Public Records Request

and

Gets Herlong LRA

Accounting Records

Lassen County Supervisors Sell a building (Parcel V-2) for $173.

Exhibit A, of the Request for Proposal, approved by all five Supervisors

This was no accident but a well planned scheme spearheaded by Wosick

Superviosr Wosick tried to buy the town for $25,000

The whole town sold for $31,900

Lassen County Times Expands

Their Sanitation and Suppression Department

The Departments Mission:

the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know"

 But the Lassen County Times   only placed a small article, in the December 17, 2013 issue ,that Lassen County Administrator Martin Nichols had been fired.  This "news" was placed on page 7A, with no "author"

 The reason this "Head Line" news was placed so far back in the Lassen County Times....Chapman was in contact with Sam Williams while he was in Closed Session. PU

 Chapman  notified the Times, in closed session, on December 10, 2013 that the Board fired CAO Martin Nichols. Martin Nichols had left the meeting at 12:48, prior to the unexpected Closed Session convening. Nichols left to set up the Supervisors Energy Hearing at the Veterans Hall and did not know he had been fired.

Chapman, a 30 year veteran politician,  knew that he was violating the law. The Lassen County Times knew Chapman and the other Supervisors had broken the law ( Kan We Help offers the audio and video of these meetings, free)

The Lassen County Times reported three times, that Supervisor Chapman and the rest of the Lassen County Supervisors had VOTED in SECRET to fire Martin Nichols.  THIS ACTION VOIDS HIS TERMINATION.

Martin Nichols did need to leave. His employment history was repeating itself in Lassen County. Nichols demonstrated the same contempt for the public that he had when he was Red Bluff's City Manager 

The Lassen County Supervisors have such contempt for the Brown Act

  The Lassen County  Times reported that Chapman told them at 1:20 PM. The official record shows that the Closed Session ended at 1:25 PM.  The Times never checked out the facts.

Kan We Help filed a Brown Act Complaint (something the Times suppressed) that there can be no Secret Votes. The termination of their CAO had to be done again, in open session.

SECRET VOTES AGAIN IN CLOSED SESSION

The Lassen County Counsel Rhetta Vander Ploeg ignores the Brown Act and tells the Supervisors they can fire Martin Nichols in Closed Session again.

      At the December 17, 2013 meeting, County Counsel Rhetta Vander Ploeg even announces that a motion was made in Closed session and the vote was 4-1 to fire the CAO.                                                           

The Lassen County Times again sanitized and suppressed the fact that the Supervisors violated the Brown Act.  This time the Lassen County Times, a weekly paper, pushes the story further back in their paper to page 12-A. 

Notice there is no "by-line" (name of the author of the article) ?

WHERE IS THE SHAME......................?

Kan We Help,

 a new year of Challenging the long standing

Privilege of Corruption

in

Lassen County

Lassen County District Attorney Robert Burns Stopped an Appointment

Made in Closed Session

The 2001 Grand Jury Agreed with him

The Lassen County Board of Supervisors

Voted to fire a public employee

in Closed Session
 

and

Voted to appoint a public employee

in Closed Session

Both actions violated the Brown Act

Video of December 17, 2013 Board of Supervisors Meeting

LASSEN COUNTY COUNSEL STILL SERVICES THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY?

Lassen County Supervisors

Remedy Brown Act Violation

Only to Violate Another

 Lassen County Counsel Rhetta Vander Ploeg advises the Supervisors that they do not have to alter their Closed Session Agenda which places the Herlong issue in closed session ? 

 County Treasurer Richard Egan disagrees with County Counsel and points out that Kan We Help's Brown Act complaint has made a valid point about the Agenda Item. County Treasurer Richard Egan states the Brown Act requires this issue to come before the Board in Public session and must vote to identify the Negotiators and property.  The Board took Egan's advice and acted to remove the Herlong issue from the Closed Session Agenda and moved it to the first order of business.

There is an immediate need

to find a Competent County Counsel

Video of Lassen County Board of Supervisors December 17, 2013 meeting

Supervisors "Vote" in Closed Session to Fire a Public Employee.

The Supervisors voted in closed session on December 10, 2013 and December 17, 2013, to fire CAO Martin Nichols. The Supervisors can only discuss and deliberate the issues placed on the Closed Session Agenda. 

There is an immediate need

to find a Competent County Counsel

Video of Lassen County Board of Supervisors December 17, 2013 meeting

Supervisors "Vote" in Closed Session to Fire a Public Employee.

The Supervisors voted in closed session on December 10, 2013 and December 17, 2013, to fire CAO Martin Nichols. The Supervisors can only discuss and deliberate the issues placed on the Closed Session Agenda. 

 Any action taken, by the Board, must be done in open session.

KAN WE HELP FILES TWO  BROWN ACT COMPLAINTS

FOR VIOLATING SECTION 54953 (c)

The Supervisors cannot hire, fire or make an appointment in Closed Session.  A motion and a second and an opportunity for the public to comment is required in Open Session in order to take any action. That was not done......twice. 

If the public employee is not notified in writing within 24 hours of the scheduled Closed Session that he/she is being terminated, any action taken is null and void (Section 54957)

We expect our elected officials to know the law

2.

Lassen County Supervisors Get Into Trouble Again When They Ignore the Brown Act

 Despite the fact that Lassen County does not have a competent County Counsel, veteran Supervisors Pyle and  Chapman knew they were violating the Brown Act.

                                                               A.

1. On December 10, 2013 and again on December 17, 2013, the Lassen County Board of Supervisors placed the Herlong problems in Closed Session.

The Supervisors failed to comply with Section 54956.8.

"However, prior to the closed session the legislative body of a local agency shall hold an open and public session in which it identifies its negotiators, the real property or real properties which the negotiations may concern, and the person or persons with whom its negotiators may negotiate."

2. On December 10, 2013 and again on December 17, 2013, the Lassen County Board of Supervisors placed the Herlong problems in Closed Session.

The Supervisors failed to comply with Section 54954.5 (b). Complying with this Section of the Brown Act assures that the public is provided with their right to comment.

"Property: (Specify street address, or if no street address, the parcel number or other unique reference, or the real property under negotiations)"

Brown Act Section 54954.5 (b) must comply with Section 54956.8

Kan We Help contends that the problems with the Herlong sale should be discussed totally in open session. The County property has been sold and all discussions about fixing the mess they created should be done in front of the public, WITH PUBLIC DISCUSSION

B.

The Supervisors voted in closed session on December 10, 2013, to fire CAO Martin Nichols. The Supervisors can only discuss and deliberate the issues placed on the Closed Session Agenda. 

Section 54953.4 (c) states:

"No legislative body shall take action by a secret ballot whether preliminary or final"

The Supervisors cannot hire or fire a public employee in Closed Session.  A motion and a second is required in Open Session in order to take any action. That was not done.

If the public employee is not notified in writing within 24 hours of the scheduled Closed Session that he/she is being terminated, any action taken is null and void (Section 54957)

Martin Nichols needed to leave, but it needed to be done legally

The Supervisors made it fairly easy to fire Nichols

Lassen County Supervisors Ignore the Brown Act

Kan We Help Files 9th Brown Act Against Supervisors

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PUBLIC BOARD?

LASSEN COUNTY BROWN ACT VIOLATION

12/10/13

LASSEN COUNTY BROWN ACT VIOLATION

11/12/13

LASSEN COUNTY BROWN ACT VIOLATION

10/15/13

LASSEN COUNTY BROWN ACT VIOLATION

8/20/13

LASSEN COUNTY BROWN ACT VIOLATION

7/23/13

LASSEN COUNTY BROWN ACT VIOLATION

5/28/13

LASSEN COUNTY BROWN ACT VIOLATION

5/14/13

LASSEN COUNTY BROWN ACT VIOLATION

4/23/13

LASSEN COUNTY BROWN ACT VIOLATION

3/19/13

Supervisors intend to take the

very public issue

of the Herlong problems

into CLOSED SESSION

Kan We Help will be filing yet another Brown Act Complaint

No more secret deals Supervisors

Too many pigey's at the public trough, Supervisors

Martin Nichols Has to Get Fired Again On 12/17/13,

Because Chapman Couldn't Keep His Mouth Shut

 The public has to find a way to install a handle on Mr. Chapman's mouth so they can jiggle it when his mouth won't stop running.

You can't blame the Lassen County Times for not checking Chapman's story. Chapman over stepped his authority again. and is making himself "NOT ELECTABLE". 

Very recently Steve Pezzullo (The Supervisors sold him the town of Herlong for $31,900)  confronted the Board about a letter he had written to the CAO that ended up in the Lassen County Times.  Pezzullo wanted to know who gave it to the LCT. Chapman was forced to  admit he gave Pezzullo's letter to the Lassen County Times and the weekly advertiser  printed it, without checking on its authenticity.

Please take a moment to appreciate Jim Chapman's vast knowledge.

The man, the myth, and a legend in his own mind

The totally classless...........

  Supervisor Jim Chapman

Tells the Lassen County Times

that Martin Nichols had been fired

Before he tells Martin Nichols.

1. According to the Clerk of the Board, Martin Nichols left the meeting on December 10, 2013 at 12:48.

2.The Supervisors Closed Session ended at 1:25

3. No Vote can be taken in Closed Session. Is the Lassen County Times saying that the Board of Supervisors violated the Brown Act?

IT APPEARS THAT SUPERVISOR CHAPMAN MAY HAVE CALLED THE NEWSPAPER WHILE HE WAS STILL IN CLOSED SESSION

Slightly illegal

Now, the Supervisors must hold another closed session to tell Nichols they are firing him ?

 WRONG

Of course this can't be done in Closed Session. It has to be voted on in Open Session

 Who is driving the Clown car?

...............Chapman

Former LMUD Director

Darrell Wood 

Loses Williamson Act Tax Relief

 The Williamson Act allowed ranchers and farmers to sign contracts with their county to defer property taxes on land that was being irrigated for agricultural reasons. The County's were reimbursed by the State for the loss in revenue. However, the California State Legislature ended payments to County's for the Williamson Act so the County's were no longer reimbursed for the loss of property tax revenue.

Last year the Lassen County Board of Supervisors voted not to renew these tax relief contracts for ranchers with less than 100 Acres of irrigated land.  Some Ranchers protested, Darrell Wood was one of six that filed a protest.

The Supervisors voted unanimously that 2,278 Acres of Darrell Wood's land had been placed in Conservation Easements which excluded him from the Williamson Act tax relief contracts. Wood's claimed that his family had been in Lassen County for 8 generations.

Supervisor Bob Pyle recused himself from the Discussion

Darrell Wood & Frank Cady

On August 15, 2013 Frank Cady and BKC (Bradbury, Kellison and Cady) sold a 23 acre parcel, zoned Agriculture,  near the airport to two of the Bantley Aviation partners Dennis Wood and JoEllen Wood

  Bantley Aviation filed partnership papers on July  21, 1989.  Partners; BKC (Stephen Bradbury, Craig Kellison and Frank Cady), Dennis Wood, JoEllen Wood, Darrell Wood, Callie Wood, Leland Wood and Marlene Wood)

Darrell Wood and Frank Cady are connected to the dummy real estate company Bantley Aviation. It appears that Frank Cady pulled another "I'm selling property to myself and no one will ever notice"

This isn't the first time Frank Cady sold property to himself. Cady lied about selling his law practice AND building to his partner Jaimee Richey-Jones in order to be hired as LMUD's General Manager. Later Cady sued his partner. Darrell Wood was a LMUD Director at the time and looked the other way. Wood was one of the Recalled LMUD Directors, ran  again, was elected again and then had to leave under duress of another LMUD scandal.

These dummy companies were very common in the 1980's to disguise owners that had conflicts of interest. 

HERLONG, CA

Lassen County CAO Tom Stone Fired Because He Exposed

What the Supervisors Had Done

Hired:   December 6, 2010  Fired: July 12, 2011

Lassen County CAO Martin Nichols Fired Because He Couldn't Hide What the Supervisors Had Done

Hired:  January 17, 2012   Fired:    December 10, 2013

Video recording of the Lassen County Supervisors December 10, 2013 meeting

California Recall Regulations

Lassen County Supervisors

Meeting Minutes:  Sufficiently Vague and Lacking in Honesty

Lassen County Supervisors

Lacking in Honesty with sufficient levels of Greed AND THEY DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHETHER YOU KNOW ABOUT IT. WHATCHA GONNA DO, KICK'EM OUT?

Contact KWH for a free Audio CD of the Supervisors meetings

Video's of the Supervisors meetings can be seen on Lassen County Scoop  LASSEN COUNTY SCOOP LINK

Lassen County Supervisors

Cleverly Disguised as

Responsible Adults

Lassen County Supervisors schedule more secret meetings

Herlong placed in closed session @ December 10, 2013 meeting

Kan We Help files Brown Act Complaint

On November 26, 2013, the Lassen County Supervisors Chairperson Pyle appointed  a "public committee" to work with the new owners (Hal Hays, Steve Pezzullo and Larry Smith) on the public property the County sold in Herlong. 

Supervisor Hammond was appointed to this public committee. Hammond purchased his LRA property for $10,000. (He was $10,000 delinquent in his rent to the County so the Supervisors gave him a $18,500 rent credit....... and then later sold him the property known as "The Mark" for $10,000.....sweet, sweet deals).

The Lassen County Supervisors really want the public to believe their Bull Shit story about a Mistake on the Herlong sale.  But the public is not buying it.

Herlongs Supervisor Hanson was recalled on September 10, 2013 but delayed leaving his seat until September 24, 2013

Supervisor Hanson on the left

At the September 17, 2013 Supervisors meeting, Supervisor Hanson placed the approval of the Herlong sales agreement on the Agenda. He placed it in the Consent Calendar which takes ONE VOTE to approve everything listed. No Supervisor pulled it for discussion.

Guess what was listed on the

FIRST PAGE

of Exhibit A

of the Pezzullo Sales Agreement?

ANSWER: the V-2 property, (the most valuable parcel in the sale.)

The Lassen County Supervisors were given over 20 documents on the Herlong property

 and all included the sale of the One Stop, V-2 property.

All Lassen County Supervisors voted to Approve selling the V-2 property. ALL OF THEM KNEW

Was Wosick just the Lead....... Liar?

what part of.... IT WAS NOT A MISTAKE.... BUT A DELIBERATE ACT...... do the Supervisors not understand

You are so Busted !

Supervisor Wosick submits

Herlong bid on March 29, 2013

but

the Board doesn't respond publicly until

May 14, 2013  ?

What were the Supervisors doing, YOU ASK?

On April 9, 2013 (the first meeting after the RFP bids were received), the Supervisors placed H-2 on the Agenda to clear (hide) any remaining issues with the funds Bertotti diverted while he was Economic Development Director for Lassen County

Joe Bertotti fired after the mis-use of his handling of millions of dollars of EDD funds

On April 17, 2013, Supervisor Wosick submits a rather timely or untimely letter to the Board

One May 14, 2013, the very public issue of the Herlong property is placed in Closed Session

The Supervisors placed the Herlong RFP bid results on the Agenda for the first time since the bids were received on March 29, 2013

May 14, 2013 Agenda Item.H-9, the very last Agenda Item

The Supervisors quickly re-issued the third RFP

but  gave the public only 51 days to respond ,

not the 90 days that was required

What was the hurry?

Does this Void the Pezzullo Sale?

Supervisor Wosick A Bold Faced Liar

and here's why

First RFP issued on April 24, 2012

Second RFP issued on December 18, 2012:

Two bidders

A. Page 6 of Supervisor Wosick's Bid

that he submitted on March 29. 2013, for the 2nd RFP,  states that he understands his $25,000 bid is for all property described in the RFP. 

V-2 (the One Stop Building) is still included in the RFP, on December 18, 2012

Larry Wosick may have only run for Supervisor for "Real Estate Reasons" only. More on his real estate  purchases.................

Also, check out page 7 of Wosicks bid. 

B. Second RFP issued on December 18, 2012

C. Exhibit A, December 18, 2012 RFP

Supervisors received a copy of the RFP. Parcel V-2 was included in all three RFP's

D.  Exhibit B, Number 5 excludes certain "roads". Lassen County excluded these roads from the sale.

E. Exhibit C, clearly defines the Parcel the County excludes from the sale

Lassen County Supervisors

Wosick,

Pyle,

Chapman

 and even Albaugh

cannot produce a single document that states

////DO NOT SELL PARCEL V-2\\\

Supervisor Wosick lied when he said that he did not receive any maps. Wosick was provided over  20 documents that provided him with maps of individual parcels and a group map of all the parcels the County owned and intended to sell in Herlong.

ALL INCLUDED PARCEL  V-2, the Family Resource Center

WHAT A Coward  WOSICK IS

TO BLAME IT ON THE STAFF WHO ONLY DID WHAT THE SUPERVISORS TOLD THEM TO DO. 

Sell V-2

The dirty deed is done and they still continue to lie?

Lassen County Supervisors Are Not The Sleaziest Public Board in California

the public trough..................

...but they are on the Short List

All Lassen County Supervisors

WANTED to sell the V-2 parcel known as the Herlong Family Resource Center

All of the Supervisors PLANNED to sell the V-2 parcel,

known as the Herlong Family Resource Center

"All" the Supervisors SOLD the V-2 parcel

NO MISTAKES

On October 18, 2011, the Lassen County Supervisors paid $50,000 for a Valuation Study of their Herlong property. According to this Study, the LRA (Local Reuse Authority) was valued at

$8,601,698

The Study recommended working with a Real Estate Broker to auction off the parcels for maximum revenue

Lassen County insured this property for $25,000,000

LASSEN COUNTY SUPERVISORS, ALL OF THEM, SOLD THE TOWN FOR

$31,900

to Steve Pezzullo...............who immediately wants to trade for the airport.........

Supervisor Wosick bid $25,000 for all of the LRA property and

his friend, Steve Pezzullo, bid $31,900 for all of the LRA property

TO SUPERVISOR WOSICK:

Disappointed, Disingenuous Deceitful

The Disappointment:

Supervisor Larry Wosick appeared to have fallen on the sword for the Herlong V-2 parcel, claiming dramatically that it was........... just a mistake.

ONLY IT WAS NOT A MISTAKE

It was a great performance by Supervisor Larry Wosick and almost convincing that he was offering a sincere unplanned apology to the taxpayers. He claimed he was EMBARRASSED. He claimed he was DISAPPOINTED that CAO Martin Nichols only offered a paragraph of an excuse, at the November 26, 2013 Board of Supervisors meeting.

The Disingenuous and Deceit:

In 2003, the Lassen County Supervisors signed and recorded the Deed to accept the Sierra Army Depots surplus land. The Local Reuse Authority (the Board of Supervisors) was formed by Resolution 95-086 to accept 4,788 acres. Lassen County then applied for and received large Federal grants to build and develop the  infrastructure of Herlong. 

The truth begins with the Hanson/Bertotti mis-use of those funds and the whistle blower Tom Stone

Tom Stone was hired on December 6, 2010 and fired abruptly, on July 12, 2011, when he was on vacation.

Joe Bertotti, Supervisor Jack Hanson's brother-in-law, came under scrutiny when the new Lassen County CAO Tom Stone claimed that millions of Economic Development Grants were being mis-used.

AFTER the Herlong grant money had been diverted and depleted, the County Supervisors were faced with a dilemma. How were they now going to pay the expenses of running a town.

                   THE COVER-UP WAS NOW BEING PLANNED AND PUT INTO MOTION.

NOW, SEE BELOW HOW EASY IT IS TO FOOL THE PUBLIC

May 19, 2011: Special Board Meeting

Present:  Larry Wosick, Bob Pyle, Jim Chapman, Jack Hansonn

 Special Board meeting held with the EDD Director, Joe Bertotti at 1:00 PM to discuss Bertotti's employment and the state of the Economic Development Department under Bertotti's direction. NO MINUTES WERE EVER POSTED.

June 28, 2011:  Board Meeting

Present:  Larry Wosick, Bob Pyle, Jim Chapman, Jack Hanson

 The sudden re-organization of the Economic Development Department was placed as the LAST ITEM of the Agenda. The Supervisors eliminated Joe Bertotti's position. However, CAO Tom Stones June 20, 2011 Memo sealed Stone's fate.

July 12, 2011:  Board Meeting

Present:  Larry Wosick, Bob Pyle, Jim Chapman, Jack Hanson

 Three weeks later, while Lassen County CAO Tom Stone was on vacation, the Supervisors fired Tom Stone

August 16, 2011:  Board Meeting

Present:  Larry Wosick, Bob Pyle, Jim Chapman, Jack Hanson

Supervisors transferred $29,191 to pay for the salary of Joe Bertotti. Supervisor Chapman and Wosick voted against this payment.

August 18, 2011:  Board Meeting

Present:   UNKNOWN

One of the Agenda websites listed this meeting, the other did not?

August 23, 2011:  Board Meeting

Present:  Larry Wosick, Bob Pyle, Jack Hanson

MOA approved to transfer the Herlong LRA Family Resource Center building (170 David S Hall Street or aka V-2) to the Health & Social Service so that the County could provide adequate funding. This property continued to be scheduled for sale and is included in all County RFP's (Request for Proposal) that were issued.  The Leases on the Herlong properties did not change the fact that the Supervisors intended to sell them.

December 13, 2011:  Board Meeting

Present:  Larry Wosick, Bob Pyle, Jim Chapman, Jack Hanson

County Treasurer Richard Egan presented the Supervisors a Herlong LRA Disposal Plan. This Plan included the Herlong V-2 parcel (The Family Resource Center). The Disposal Plan ALWAYS include selling this parcel.

Exhibits A & B attacheded

2012

February 14, 2012:  Board Meeting

Present:  Larry Wosick, Bob Pyle, Jim Chapman, Jack Hanson

The Supervisors place the "sale" of the Herlong LRA property in Closed Session. The Minutes of this meeting show "NO REPORTABLE ACTION". But the Supervisors then asked the Planning Department to compile the LRA Lease Agreements.

No mention of NOT SELLING FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER IN BUILDING 170 (Parcel V-2)

March 20, 2012:  Board Meeting

Present:  Larry Wosick, Bob Pyle, Jim Chapman, Jack Hanson and Interim CAO Martin Nichols 

The Supervisors place the sale of the Herlong LRA property in Closed Session with NO REPORTABLE ACTION.

After the Stone announcement of EDD mis-appropriations, the Supervisors created a lease on the LRA building 170 under Health and Social Services. The funding for expenses and the revenue could now be funneled directly through the 590 account.

The Supervisors are presented with the Herlong LRA Lease Agreements. All property is owned by the LRA/Lassen County.

March 27, 2012:  Board Meeting

Present:  Larry Wosick, Bob Pyle, Jim Chapman, Jack Hanson

The Supervisors review a Resolution that moves the Local Reuse Authority (LRA) property to the County. All LRA funding (Revenue/Expenses) would be transferred to Fund 590. How much of the Grant money had already been hidden?

Lassen County continued to own the V-2 parcel but will fund it through the Health Social Services Department. NO MENTION OF NOT SELLING THIS PARCEL HAS EVER BEEN DISCUSSED.

NOTE:   The Local Reuse Authority IS the Lassen County Board of Supervisors. Any property the LRA has is owned by Lassen County. The County collected rents before and after they dissolved the Local Reuse Authority

April 10, 2012:  Board Meeting

Present:  Larry Wosick, Bob Pyle, Jim Chapman, Jack Hanson

Agenda Item D-4: Extensive discussion on the Herlong Property. For funding reasons only, the Supervisors want to transfer the Family Resource Center account to Health and Social Services. No discussion about NOT SELLING the property. The V-2 property continued to remain on the list of properties the Supervisors intended to sell.

The Supervisors tabled the Resolution to dispose of the LRA property until the April 24, 2012 meeting.  Section 6, of this Resolution states that Building 170 will be used by Health and Social Services

The Supervisors directed staff to prepare a Request for Proposal but there is no record of the results from this RFP?

Many took offense to Supervisor Chapman's comparison to Vietnam.

 From April 10, 2012 BOS Minutes

April 24, 2012:  Board Meeting

Present:  Larry Wosick, Bob Pyle, Jim Chapman, Jack Hanson

Supervisors approve the tabled Resolution (12-021) from their April 10, 2012 meeting. This Resolution transfers all Herlong LRA property out of the LRA and into Lassen County. This Resolution established continued funding for the maintenance. All revenues would be deposited to the County.

Larry Wosick made the Motion to approve this Resolution, Herlong's Supervisor Jack Hanson seconded it.  This was a unanimous vote to approve. 

May 8, 2012:  Board Meeting

Present:  Larry Wosick, Bob Pyle, Jim Chapman, Jack Hanson

LRA Budget Report submitted to the Board by the Auditor Karen Fouch

July 10, 2012:  Board Meeting

Present:  Larry Wosick, Bob Pyle, Jim Chapman, Jack Hanson

LRA Capital Outlay Budget presented to the Board by Public Works Director Larry Millar

August 21, 2012:  Board Meeting

Present:  Larry Wosick, Bob Pyle, Jim Chapman

The Herlong Library and Herlong Fire Department ask the Board for a reduction in their rent. CAO Nichols asks the Board to make a short term Lease Agreement due to the sale of this property. The Board referred the issue to the Budget Committee.

September 11, 2012:  Board Meeting

Present:  Larry Wosick, Bob Pyle, Jim Chapman

A Public Hearing was held to rescind Resolution 95-086 (the Resolution that created the LRA) and dissolve the LRA. The Board voted to transfer all LRA property to the County. The Board directs the Auditor to pay all expenses and directs the County Treasurer to prepare a RFP to sell these properties.

 The V-2 (Building 170, Family Resource Center) was clearly included in the Exhibits for disposal.

November 13, 2012:  Board Meeting

Present:  Larry Wosick, Bob Pyle, Jack Hanson

The Board places the RFP, for the Herlong property (formerly known as the LRA property) on the Agenda as (H-5). The Board has dissolved the LRA and yet they continue to refer the sale of property as "Local Reuse Authority" property. The Title of the RFP even reflects this deception.

This is simply County property in Herlong the County wishes to sell.

 No report was attached to Agenda item H-5 but there was discussion. This item was placed at the end of the Board's agenda. This practice almost assures that most if not all of the public has left the meeting

                                        November 13, 2012 Board of Supervisors Minutes:

Public Records indicate that Supervisor Wosick has never received ANY DOCUMENT that removes the V-2 Herlong parcel from disposal. EVER

December 18, 2012:  Board Meeting

Present:  Larry Wosick, Bob Pyle, Jim Chapman,Jack Hanson

Treasurer Richard Egan announces that the Herlong property RFP has been issued. This was placed again, as the last item on the Board's Agenda. The RFP was issued under the Local Reuse Authority which was dissolved by the Board on September 11, 2012. The RFP included the Family Resource Center (V-2 Parcel, Building 170).  The bids were to be submitted by March 29, 2013.

2013

February 19, 2013:  Board Meeting

Present:  Larry Wosick, Bob Pyle, Jim Chapman, Aaron Albaugh

The Board dissolved the LRA and now intends to dissolve it again. Ooooops. This new Resolution passed to process the Deeds. This Deed transfers the LRA property to the County BUT excludes the Theatre and Parcels A-2 and A-3. This would have been a great time to exclude Parcel V-2. The Board did not EXCLUDE V-2 from this action

HOW MANY TIMES CAN YOU APPROVE A RESOLUTION OR RESCIND A RESOLUTION?

STRANGE........

THERE IS NO LRA ???

Minutes from the February 19, 2013 BOS Minutes

March 19, 2013:  Board Meeting

Present:  Larry Wosick, Bob Pyle, Jim Chapman, Aaron Albaugh, Jack Hanson

The Auditor placed the Herlong property (formally LRA) as being managed by Public Works. On February 19, 2013, the Theatre was given to the Fort Sage School District but records show that the County continues to maintain the building. This report states that the Revenues  (7/1/12-3/5/13 were $26,971.  Expenses were $18,412.10.

May 14, 2013, 2013:  Board Meeting

Present:  Larry Wosick, Bob Pyle, Jim Chapman, Aaron Albaugh, Jack Hanson

The Board does not announce the winning bid for the December 18, 2012 Herlong RFP.

They placed the Herlong RFP on the Closed Session Agenda and announced that they had NO REPORTABLE ACTION.  There was no mention that Supervisor Wosick had bid $25,000 for all of the Herlong property.

Willis Dow had bid on one parcel and appeared at the meeting to complain about the way the  bidding process was handled.  Evidently he had been told by the County that his bid had been rejected.  

June 11, 2013:  Board Meeting

Present:   Bob Pyle, Jim Chapman, Aaron Albaugh, Jack Hanson

The RFP, for the Herlong property closed on March 29, 2013

The RFP was issued under the Title of "Local Reuse Authority" which no longer existed?

The RFP was re-issued on June 4, 2013?

No public notice. This process was manipulated to have a pre-determined winner

There is no LRA.

August 13, 2013:  Board Meeting

Present:   Larry Wosick, Bob Pyle, Jim Chapman, Aaron Albaugh, Jack Hanson

Bids were scheduled to be reviewed on August 16, 2013 and Bidders were to be notified no later than September 10, 2013.

Steve Pezzullo was told prior to this meeting that he was being awarded the property. Pezzullo spoke in Public Comment before the Board adjourned to Closed Session and asked if he could answer any questions.

 Just WHEN was Steve Pezzullo told his bid of $31,900 was being accepted?

County Counsel attempted to cover up this fact and told Steve Pezzullo that the Board will be reviewing the bids that morning (in Closed Session).

After the Board re-convened, they did announce that Steve Pezzullo was the highest bidder and directed staff to work with Mr Pezzullo to process the Sales Agreement.

This property had been valued at $8 million and insured for $25 million.

September 10, 2013:  Board Meeting

Present:   Larry Wosick, Bob Pyle, Jim Chapman, Aaron Albaugh, 

The Jack Hanson Recall election was on this day. Supervisor Jack Hanson was recalled over the Herlong debacle.

September 17, 2013:  Board Meeting

Present:   Larry Wosick, Jack Hanson Bob Pyle, Aaron Albaugh

The Recall Election had been Certified on September 16, 2013 by the County Clerk, Julie Bustamante but Bustamante delayed bringing it before the Board so that Jack Hanson could vote on the Pezzullo sale.

The Supervisors placed the Board approval, of the sale to Steve Pezzullo, in the Consent Calendar. The Supervisors have a bad policy of hiding controversial issues either in the Consent Calendar or as the very last Agenda item.  This was handled as bad as it possibly could have been handled.  The Herlong sale was passed with one unanimous vote. No discussion. If nothing else is said..............these guys are SLICK.

October 8, 2013:  Board Meeting

Present:   Larry Wosick, Bob Pyle, Jim Chapman, Tom Hammond

The Board placed the Herlong Resolution (for the Herlong sale) in the Consent Calendar again. It was not pulled for discussion. The V-2 Parcel had been sold with the blessing of the Supervisors.

November 26, 2013:  Board Meeting

Present:   Larry Wosick, Bob Pyle, Jim Chapman, Tom Hammond, Aaron Albaugh

Due to overwhelming complaints and outrage by the public the Board agreed to place the Herlong Sale on the November 26, 2013 Agenda.  The Board room was packed and the halls were  filled also.

The Board formed a Committee to work with the new owner to address his complaints. Steve Pezzullo commented that he would trade parcels for the Airport.

THERE ARE THREE PEOPLE, IN THIS COUNTY,

THAT SHOULD NEVER OWN AN AIRPORT

STEVE PEZZULLO IS NUMBER ONE ON THE LIST

FRANK CADY IS NUMBER TWO

Now, you need to watch the video of the November 26, 2013 meeting and determine how much truth there was to Larry Wosicks Act of Contrition

Supervisor Wosicks Apology,

just a very good fake

WE WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR, NO MISTAKE WAS MADE ON THE SALE OF THE FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER IN HERLONG

It was the intention of the Supervisors to sell Herlong's

Parcel V-2 (Family Resource Center) 

from day one

CAO Nichols had the right to laugh at the public, he knew Wosick's story was not true

RECALL ALL OF THEM?

AFTER you read our next story, you need to watch the video

of Larry Wosick and listen to the lies.

The Public Packs Lassen County

Supervisors Chamber

at 9:00 AM

for Herlong Mess

  Click here to watch the November 26, 2013 meeting      

Will Supervisor Wosick's Contrition Be Enough for the Public to Forget What the Supervisors Did?

Supervisor Wosick stated that he was embarrassed?

Supervisor Wosick blamed CAO Nichols for the deception and complained about Martin Nichols ONE PAGE response.

Supervisor Pyle stated that they could not fire Nichols but he was hoping that Nichols would resign. Pyle also stated that the life of a CAO is about 3 years anyway.  

Supervisor Pyle ignores the Brown Act and takes Steve Pezzullo's (buyer of Herlong) requests into the Closed Session and then announces their CLOSED SESSION DECISION that they have instructed Martin Nichols to address his concerns. !!!!!

Kan We Help will file a Brown Act Complaint but it will fall of deaf ears as this Board does not respect the Open Meeting laws

Reno attorney, Rhetta Vander Ploeg, says nothing, does nothing and has demonstrated she is of no value to the Lassen County Supervisors or the taxpayers

Steve Pezzullo (above) asks Supervisors to make arrangements to transfer the rents to him and complains about threats being made by County employees

The Supervisor Pyle formed a Committee to work with the new owners of Herlong, CA.  Supervisor Pyle suggested that the committee consist of Martin Nichols and Richard Egan. Steve Pezzullo quickly stated that these two individuals were the problem.  Supervisor Hammond will be on the Committee to work with the new owners, Hal Hays, Larry Smith and Steve Pezzullo.

Lassen County Supervisors Meeting Today

  707 Nevada Street, Susanville, CA

9:00 AM: CAO Martin Nichols employment evaluation

10:00 AM: Herlong Sale

Lassen County Administration Manager

Martin Nichols

insures a 10,000 square foot

public building

for $25 million dollars

and sells the 1.95 acres for $173.55

Lassen County CAO Martin Nichols

Blames "staff"

 for His Mistakes

Time for you to go Mr. Nichols......

The first Herlong Local Reuse Authority RFP (Request for Proposal) the Lassen County Administrative Officer (in charge of managing the business of Lassen County) Martin Nichols issued was on December 18, 2012.

  Was the intent, of the first RFP, to silently allow Supervisor Wosick to purchase the property for $25,000. This included the Herlong One-Stop which Martin had taken out a $25,000,000 insurance policy on.

The second Herlong Local Reuse Authority RFP the Lassen County Administrative Officer Martin Nichols issued was on  June 4, 2013.

Instead of scheduling a "PUBLIC HEARING" on October 22, 2013, MARTIN NICHOLS placed the sale of the Herlong One-Stop facility in the CONSENT CALENDAR on October 8, 2013. Not one Supervisor pulled the Herlong sale for discussion. A unanimous vote approved the sale.

  NO MR. NICHOLS THIS LIE

                      IS JUST NOT GOING TO FLY

The Supervisors now can choose between their jobs or Martin's

The County mandates Nichols to create and maintain a Capital Improvement Plan, which he has now attempted to fake a CIP twice.

When confronted with this issue he took Public Works maintenance spreadsheet and pawned it off as his own. When that didn't fly, he created an 8 page document that he is presenting to the Board at the November 26, 2013 meeting. 

BOTTOM LINE:  Martin does not have a clue how to manage this County.

Blaming others for his lack of management skills has been his employment history.

The Supervisors have placed an Evaluation of Mr. Nichols on their November 26, 2013 Agenda

Herlong Building Insured for $25,000,000

with a $25,000 Deductible

The Supervisors sold it for $173.00

Parcel V 2:      170 David S Hall, Herlong, CA

Lassen County CAO insured this building for $25 million dollars with a $25,000 deductible (effective date of policy 3/31/13-3/31/14)

Supervisor Wosick (GW Real Estate Holdings, LLC with four partners: Larry Wosick, Lise Wosick, Antonio Giannini, Marissa Giannini) submitted a $25,000 proposal to purchase this property.  Supervisor Wosick withdrew his bid when it was determined that there was a conflict-of-interest. Willis Dow was the only other bidder. Mr. Dow bid only on Parcel #4 (7.83 Acres) along the railroad track,  for $1566.00.

Larry Wosick made a motion, at the May 14, 2013 Board of Supervisors meeting, to re-issue the RFP.

On September 10, 2013, Lassen County CAO Martin Nichols sold the V-2 property and other Local Reuse Authority parcels, in Herlong,  for $31,900.  Supervisor Jack Hanson (Herlong is in his District) was recalled on September 10, 2013 but was allowed to stay in his seat until September 24, 2013.

The Herlong LRA property, including the V-2 building, photo above,  was sold to Hal Hays, Larry Smith and Steve Pezzullo.

The property was recorded initially to Pezzullo & Smith, LLC on 10/31/13 but was immediately transferred to HSP Resources. LLC. HSP Resources, LLC was formed on 9/25/13. Secretary of State records show that Steve Pezzullo is the Agent of Record.  [Hal Hays Construction is a demolition company]

This was an extremely, intentionally, 

 well orchestrated event.

...........but was it all legal?

Lassen County CAO Martin Nichols stated, at the BOS 9/17/13 meeting that a "PUBLIC HEARING " must be scheduled in 45 days.

      Below:  Board of Supervisors 9/17/13 meeting, Agenda Item H-2

Instead, CAO Martin Nichols slipped this issue

into the Consent Calendar

at the October 8, 2013 Supervisors meeting

The Public Hearing never was scheduled, and Steve Pezzullo recorded his purchase on October 31, 2013. One day before the Public Hearing was to be scheduled.

, worth their seats on the Board?

The Supervisors Can and Should Release Nichols

Martin Nichols contract states that if the Lassen County Board of Supervisors wishes not to extend his contract they must notify him by December 1, 2013. Nichols would then not be entitled to any post-termination benefits.

Nichols Contract

If they decide to keep him, they must decide whether it is worth more Recalls.  Is this CAO, that came with enormous baggage

Jean Hodge Asks Supervisors

to Fire CAO Nichols  ?

There is growing concern that Lassen County CAO Martin Nichols is not the right fit for Lassen County.

      Martin Nichols left his position as Red Bluff City Manager because a lawsuit was filed against him. Richard Crabtree brought him to Lassen County and wrote his employment contract. 

Nichols orchestrated the Herlong sale and now there are more questions than answers. Hodge stated that for $156,000 Mr. Nichols needs to be accountable for including a $100,000 building in the Herlong sale for $31,900.  The recent rezoning of  agriculture property is now under question also. LASSEN COUNTY SCOOP LINK

Nichols has a questionable management histor

View the November 19, 2013 BOS meeting

y prior to coming to Lassen County . Ms. Hodge also felt that Nichols should be required to live in Lassen County. The Supervisors changed the rules and placed an exemption, in Martin Nichols contract, that he did not need to reside in Lassen County.  County Counsel  resides in Reno.

Supervisor Pyle Asked to Do a Little Housekeeping

Public Comment

Supervisor Pyle was asked to announce, "Is there any Public Comment" before a vote is taken. First Timers, to a Lassen County Board of Supervisors meeting, do not know WHEN they can voice their concerns.

Each Agenda item is discussed by the Board first. When Chairperson Pyle opens any Agenda item the public is not allowed to disrupt their discussions.  It is only when the Chairperson asks for Public Comment that the public can speak. Pyle does not always do this. The videos show that Pyle puts his head down when he calls for a vote, even though there are hands up in the audience.

Brown Act 54954.3 states that the public (at a regular or special public meeting) has the right to directly address the Board before or during consideration of every agenda item.

This means that before a vote is taken on an issue or the Board moves to the next Agenda item, the public has the right to address to Board.

Supervisor claims that he does this most of the time.  Most of the Time doesn't count. The law states that you have to do it EVERYTIME.

Purchasing Policy

The Department Heads submit an annual budget which is approved by the Board of Supervisors.  CAO Martin Nichols requires that almost every penny the Departments want to spend must go before the Board to be approved.

PURCHASING POLICY

The fact that Martin Nichols places most of these purchases in the Consent Calendar for one sweeping vote makes it even worse. Mr. Nichols placed the Herlong LRA Sale in the Consent Calendar. Not one of the Board members pulled it for discussion.

At the November 19, 2013 meeting, Nichols placed an item for travel expenses (under $4,000) on the Agenda (Agenda item G4). This travel had been approved by the Department Head and was budgeted, yet Martin Nichols drags them before the Board.  It is a form of unnecessary intimidation.

MR. NICHOLS AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS GROSSLY ABUSE

THE "CONSENT CALENDAR"

Lassen County Supervisors

 DO NOT

KNOW HOW TO BUILD ANYTHING

9/5/13 Budget meeting. You Can Listen to the competency

Did Supervisor Chapman

Buy

Supervisor Albaugh's Pool Vote?

Up to the September 5, 2013 meeting, Supervisor Albaugh has been openly against the County building a pool.

On September 5, 2013 Supervisor Chapman proposed giving Supervisor Albaugh an annual gift of $20,000 for his "Big Valley Recreation District" community pool.  Supervisor Albaugh voted "NO" on this gift but the Bieber pool got their $20,000.

The Beiber community pool was built

with a State Grant.

The Big Valley Recreation District provides vital swimming lessons for babies (Baby & Me) children, therapy sessions for seniors and family swimming on Sundays (5 swimmers for $10.00).

Honey Lake Valley Recreation Authority- DRAFT #3- 11/18/13

The concept of  funding a Joint Powers Authority, for construction, is not needed. This will create a black holeto dump public dollars into.  First, it will be impossible for this JPA to obtain a loan for this pool.

  The City of Susanville is being sold a bag-of-goods they cannot afford. 

 Supervisor Chapman in Big Hurry to Jam

the public swimming pool

Joint Powers Agreement down the throat of the public and the other Supervisors

The County could, by themselves, pay cash for this pool

November 12, 2013  BOS meeting video

Supervisor Wosick and Pyle wanted more changes in the JPA but Supervisor Chapman wanted it voted on at the November 12, 2013 Supervisors meeting.  Chapman did not have enough votes to pass the JPA Agreement CAO Nichols brought back to the Board with the last round of changes.

Supervisor Chapman wanted this signed before he left town on Tuesday, so he asked that the meeting be continued to Monday.  Kan We Help spokesperson Eileen Spencer objected to Chapman's statement that there would be no Notice. Chapman claimed that the people in the room that were interested were duly notified.

Kan We Help filed a Brown Act Complaint with the Board: Supervisor Chapman has shown nothing but contempt for  the Brown Act.

SWIMMING POOL MEETING AT

MEMORIAL VETERANS HALL IN SUSANVILLE

Monday, November 18, 2013

9:00 AM

.....also

Lassen County Supervisors

have a really, really, bad day

at the office

Watch the great debacle unfold:

November 12, 2013 meeting video

1. How to buy a Town for $31,900

Herlong LRA Sale

Lassen County Request for Proposal for sale of Herlong LRA Property

In 2001, the Lassen  County Board of Supervisors voted to accept the Sierra Army Depot's surplus property. Supervisors Pyle and Chapman voted, on this Board, to accept this property. The MOA was completed two years later.

The Sierra Army Agreement included 4788 Acres. The property was to be transferred in phases. These Exhibits were included in the 2003 sale:

The Herlong property, also known as the Local Reuse Authority property, has been embroiled in controversy from day one.

The first RFP the County issued, to sell the LRA property,  Supervisor Wosick and Willis Dow (LMUD Director Jay Dows son) bid on this property. Supervisor Wosick, under strong criticism, withdrew his bid due to a "conflict of interest". 

                                                     At the May 14, 2013 Board of Supervisors meeting, Willis Dow strongly objected to the way the RFP was handled.

The County was then forced to re-issue the  Request for Proposals on June 4, 2013. These proposals were due on July 25, 2013 and all applicants were notified on September 10, 2013 (one day before the Hanson Recall Election)

The September 17, 2013 Board of Supervisors meeting minutes show that all parties involved knew exactly what they were doing.

"Supervisor Wosick " .. the RFP

clearly stated the Board's intention"

LASSEN COUNTY SCOOP LINK

Lassen County Request for Proposal for sale of Herlong LRA Property

The RFP stated that the "final agreement" must be implemented by September 30, 2013.

LASSEN COUNTY SCOOP LINK

After Steve Pezzullo signed the Agreement to purchase this property, the County began the transition activities. This included preparing the Declaration this was "surplus" property, a Notice of Exemption, and the Deed.

This property did not have County APN numbers at the time the RFP was issued.

If the County Assessor, Ken Bunch had assigned parcel numbers, prior to the RFP being released, it would have eliminated most of the confusion. 

The County has owned this land for 12 years and it was always their intention to sell it.

Below: Lassen County Assessor Map

The RFP was very deceptive.

The claim that the County was selling 343.72 Acres was not exactly accurate.

LASSEN COUNTY SCOOP LINK

 Pezzullo paid $31,900 for the Town of Herlong

Pezzullo recorded his Deed on 10/31/13 

Supervisors Placed the Pezzullo Sale in the CONSENT CALENDAR (Agenda item G-4) at their October 8, 2013 meeting

Kan We Help has warned the Board of Supervisors about abusing the "Consent Calendar", in the past. The Supervisors hide controversial issues in the Consent Calendar hoping that with ONE SWEEPING VOTE no one will notice. This tactic actually works most of the time, shame on them, shame on us for not catching it.

Kan We Help asked the Board to place only "redundant" issues in the Consent Calendar. 

2. County Vehicle Purchase

Lassen County Supervisors approved  $833,978, in their 2013-2014 budget, for new vehicles.

The Supervisors approved a $452,708.17 vehicle purchase, at their November 12, 2013 meeting.  They approved a $37,000 pick up for the Ag Department that never asked for a new vehicle. 

Supervisor Chapman stated that it appeared that each Department was allowed to pick out their own vehicles. Chapman asked for more detail on vehicle purchases in the future. 

The new vehicle list does not state where these vehicles are going?

Vehicles being replaced

The  new vehicle costs are not going against Department budgets?

Who gets What?

At the 8/27/13 meeting, the Supervisors placed the last vehicle purchase of two Ford 1/2 pickups in their CONSENT CALENDAR. $54,449.25.

No discussion or concerns......

Lassen County CAO Martin Nichols

Takes a Sudden Leave of Absence?

Martin Nichols was not available the day after the Board of Supervisors meeting. His office claims that he will be gone until November 4th. 

Nichols contract requires that he tell the Supervisors of any absences. No notice was given.

Hopefully, he will use this time to send out his resume

Supervisors are under same requirement: Supervisor Albaugh announced that he would not be at 10/15 & 10/22 meetings

Martin Nichols and Rhetta Vander Ploeg told the Supervisors lies at the 10/22/13 meeting. How much longer can he stay in Lassen County? October 22, 2013 BOS meeting video

How much longer should Vander Ploeg stay?

Vander Ploeg is paid to attend three meetings a month and she gets $88,000 a year for this ?service ?

The County had to hire a second County Counsel because Vander Ploeg does not live here. 

Lassen County Sheriff Dean Growden

Announces a Drug Disposal Day

at Walgreens in Susanville

Saturday, October 26, 10 AM-2 PM

Prescriptions must be in original containers

Sheriff Growden also handed out

    "Safe Halloween" flyers

Lassen County CAO Martin Nichols issues

 a FACT FREE Memo to the Board

October 22, 2013 BOS meeting video

Nichols ignores Resolution 12-039 and the inconvenient facts in the Lassen County Rules of Procedures and has the audacity to make up rules and procedures that don't exist

The County Counsel told the Supervisors that they did not have to elect a Vice-Chairperson .  Supervisor Wosick asked Vander Ploeg if their Rules required two officers on the Board. She did not like his question and did not answer his question, but stated that Mr. Nichols position was correct. Martin Nichols lack of honesty and bad management style is only hurting the Board members.

The bloviating Supervisor Chapman babbled something about not letting any group run this Board......NO....a group asked the Board to comply with their RULES AND PROCEDURES.

Lassen County Rules of Procedures

Above:County Counsel Vander Ploeg, Tom Hammond & Larry Wosick

Kan We Help stated that both Nichols and Vander Ploeg did not know what they were talking about.

Surprisingly, Supervisor Pyle ignored the advice from Nichols and Vander Ploeg and moved the "Election" of the Vice-Chairman to the first order of business. Supervisor Wosick was unanimously voted to Vice-Chairman.

A new day is born

Supervisor Pyle then recused himself (and left the room) from the Williamson Act hearing and Supervisor Wosick took the Chair and did a great job.

Lassen County Board of Supervisors "Advisors" ?:

no respect for the law

no respect for their own Rules

No skills, No interest, No competency

They collect a check and keep a chair warm, that's all the public is getting

County Counsel Never in her office? She doesn't live here.................? When she is here, for the required meetings, she stays on her computer.

Kan We Help Files Another Brown Act Complaint

Click here and watch the October 15, 2013 

Lassen County Board of Supervisors Advisors:

no respect for the law

no respect for their own Rules

No skills, No interest, No competency

They collect a check and keep a chair warm, that's all the public is getting

A smug Martin Nichols, Lassen County CAO and an arrogant Rhetta Vander Ploeg, Lassen County Counsel and Supervisor Tom Hammond

Supervisors agree to put the issue on the next agenda for discussion after presented with the Kan We Help Notice below

Watch the October 15, 2013 meeting on You Tube

Click here to watch the October 8, 2013 Lassen County Board of Supervisors Meeting

Watch Supervisor Chapman today mumble that the Minutes were incomplete. The Minutes were not incomplete and reflected exactly what Martin Nichols said and did according to the video and audio recordings and then Chapman began inventing rules that he knew did not exist. What a shame.

Kan We Help gave the Supervisors a copy of Section 3-C of the Lassen County Rules and Regulations that Martin Nichols provided. Supervisor Wosick was confused about how accurate the copy of the "Rules and Regulations" section was. He acted as though he was totally unaware of the Set of Rules

Lassen County Rules of Procedures

The Reasons Jack Hanson Had to Go

and the Reasons

Why Pyle and Chapman Can't Stay

Lassen County Times Protects Its' Biggest Client:

"The Lassen County Board of Supervisors"

The Supervisors doubled the budget for the Lassen County Times. This buys them protection from any criticism or exposure to their corruption and abuses.

Kan We Help responded to Supervisor Albaugh's criticism in their paper today and the Editor, Sam Williams won't publish it.

So we will.........

CAO Nichols Wrong on Filling Board Vacancy

Martin Nichols was asked about filling the Vice-Chairman position  at the September 24, 2013. According to Martin Nichols he told the remaining 4 Board Members that Vice-Chairman Pyle will assume the position  of Chairman of the Board and the last Chairman (Jim Chapman) would become the Vice-Chairman.  

That was simply not true.........and Nichols knew it........

Resolution 12-039, Rules and Procedures for the Lassen County Board of Supervisors, Section 3, C, states the following:

"If the Chairmanship becomes vacant for any reason, the office is to be filled by the Vice-Chairman irrespective of the length of time the Vice-Chairman has held such office. If the Vice-Chairman succeeds to the office of the Chairman, the Board "shall elect" a new Vice Chairman at the earliest opportunity."

Martin Nichols has lost his credibility

Martin Nichols has demonstrated the same contempt for the public that he did in Red Bluff.

The City of Red Bluff suffered and the Council suffered. The City is still recovering from Mr. Nichols abusive style of management.

MESSAGE TO MR. NICHOLS:  We are better informed and better organized.

When did it change from

"Of the People, By the People"

to "SCREW THE PEOPLE"?

Lassen County Supervisor Tom Hammond

Takes Oath of Office

Note: Full ceremony on YouTube

Supervisor Jack Hanson Finally Removed

From the Lassen County Board of Supervisors

Jack Hanson stayed on the Board two weeks longer than necessary. That is a fact. 

He could have left with dignity and class.

He chose not to.

This meeting is available on YouTube

Hanson's Last Temper Tantrum

In an abusive act, Hanson attempted to suppress a request from the public by a threat, gavel and yelling. Lots of yelling.

The request: "Respectfully request that you recuse yourself from this vote".

He then threatened this person that he would gavel them disruptive. Hanson hammered the gavel down and then displayed his normal abusive temper tantrum when he doesn't get his way.

Presented to the Board earlier............................

Kan We Help submitted this demand prior to the Board going into closed session

After the County Clerk placed H-2 (Certification of the Recall Election) on the 9/24/13 Agenda the Board just had to vote to accept it. Bustamante DID NOT EVEN NEED TO BE THERE.

Jack Hanson moved it to the last item discussed.

BUSTAMANTE BITTER?

BUSTAMANTE VINDICTIVE?

BUSTAMANTE RESENTFUL?

BUSTAMANTE.....UN-ELECTABLE?

But what if you had the power and inclination to use your public office to delay the Qualification part?

County Clerk Julie Bustamante took only two days to unofficially officially count 929 votes on September 10, 2013

On 9/10/13, 62.22% of District 5

kicked Jack Hanson out of office

On 9/13/13, 62.22% of District 5

kicked Jack Hanson out of office

On 9/16/13, 62.22% of District 5

kicked Jack Hanson out of office.

There is no legal reason that prevented Julie Bustamante from placing the Certification and Election Results on the September 17, 2013 Board of Supervisors Agenda

According to Julie Bustamante the public should be thankful that she only took two days to "canvas" the votes. She even managed to certify the election results before the September 17, 2013 Supervisors meeting.

According to Julie Bustamante, the public should be grateful that she only delayed it 14 days. She reminded the public that she could have taken 28 days.

SO WHY DO YOU THINK SHE DIDN'T WAIT AN ADDITIONAL 14 DAYS?

VINDICTIVENESS

Julie Bustamante, Lassen County Clerk, refused to accept the Recall Petitions until she was ordered by the Court to accept the Petitions and count the signatures

BITTERNESS

Julie Bustamante certified that there were sufficient signatures to proceed with the Recall Election and she pulled the same trick. She delayed bringing it to the Board of Supervisors.

RESENTFULNESS

Julie Bustamante legally could have placed the recall election certification (which would have removed Jack Hanson) on the September 17, 2013 Board of Supervisors Agenda. The votes were "OFFICIALLY FINAL" on September 16, 2013.  She could have even requested that this issue be  "added" to the Agenda.

California Recall Regulations

JACK HANSON THEN WOULD HAVE BEEN REMOVED.

Jack Hanson was allowed to cast dozens of votes in the two week period following his loss on 9/10/13

HANSON AVERTED A BROWN ACT VIOLATIONTHIS MORNING WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RULE A COMMENT, out of order,  THAT WAS MADE PRIOR TO A VOTE BY THE BOARD. The Brown Act allows for the public to comment prior to any vote by a public board.

Hanson has an anger management problem.  He gaveled the person making the public comment "out of order" and then threatened this person with "DISRUPTING THE MEETING".

The only person disrupting the meeting was Jack Hanson.

Hanson left the meeting screaming for County Counsel

INSTEAD OF PLACING THE RECALL ELECTION CERTIFICATION AS THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS, JACK HANSON KEPT MOVING THIS AGENDA ITEM UNTIL IT WAS THE LAST ITEM TO BE VOTED ON.

WHY, BECAUSE HE COULD

Two more.........................

Are Julie Bustamante's Policies

Unethical or just Cheating?

62.22 % of District 5 voters decisively recalled Jack Hanson

Jack Hanson was recalled on 9/10/13, and continued to be recalled on 9/13/13 and remained  recalled on 9/17/13

Lassen County Clerk prepares the Board of Supervisors Agendas and "ethically" should have included the election results on the September 17, 2013 Board of Supervisors Agenda. The only thing that prevented Bustamante from placing the election results on the September 17, 2013 Board of Supervisors meeting was BUSTAMANTE.

She had another agenda

Bustamante issued an unofficial final Certificate of her "Canvass" of the election results on 9/11/13. Special emphasis on the fact she post dated her signature (9/13/13) (Election Code 15301 states she must do this canvas by 9/12/13)

Election Code 11384 states if the majority of the votes on a recall election are "YES" (62.22% is still a majority) the officer sought to be recalled shall be removed UPON THE QUALIFICATION OF THE SUCCESSOR.

The "QUALIFICATION" requirement means that the Board of Supervisors must vote to accept the election results.  

After Bustamante posted her September 11, 2013/ September 13/2013 UNOFFICIAL FINAL she waited to issue her Final/FINAL on September 16, 2013.

If Bustamante had placed the election results on the Board of Supervisors September 17, 2013 Agenda as the first Agenda item, Jack Hanson would have been removed, Tom Hammond would have been issued his "Certificate of Election" and administered the Oath of office.

Jack Hanson was recalled on 9/10/13, and continued to be recalled on 9/13/13 and remained  recalled on 9/17/13

The 9/24/13 Board of Supervisors Agenda places the Election Results after items requiring votes.

Will Hanson have enough class to recuse himself from any voting?

He didn't at the 9/17/13 meeting.

Martin Nichols even tried to put it as the last Agenda item on the 9/24/13 Agenda? 

It just gets sleazier.....................

On September 10, 2013 Jack Hanson Ceased to

be a Lassen County Supervisor

District 5 voted a new Supervisor in and no matter how long Julie Bustamante delays giving Tom Hammond his Oath of Office, Jack Hanson can not act in any official capacity on the Lassen County Board of Supervisors

 Hanson's official role ended on 9/10/13

If he refuses to step down he can be removed by the courts. Is this what he wants?

Supervisor Jack Hanson Recalled

Jack Hanson was elected with776 votes in 2006, 889  votes in 2010

531 votes in 2013 to Recall Jack Hanson

The Perception of Abuse of Power

Lassen County Clerk was forced, by the Court,  to hold the Jack Hanson Recall Election.

A reputable County Clerk would have placed the recall election Certification on the September 17, 2013 Board of Supervisors Agenda (Bustamante is also the Clerk of the Board and is responsible for the Agendas) This would have allowed Tom Hammond to take the Oath of Office at the 9/17/13 Board of Supervisors meeting.

 Bustamante hides behind the fact that this is HER POLICY.

Lassen County Clerk Julie Bustamante apparently feels that she did nothing wrong when she made it her POLICY to:

..... delay newly elected County Supervisor Tom Hammond's seat on the Board on September 17, 2013

....not place the Recall signature results and election Certification on the "next" Board of Supervisors Agenda as required by the law

....reject the Jack Hanson Recall petitions twice and then was ordered by a Court of Law to not only accept the petitions but to count the signatures

....approve no more petition recall signatures than the minimum set by the court. Bustamante lost a Writ of Mandate that forced her to do the right thing.

....place her daughter as a Doyle precinct worker when County Rules prohibit this.

Bustamante's "policies" are not illegal. The Secretary of State allows her enough rope to hang herself.

Bustamante's "POLICIES" are not illegal, but they don't get her re-elected either.

Supervisor Jack Hanson Ceased to be a Lassen County Supervisor on September 10, 2013

This meeting can be viewed on YouTube

The District 5 Supervisors seat remains vacant until the new Supervisor is sworn in

So "who" didn't inform Jack Hanson

Former Supervisor Jack Hanson took his seat, on the Board, as though no one told him

the voters fired him

Hanson proceeded to threaten Alan Schumacher after he criticized Hanson for "blowing up at a Herlong Meeting". 

The criticism was made with a civil tone and Hanson immediately stated that Mr. Schumacher was disrupting the meeting.  The Brown Act allows anyone to criticize their elected officials.

WHO DO THESE MEN THINK THEY ARE?

Another person, long time resident Iona McCain, stated that Martin Nichols should be fired

This meeting is available on YouTube

Supervisor Jim Chapman

Full of Crap

on 2013/2014 Budget

A forensic study was done on Lassen County's 2013-2014 Budget and the number one thing that became obvious was that the expenditures were padded to create the appearance of a deficit. Forty six expense accounts were increased as much as 68%.

The Lassen County CAO Martin Nichols and the Lassen County Supervisors boosted the budgets expenses from the previous year budget by over $23,000,000.

 How many years have they been doing this?

 Has anyone ever checked on these elected officials?

Forensic study's (investigations after the fact) are normally done to expose embezzlement or for severe cost cutting.  In this case, the Supervisors deception was intentionally done to fool the public that they have been fiscally responsible.

 The 9-5-13 audio disc tells it all.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me

Hell,

these Supervisors couldn't even be honest

about what pay they are giving themselves

Lassen County 2013/2014 Budget Hearings

A Colossal Exchange between Idiots

L to R: Supervisor Wosick, Pyle, Hanson, Albaugh and Chapman

The September 5, 2013 budget hearing was so revealing that these Supervisors not only do not know what they are doing, but they hired an idiot to manage the County's business. 

The only adults in the room: Sheriff Growden and Auditor Karen Fouch

Kan We Help is making available the audio of this meeting, FREE

to request a free copy write to: Kan We Help, PO Box 1243, Westwood, CA 96137

or

e-mail requests to: opinions@kanwehelp.com

HIGHLIGHTS of the Meeting:

You will hear Supervisor Chapman and Wosick say"We have plenty of funds to work with"

You will hear Supervisor Chapman say, "We have more revenue than expenditures

You will hear Supervisor Wosick say after the budget was passed, "Now we have to make costs cuts in the Departments"

You will hear a discussion on immediately cutting  $1.5 from Department Budgets

You will hear Supervisor Pyle asking to cut 20% of all Office Supply expenditures 

(The Supervisors padded "Account 2200: Office Supplies by 68% over last years budget) 

2012/213: $172,225  -   2013/2014: $288,524 

You will hear a piece of the ceiling fall on Supervisor Pyle

You will hear Supervisor Hanson hesitate for minutes and then vote yes for POOL Funding

You will hear Supervisor Pyle and Supervisor Albaughvote against POOL funding

You will hear Supervisor Wosick make a motion to use $200,000 of the $300,000 Tobacco Settlement money to fund the POOL until 2025

You will hear Supervisor Chapman offer to bribe Supervisor Albaugh by adding $20,000 to fund his Beiber Pool

You will hear Supervisor Albaugh refuse the $20,000 to maintain his Beiber Pool (which was built with public money funded by the State of California)

You will hear an hour of Supervisor Chapman's personal financial history

You will hear petty fighting and insults, and more insults, and then more insults

You will hear Marty Nichols exposing his lack of knowledge on all issues

You will find out that not one person on this Board attending this Budget hearing had the basic skills of addition or subtraction. This alone is worth listening to the recording. It was a Laurel and Hardy "Who's on First" routine.

The only conclusion from this meeting where there were no cameras and no audience:

RECALL THEM ALL

Don't take our word. The recording is FREE

Lassen County Clerk Bustamante posted the Election Certification on 9/11/13

 but put 9/13/13 on the document.

Is there something slightly IMPROPER ABOUT THIS

and even illegal?

Supervisor Jack Hanson Recalled

Lassen County CAO Martin Nichols

Obstructs Access to Public Document Request

Nichols was hired by Lassen County  on January 17, 2012 by the  very questionable tactics of Richard Crabtree

Martin Nichols prohibits public document to be released.

Kan We Help requested a copy of the Public Works Departments current "Capital Improvement List" that existed on August 23, 2013.

This "List" is maintained by the Lassen County Public Works Department, not the CAO. This is a disclosable public document.

CAO Martin Nichols stepped in and prohibited this document from being released. It appears that this was his responsibility to create and maintain a Capital Improvement PLAN as part of his official mandated duties. Nichols never did this. 2013 Public Records Requests

Lassen County Does Not Need This Type of Deceitful CAO

Nichols will leave Lassen County the same way he left Red Bluff. It can't be soon enough.

Why Would the Lassen County Board of Supervisors

Vote to Nullify

Any Part of their "Personnel Rules and Regulations"

for one County employee?

Because Richard Crabtree and Martin Nichols told them to?

Red Bluff's City Attorney Richard Crabtree came to Lassen County to write his friend Martin Nichols Lassen County employment contract.

The Red Bluff City Council minutes do not mention Martin Nichols after his Performance Review at the November 1, 2011 meeting.

The Red Bluff  City Council voted to appoint Cheryl Smith as  an interim City Manager at their January 17, 2012.

This is the  first acknowledgement by the City of Red Bluff that Martin Nichols no longer worked for the City of Red Bluff

WAS MARTIN NICHOLS FIRED or FORCED TO RESIGN to AVOID LITIGATION?

MARTIN NICHOLS LASSEN COUNTY CONTRACT

Signed by Brian Dahle on January 17, 2012

 Some of Martin Nichols contract nullified the Lassen County "Personnel Rules and Regulations". These rules apply to all Lassen County Employees except Martin Nichols.

Who would agree to this?

 It gets much worse.  Red Bluff City Attorney Richard Crabtree inserts a paragraph, in Nichols contract, that will require the Lassen County Supervisors to violate the Brown Act. 

 Now, there is nothing wrong or illegal about annual Employee evaluations unless you do them weekly and discuss public issues under the guise of an "employee evaluation performance". 

This paragraph is for one purpose only, to VIOLATE THE BROWN ACT.

NOTE TO THE SUPERVISORS: TRANSPARENCY. ALL GOALS SHOULD BE IN WRITING TO THIS CAO.

Martin Nichols brought his "old" tricks with him to Red Bluff and now to Lassen County.

Supervisor Wosick Suddenly

Becomes Critical of Kan We Help

After

CAO Gives Supervisor Wosick  an Incentive;

a Pay Raise

Albaugh:  $1279.35 x 26 pay period = $33,263

Wosick: $1311.33 x 26 pay periods = $34, 094

While Supervisor Wosick has served only 2 1/2 years, of his first term, as a Lassen County Supervisor, Martin Nichols suddenly gives him a 2.5% pay raise. 

And suddenly Wosick is turned into the only Supervisor that began harshly criticizing the critics that have exposed  Supervisors  Hanson, Pyle and Chapmans paychecks that exceeded $3,000 over Municipal Code 2.36.030 that governs their fixed salary

Hanson: $1407.28 x 26 pay periods - $36,589.28

Supervisors Salary History

.....and there is more

Nichols Disrupts Red Bluff Government

Former Red Bluff City Manager Martin Nichols tends to create turmoil where ever he goes.

Martin Nichols got himself in a mess when Red Bluff's Finance Director complained about his mis-use of public money. Nichols fired her and then had to look for work himself. Unfortunately Lassen County inherited Nichols employment history and management style (more coming on his management style).

With the help of Red Bluff City Attorney& Lassen County Counsel Richard Crabtree, Martin Nichols quickly submitted an application on 10/22/11 for the CAO of Lassen County.

Martin Nichols apparently saw the writing-on-the-wall. Red Bluff is still picking up the pieces from the mess Martin Nichols left.

Lassen County Clerk Places Her Daughter

at a

Recall Precinct in District 5

Lassen County Clerk Julie Bustamante places her daughter, Nicole, at one of the Recall precincts in District 5 as a "Trainer". Nicole will be handling ballots for the Jack Hanson Recall Election on September 10, 2013.

In 2002,Nicole tried to hide the AccuVote Audit tape in her purse. When told that she couldn't do that she tried to hide it in the case for the voting machine.  Eventually she was forced to place it in the bag with the ballots and it was sealed. 

In 2012, Nicole was placed, at the Westwood precinct, where a seal on the AccuVote machine just "fell off" and was replaced. 

Supervisor Jack Hanson announced today

that he will not be

attending the September 10, 2013

Board of Supervisors meeting

Why Did Martin Nichols Pick Lassen County?

ANSWER IS BELOW

Martin Nichols

Former Lassen County CAO and whistleblower Tom Stone angered the Supervisors by exposing the Supervisors questionable spending and was fired on July 12, 2011

Former Red Bluff City Manager Martin Nichols is a bully and fires whistleblowers

Why Did Martin Nichols Leave Red Bluff?

ANSWER IS BELOW

The Red Bluff Daily News also ran a story about Nichols handling of city deficits

Martin Nichols submitted an application for employment on October 22, 2011 for the Lassen County County Administrative Officer position that Richard Crabtree held.

At the January 17, 2012 Lassen County Board of Supervisors meeting Nichols friend Richard Crabtree placed the appointment of Martin Nichols in Closed Session

and

reported no action.

Slick, Slick, Slick, Slick, Slick, Slick, slick

The Supervisors reported no action on Martin Nichols in Closed Session but Crabtree had an employment contract ready for  his friend Martin Nichols

..and at the end of the Agenda Crabtree has a contract ready for Martin Nichols......

Richard Crabtree has been Red Bluff's City Attorney since 2002 (earning from $85,000 to $111,000 even though Crabtree's contract states he is paid $50,000).

Red Bluff' will also pay Crabtree $170,000 for his City Manager position. (Nichols earned only $120,000 as Red Bluff's City Manager) Crabtree continues to be paid by Lassen County as well.

NOTE: Martin Nichols employment contract was written by Richard Crabtree who just happened to be replacing Martin Nichols in Red Bluff as their new City Manager/City Attorney 

Red Bluff and Lassen County seems to be a merry-go-round for moving and exchanges of positions

John Blacklock sat in as Red Bluff's City Manager until November 23, 2006 when Martin Nichols was hired as City Manager John Blacklock then sat in as interim CAO for Lassen County from August 23, 2011 until December 13, 2011. Richard Crabtree (Red Bluff's City Attorney) was hired as Lassen County CAO. Crabtree was CAO, Lassen,  from December 20, 2011 until March 5, 2012 when Martin Nichols left his City Manager position in Red Bluff. Crabtree then became City Manager in Red Bluff

And Lassen County CAO Martin Nichols Is

Qualified to Do What....?

Martin Nichols left Red Bluff earning $125,000. We asked around why he left. It will be the same reason why he will leave Lassen County

The "Budget" cannot support the recent $10,000 raise and another $10,000 raise in April of 2014. 

Is he worth $166,000? 

Hell no.

and this is the reason why

There is no reason for the Lassen County Supervisors to go through so many County Administrators in such a short period of time. 

But maybe there is a reason. Former Lassen County CAO Tom Stone was hired on December 6, 2010 and fired on July 12, 2011..

CAO Tom Stone raised more than the Supervisors eyebrows when he dared to bring up a very sensitive subject. THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. Stone brought up the CIP at the January 18, 2011 meeting and again at the February 15, 2011 BOS meeting.

Municipal Code 2.06.035 (10) mandates the Lassen County CAO to prepare and keep current a Capital Improvement Plan

Tom Stone put the Supervisors on notice that the County DID NOT HAVE A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

This and other irregular issues CAO Stone was not willing to put back in the closet led to his short tenure in Lassen County. 

The Capital Improvement Plan identifies County owned property, defines maintenance and plans for the use of the County's property.

1. Kan We Help initially asked Deputy CAO Julie Morgan for a copy of the Capital Improvement Plan. She stated that it was being "updated".

2 Next County Administrative Assistant Regina Schaap told Kan We Help that she would e-mail a copy.

Martin Nichols immediately stepped in and told both of them that he was not going to release it.

WHY? 

       IT DOES NOT EXIST.

3. Finally, we asked Public Works Director Larry Millar for the County's CIP. Mr. Millar said there isn't one . He said that his Property List is the only document that lists County property and Martin Nichols took it.

THE FINAL INSULT

At the August 20, 2013 Board of Supervisors meeting, Dr. James Hodge asked in Public Comment for a copy of the County's Capital Improvement Plan.

Suprisingly, Jack Hanson replied that he would get him a copy.

A COPY OF SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT EXIST

Now, Mr. Nichols is going to go through the motions and the lies that a CIP existed, when in fact it doesn't.

Something to definitely watch unfold

Lassen County Clerk Error ?

Jack Hanson says "No"

#2 :Hanson admits to wastefully spending $800,000 ?

District 5 Election to Recall Supervisor Jack Hanson

September 10, 2013

7:00 AM to 8:00 PM

Johnstonville Fire Station, 705-145 Highway 395 East, Johnstonville

Church of Jesus Christ- 718-045 Highway 395 East, Standish

South Lassen Senior Citizens Building, 434-685 Doyle Loop, Doyle

Kan We Help Requests, for the fourth time, that the Board of Supervisors Salary Be Placed Back on the Agenda

Supervisor Wosick displayed his lack of math skills when he stated, at the August 20, 2013 Board of Supervisors meeting, there was only $100 difference in his pay from Supervisor Hanson, Chapman and Pyle. Last week Wosick stated that there was only a $12. difference

If anyone is thinking about running for a seat on the Lassen County Board,

move to District 1,2 or 5, it pays more

The Municipal Code states that all Supervisors receive the same pay, oooops?

Kan We Help Files

Two Brown Act Complaints Against

 the Lassen County Supervisors

While Supervisor Wosick enjoyed his personal attack on the complaints filed by the Kan We Help Secretary, his slanderous comments may prove to be expensive

Lassen County Supervisors meetings now on YouTube

#1

#2

The Supervisors released this letter at the March 19, 2013 meeting.

They did not want to alert the public to this NON-BUDGETED SALARY INCREASE.

Career Politicians Know How

to Take Care of Themselves

Kan We Help has been requesting the recent Lassen County Supervisors raises be put back on the Agenda. Supervisor Pyle was asked twice to bring this issue back to the table.

This is how he responded:

The Supervisors 6.8% pay raise was not budgeted nor was the $10,000 they gave Nichols for pulling this off

Budgeted:$2772 a month =  $33,263

Pyle is receiving $36,223

PLUS

$14,282.58(benefits)

EQUALS

 $50,871.58 annually

Since that was not revealed, we need to talk about this tiny, minor, significant detail

Self Serving Lassen County Supervisors

First the Lassen County Supervisors give themselves a raise (June 25, 2013) that exceeds the limit of their own Ordinance,

Second, the Lassen County Supervisors surreptitiously give CAO Nichols a $10,000 ( to $156,000) raise and another $10,000 in  2014.

and THEN have the audacity to announce there is a

$3,000,000 deficit

Will they really expect the County Employees to take a Pay Cut ??

AND IF THIS WASN'T BAD ENOUGH, SUPERVISOR CHAPMAN COMES OUT WITH A

DISINGENUOUS

UNKIND

 "P0LITICAL STUNT"

 FOR A NEW POOL PLAN 

Community Pool Closed in 2004

Lassen County Supervisors voted to amend

Municipal Code 2.36.030 and raise their salary to $35,485 starting August 25, 2013, but then ordered CAO Nichols to change their salaries on July 17, 2013

Supervisor District 5

Supervisor Jack Hanson's Salary::  $36,589

Supervisor Wosick currently receives the legal salary according to Municipal Code 2.36.030

Supervisor District 3

Supervisor Larry Wosick's Salary:  $35, 485

What the taxpayers don't know won't hurt them.

Lassen County Supervisor Salary History & 700 Forms

THREE LASSEN COUNTY SUPERVISORS

HAVE

TOP DOG SYNDROME

??

District 3 and District 4 Supervisors

 are just as important as

Hanson, Chapman and Pyle's Districts

and

Deserve Equal Pay

The public has been unaware of this discrepancy

Supervisor Pyle Asked to Place Their Salaries Back on Today's Agenda

Pyle just ignored the request

Supervisor Pyle Claims that he did not get KWH's request to add an agenda item on today's Agenda.  This request was sent to CAO Nichols also.  Neither one responded. They both just ignored a public request. The Supervisors Rules and Procedures allows for the public to use this form to request an item to be placed on an agenda.  Supervisors and the CAO ignore the public.

KAN WE HELP PROPOSAL:

Kan We Help believes that each of the Supervisor Districts are equal in importance and relevance.

Yet Supervisor Hanson, Supervisor Pyle and Supervisor Chapman pay themselves over $3,000 more than Supervisor Wosick and Albaugh.

Kan We Help asked that an Agenda Item be added today since an earlier request was ignored, so that KWH could introduce a DRAFT Ordinance today, to be considered,  so that each District Supervisor would actually be guaranteed to receive the same pay. 

Alternative:  TERM LIMITS

Ordinance 532-C (Municipal Code 2.36.030) states very clearly that each Supervisor receives the same exact pay, but the Supervisors chose to ignore it.

Kan We Help Proposes the following Amendment:

This is what these changes would look like:

NOTE:  Employer paid benefit premiums fluctuate according to what the Supervisors sign up for

LASSEN COUNTY SUPERVISOR

JACK HANSON

RECALL ELECTION

ONE MONTH AWAY

Too many family favors left, so little time................

District 5 registered voters will decide

 to continue with Jack Hanson or not

There are 2324 registered voters in District 5

In  2010, 889 voted for Jack Hanson

754 signed the Recall Petition

Supervisor Hanson, Supervisor Chapman and Supervisor Pyle

Sat in the Supervisors Chambers on June 25, 2013 and Voted

to Increase Their Pay from $33,263 to $35,485

Who makes the decision to break the law?

The Ordinance the Supervisors approved to raise their salary is effective after August 25, 2013, yet it appeared on their July 17, 2013 paycheck?

Lassen County Supervisors

Salary Ordinances A Sham

The latest Supervisor pay increase approved, at the June 25, 2013 meeting, will take effect in 60 days. The Supervisors claimed that unlike all other County employees they will have to wait until the August 28, 2013 paycheck to receive their raise.

So much for the truth

 Public records indicate the Lassen County Supervisors received a raise on their July 17, 2013 paycheck.

Kan We Help requested the Supervisors place their "pay" back on the Agenda for the July 23, 2013  & the August 13, 2013 meeting. They have refused to do that.

The Supervisors are paid for 40 hours a week. Not one of these Supervisors work a 40 hour week.

The Supervisors pay is determined by Municipal Code 2.36.030. The Supervisors determine their own salaries and if they want MORE, all they have to do is amend this Ordinance. 

The current Ordinance does not state the Supervisors are entitled to any additional pay other than what is stated. They are not entitled to sick pay, vacation pay, longevity pay or holiday pay.  It would be easy to amend this ordinance to include this pay but that would risk disclosing this to the public. 

Supervisors attempted to invoke the   "25% Judges Salary" in 2007

Supervisors Wosick and Supervisor Albaugh currently receive the salary according to Municipal Code 2.36.030

It Is Always a Conspiracy to Question Public Agencies

 in Lassen County

until you present those pesky facts

It is so much easier to tell the truth

.....it so much more work to tell the lies

It is so much easier to be honest

.....it is so much work to be dishonest

"We the people" try so hard to make our government  transparent.  We pass laws that require openness in public meetings so that "the people" can participate in their government. We pass laws that allow us to obtain public documents. We pass laws that require elected officials to disclose conflict of interests.

Yet, elected officials cannot resist trying to game the laws.

 Back room deals are made in plain sight, manipulation of laws for profit, conflict of interests are tolerated only because of the threats of retaliation if you complain, silent partners on land deals so conflicts will be concealed.

Sometimes, people stand up and say "ENOUGH".  

Accountability through exposure

LASSEN COUNTY SUPERVISORS ATTEMPTED TO CHANGE THEIR SALARIES ON

JANUARY 16, 2007 failed

AND

AUGUST 17, 2010  failed

L to R:  Supervisor Wosick, Supervisor Pyle, Supervisor Hanson, Supervisor Albaugh, Supervisor Chapman

Lassen County Supervisors placed a huge pay raise for themselves at their January 16, 2007 meeting.

The public said no.

Even Supervisor Dahle stated he felt the salary increase was too high.

The Supervisors salary, in relation to a Judges salary, was put there by the Supervisors themselves. This was the first time the Supervisor attempted and failed to enact that language.

This salary formula should never have been added to Ordinance 532. It however remains the only formula that determines the Lassen County Supervisors salary/pay.  It must be deleted. Not because it is ridiculous but because it will never be used and there are more sensible and fairer ways to determine what the taxpayers should pay them

Lassen County Supervisors introduced Ordinance 575 at their August 17, 2010 meeting that intended to decrease their salary.

The Supervisors took no action, on Ordinance 575, to decrease their salary.

From the August 17, 2010 Minutes

According to the FPPC 700 Forms, with the exception of Supervisor Chapman,

THESE SUPERVISORS ARE ALL WORTH

OVER A $1,000,000

County Supervisors: How much is the Power & Authority worth to you?

County Supervisors are telling the public the

County Employees will not receive their PERS raise on July 17, 2013 if Ordinance 2013-002 does not go into effect.

This is totally false.

Resolution 2012-57

Lassen County Supervisor Albaugh Thanked

 Kan We Help Spokesperson Eileen Spencer For Letting Him Know What His Actual Salary Was At the July 23, 2013 Supervisors Meeting

Albaugh stated that he did not know what his pay was?

Comments Supervisor Albaugh made, at the June 25, 2013 meeting, that the new Supervisors pay raise he voted on "didn't effect him", sparked a look at the Supervisors salary history. 

Supervisor Albaugh appeared alert and awake when he voted to approve his pay increase on June 25, 2013 from $33,263 to $35,485.

...... but he could have very well been in a coma.

Lassen County Supervisor Salary History

Lassen County Supervisor Pyle Offended

 When His Actual Salary Was Exposed

Supervisor Pyle is paying himself $3,000 a year over the legal amount specified by Municipal Code 2.36.030, AND HE HAS THE AUDACITY TO BLURT OUT

"My paycheck went down on July 17"

Supervisor Pyle is crying over the $168.07 that was deducted from his paycheck on July 17, 2013 for his retirement premium (PERS)

Supervisor Pyle failed to mention that on June 25, 2013, he and the other Supervisors voted themselves a $2,223 salary increase so that they will not have to start paying for their own PERS premium.  This raise will go into effect on August 25, 2013.

.....and the infamous "Oink Award" goes to Supervisor Pyle   

2013 FAT CAT

GOES TO

 Supervisor Bob Pyle

Lassen County Supervisors Meetings are posted on You Tube

The Lassen County Supervisor set their own salaries by an Ordinance

The irony:  These Supervisors passed, (Ordinance 2013-002)  to raise their salary to $35,485 but it will actually lower Chapman and Pyle's salary. 

1.Did Chapman, Pyle and Hanson believe the $2,223 annual increase would be added on to their current salaries?

2. Did Hanson, Chapman and Pyle believe no one would ever, ever, ever check?

Larry Wosick claims that it is petty to complain about$12.00?????  What $12.00's Larry?

 Larry it is $2,960.46 a year overpayment and it has been going on for many years.

Lassen County Supervisors Meetings are posted on You Tube

Lassen County Supervisor Jim Chapman Given Opportunity to Retract Brown Act Violation Statement

Lassen County Supervisors meetings now on You Tube

Mr. Chapman has been on the Board since 1988

Kan We Help Spokesperson Eileen Spencer asked Mr. Chapman to retract his statement, He declined to do so. Mr. Chapman was then told that Kan We Help would file a Brown Act Violation Complaint against him

Lassen County Supervisor Salary History

Hide in plain sight

Lassen County Supervisors Legal

Annual Salary $33, 263

Lassen County Supervisor Salary History

 At least that is what Supervisor Hanson, Supervisor Chapman and Supervisor Pyle wanted the public to believe when they passed a pay raise for themselves on June 25, 2013.

L to R: Wosick, Pyle, Hanson, Albaugh, Chapman

Hidden in plain sight was the fact Supervisors Hanson, Pyle and Chapman had been overpaying themselves for years.

Supervisor Pyle and Supervisor Chapman have been receiving an annual salary of  $36,223 AND Supervisor Hanson is receiving $36,223

Supervisor Wosick and Albaugh were receiving the correct amount of $33,263.

The Lassen County Auditor has confirmed all Supervisors current salaries.

Kan We Help asked the Supervisors today to immediately repeal Ordinance 2013-002 that would change all of the Supervisors annual salary to $35,485.

Supervisor Wosick wanted the Ordinance repealed and  change the Supervisors salaries to $44,297.25.

Supervisor Albaugh opposed repealing his June 25, 2013 pay raise.

No comments from Hanson, Pyle or Chapman

Lassen Municipal Utility District

Standish Substation Rebuild ?

July 23, 2013,  LMUD Agenda Item #11"potentially imminent failure of transformer at Standish Substation"

R E A L L Y..........................?

On July 9, 2013, LMUD calls for a planned outage at the Standish Substation and then the General Manager/Bookkeeper wants a "spare" transformer for the Standish substation

Spare part for Standish .......or new part for Lambert Lane ?

Lambert Lane Substation Site Continues to Sit  Empty

Wayne Langston was President of the LMUD Board when Bill Stewart opened the Lambert Lane Substation project account on September 9, 2010. No authorization to take this action was authorized by the LMUD Board. There was no authorization to spend a single dollar on the Lambert Lane Substation prior to September 9, 2010,yet it appears that $358,000 for material and labor had been bought and paid for on a non-existent project.

........BUT WHERE OR WHERE ARE THOSE PESKY TRANSFORMERS?

LMUD'S ONLY PROJECT:

BUILD AN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE NON-EXISTENT 230 kv TRANSMISSION LINE

 TAKE A REAL GOOD LOOK AT WHAT LMUD IS SPENDING TO DO JUST THAT

Nagel said in 2011 that LMUD would not have to spend any money,

"JUST PROVIDE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY"

Is Lassen County CAO Martin Nichols

UNDER SCRUTINY?

The Lassen County Supervisors have placed CAO Martin Nichols on their Agenda for Evaluation five (5) times this year [3/12/13, 5/21/13, 6/11/13, 7/9/13 and now 7/23/13]

Lassen County Board of Supervisors  

Creates New Tactic

to Prevent Any Scrutiny of Their Minutes by the Public...... 

they are going to distribute the Minutes, to be approved, AT THE MEETINGS.

BOS Meetings are now on YouTube

If you want to watch the Politics in Lassen County

.......watch the Land Deals

The large landowners in Lassen County pretty much run county politics. If they want to develop property and need the zones changed they just move it through the system with as much artifice as possible.

You will need an old politician to verify that things war different back then, we didn't have all this fancy stuff and we let a lot of stuff get through.

You will need an old looking map and testimony that you can't rely on those old dang Assessors maps.  

Recently, LMUD purchased 5.6 Acres from an elderly Standish lady that had been paying taxes on 10 acres of land  not 5.6 Acres.

Fred and Theresa Nagel had been paying taxes, for years, on an empty lot that had a completed house on it. (Not an usual situation in Lassen County politics)

Fred Nagel was hired by the Fruit Growers to get their Eagle Lake TPZ  property changed to Recreational. Kan We Help presented problems with this request and Nagel did not pursue it in 2012. Now Nagel is back asking the Board to put it back on the Agenda. The July 16, 2013 Agenda had approved a zone change for relatives of Jack Hanson and Nagel showed up for a similar favor. 

Jewels from the mouth of Lassen County Supervisor Albaugh

July 16, 2013

To Sheriff Growden; "Is the female equipment for women?"

or

"Will they need to have a freezer for the frozen products?"

Hostile Supervisors

Supervisors Pyle and Hanson

lash out at Eileen Spencer at their meetings

Even though the Supervisors meetings are being video taped and uploaded to YouTube, Supervisor Pyle and Hanson continue to yell out at Eileen Spencer from their seats and harass her for no apparent reason?

Supervisor Hanson stormed out of the meeting before this letter from Kan We Help was read.

Deputy Clerk of the Board, Susan Osgood could not see where there was any error but Supervisor Chapman agreed that the correction Ms. Spencer was asking for should be made. Supervisor Wosick also requested a change in a date. Both dates will be corrected.

The June 18, 2013 Minutes were pulled from the July 9, 2013 Agenda and replaced at the last minute with the June 25, 2013 Minutes. 

The June 18, 2013 Minutes were then revised and placed on the July 16, 2013 hoping no one would notice.

Liability Claims by LMUD Board's

Drive Board Insurance Premiums Up

The LMUD Board's bad management decisions have led to their own Liability Insurance premiums to skyrocket and forces the Board to seek new insurance company.

LMUD General Manager/General Counsel Frank Cady fires LMUD Steve Trevino (Fed. Case 07cv02106) over $600,000 paid by Zurich

Sexual Harassment Federal Case 10cv00286 $130,000 paid by Zurich to each plaintiff

The LMUD Board's Lies about the Hayden Hill purchase. Zurich has paid out over  $500,000 (Fed. Case 11cv0255)

LMUD Board's decision to alter Amedee Geothermal plant electric service has cost over $700,000......paid by Zurich

.......these are just a sample of the insurance claims paid under Zurich

Lassen County Supervisors Add All Supporting Documents

to Their Website, THREE WEEKS IN A ROW

For months, Kan We Help has been requesting the Lassen County Supervisors post all actionable supporting documents (Minutes, Agendas, Ordinances, Resolutions, Reports.....)  on their website for the public.  The Supervisors have been able to post every supporting document for the last three weeks.

The Lassen County Supervisors have Minutes that are years old that have never been approved. Kan We Help has given them a list of outstanding Minutes to approve. If they don't get them approved before the Recall Election on September 10, 2013, they will not have a quorum ( 3) to approve them.

58 California Registrar of Voters Under

the Protection of the Secretary of State

....but no local oversight ?

 The illusion of fair elections

must be maintained

In 2006, eighteen County Election Officers were sued over abuses with the Diebold Voting machines. Lassen County Clerk Theresa Nagel was included in this lawsuit. Theresa Nagel was up for re-election and chose not to run again. Julie Bustamante, Deputy County Clerk ran for this position and won.

County Election Officials are normally separate from the County Clerk's office but in Lassen County the election duties are combined within the County Clerks office.  Election laws are set by the State of California and any criminal activity reported by the Secretary of State is handled by the Attorney General.

However, indiscretion complaints ( Recall Certificate of Sufficiency's , white-out, Memory Cards)  are disciplined by the Secretary of State's Fraud Unit. 

There is a process, for the public, when there is evidence of a failure to follow Election Codes.  

1. Make an oral or written complaint directly to the local Election Official

2. Make a complaint in a public forum

*3. File a complaint with the Secretary of State

4. File a complaint with the Attorney General

5. File a civil lawsuit

6. Recall the Election Official

*The Secretary of State will always handle all complaints "in-house". The public will not know about any discipline or action by the Secretary of State, unless it is immediately evident the Election Official has corrected any indiscretion.

 Serious complaints, such as "tampering" are always kept confidential. The Secretary of State, regardless of political party, quietly handles the incident  "in-house" to protect the Secretary of State and the County Election Officer.

The illusion of fair elections must be maintained at all times.

The Secretary of State is no different than any other government agency with a limited budget. Local District Attorneys pick and choose which criminal cases they can afford to prosecute. It is no different with the Secretary of State.

Lassen County Clerk Julie Bustamante knows very well that she is protected by the Secretary of State if she strays from complying with California's Election Codes. The only thing Bustamante risks is a Civil lawsuit and/or Recall.  The Secretary of State has a HANDS OFF position on local election issues and depends on the public resolving serious non-compliances with private lawsuits or recall elections.

While most County Election Officials would not risk exposing personal agendas in their elections, Bustamante has shown no fear of exposure to such complaints

THAT IS SIMPLY NOT ACCEPTABLE

In the 2012 Presidential and Supervisorial election, Julie Bustamante claims that she followed instructions and written procedures when a "memory card seal" fell off.

The information on this report is incorrect. The Memory Card assigned to this voting machine is serial number 246745. It was erroneously replaced with Memory Card serial number 662618.  IT IS THAT SIMPLE. FLAGRANT TAMPERING.......WHY?

SLEAZY EVEN FOR BUSTAMANTE

IT IS THAT SIMPLE.

FLAGRANT TAMPERING.......WHY?

tricks of the trade

The voting machines are sent home with a poll worker of her choice. Replacing the Memory Card goes undetected until the numbers are checked first thing in the morning at the precinct.

No memory card "seals" are available at any Precinct.

    District 1 Supervisor Bob Pyle won by 27 votes in that 2012 election. The Westwood Precinct is within District 1

While most County Election Officials would not risk exposing personal agendas in their elections, Bustamante has shown that she is extremely good at this. She learned all the tricks of the trade from her previous Boss.  In the 2002 Lassen County Election, the Memory card serial numbers after the election did not match any Memory Card serial numbers that had been assigned to the Accuvote machines. A complaint was filed with the current Secretary of State and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WAS DONE. This complaint also included White Out being used on ballots. The Secretary of State told Theresa Nagel she could no longer use White Out on the ballots but dismissed the Memory Cards being changed ?

In the 2002 election, Julie Bustamante's, High School age daughter Nicole, attempted to place the voting audit tape in her purse....Accuvote carrying case........ and finally was forced to place it in the clear plastic bag with the ballots.

Bustamante claims that Complaints were filed because

someone DOESN'T LIKE HER..........REALLY?

Just ignore the evidence......RIGHT?

State Procedure requires Ms. Bustamante to remove the voting equipment if a seal has been compromised. Ms. Bustamante determined that a seal falling off did not necessitate her to follow the protocol. This seal fell off PRIOR TO THE POLLS BEING OPENED. Was the Memory Card replaced with "another" erroneous card?

Bustamante answers a questionnaire from the Secretary of State on her local procedures:

........AND THE MEMORY CARD SEALS ?

Bustamante also tells the Secretary of State that the AccuVote machines go home with  Poll Workers.

Bottom Line:

Integrity of Lassen County Elections Are and Will Continue to Be Suspect

Can Bustamante Conduct A Fair Election ?

Her history says No

Bustamante continues to be Partisan

Kan We Help has filed a request for the California Secretary of State to conduct the Recall Election or at least send a Representative to monitor the election in September.

There are so many irregularities

There are so many irregularities

In 2002, Kan We Help raised serious concerns that the election had been tampered with. It was documented that the voting machine memory card serial numbers did not match the serial numbers that were registered to the voting machines. The memory cards had been changed.

Nicole Bustamante, Julies daughter,  attempted to place the voting audit tape in her purse

In 2002, Kan We Help caught Theresa Nagel and Julie Bustamante putting "white-out" (correction tape) on ballots.

In 2002, the voters were given pencils to use ???

Nagel and Bustamante only got their hands slapped  for the  white-out ? 

In 2006, California Secretary of State visits all 18 Counties effected by the Diebold lawsuit on March 21, 2006

 In 2006, Lassen County Clerk named in Diebold lawsuit

In 2012, voters in the Standish-Litchfield Fire District received ballots with the Susan River Fire District candidates on it.  Lassen County Clerk, Julie Bustamante, sent out bad ballots and didn't even know it.

In the 2012 Election, memory card seal "falls off" voting machine in Supervisor Pyle's District 1, Julie's daughter again is present

[ MORE TO COME ON THIS ]

Tom Hammond

will run for District 5 Supervisor

in

Recall Election, September 10, 2013

to recall Supervisor Jack Hanson

Jack Hanson Recall

LASSEN COUNTY COUNSEL TIRED OF LISTENING TO PUBLIC

County Counsel Rhetta Vander Ploeg amuses the Supervisors and  purchases an 8" flashing light timer to intimidate the public.......the Supervisors were amused but chose not to use her toy.

The public can now watch the Lassen County Supervisors meetings on YouTube

Lassen County Supervisors Tie Their Salaries to Judges salaries  ?  ?  ?

L to R: Larry Wosick, Bob Pyle, Jack Hanson, Aaron Albaugh, Jim Chapman

They could have tied their salaries to the Governor or President if they wanted to.

The Supervisors simply passed an "Ordinance" like they did on June 25, 2013.

AND IT IS DONE !

There is no "Law" requiring the Supervisors to pay themselves from any formula based on  a judicial salary other than the Ordinance written and  passed by these Supervisors.

It is time to get rid of that Ordinance

Neighboring counties each have their own formulas for Board of Supervisors compensation and benefits.

Butte County, with a population of 221,485, pays their Board of Supervisors $53,014 with an annual increase of 5%

Shasta County, with a population of 178,601, pays their Supervisors $53,508 and bases pay increases on Consumer Price Index

Plumas County, with a population of 19,643, pays their Supervisors $35,050 if they are enrolled in the CalPERS retirement plan. The salary is increased by 5% after 7 years of continuous service and again at 10 years of continuous service

Lassen County, with a population of 23,422 (this excludes the 10,000 prison population ) pays their Supervisors $33,263

The Presiding Superior Court Judge (top pay for judges)  in Lassen County earns approximately $179,000. (Government Code 68203)

Every time the Supervisors vote to give themselves a pay increase they strongly remind the public they could have taken more.

The June 25, 2013 Board of Supervisors meeting was no exception. The Supervisors voted to increase their salaries, not based on judges salaries but to pay for their retirement premiums. Supervisor Jim Chapman REMINDED THE PUBLIC the Supervisors have the right to make their salaries 25% of a judges salary.  FUNNY THING.......they never have done this. 

The Supervisors are elected government employees.

Lassen County taxpayers must pay the Supervisors a FAIR SALARY and they are entitled to at least the same benefits that a County employee receives.

SUGGGESTIONS

1. Eliminate the tie to Judges salaries now

2. Salary increases based on CPI, years of service or a percentage each year not exceeding 5%

Lassen County Supervisors Not Truthful about Pay Raises

Supervisors told the public state statutes now require public employees to pay 100% of their retirement premium (7% of earned income) and they were giving themselves a 6.68% pay increase to cover this new cost.

Supervisors claimed this pay increase was

"cost neutral"

and was "a like amount"

It was cost neutral for them and County Management

CAO Martin Nichols claims that County employees salaries were raised to make up the amount of their benefits formerly paid by the County.

Sounds good, if it were true. 

The 2012 Labor Agreements between Lassen County and Lassen County employees show the employees will be given only a 4.5% pay increase on July 17, 2013 to offset the 7% they now will have to pay for their retirement premium. 

Susanville resident Jean Hodge (Who now video tapes Supervisors meetings due to the bad behavior of the Supervisors at recent meetings. These videos are now available on YouTube. ) told the Supervisors at the June 18, 2013 Supervisors meeting this was not "revenue neutral". She was absolutely correct.

The Supervisors attempted to "WAIVE THE READING OF THE ORDINANCE" into the record on June 18 and again on June 25. Kan We Help Secretary Eileen Spencer told the Supervisors this was highly unusual and asked that it be read into the record.  This antic hadn't been done in years.  Julie Morgan, filling in for the absent CAO Martin Nichols, was instructed by Supervisor Jack Hanson to read aloud the "Supervisors Pay Raise".

Supervisor Jim Chapman added:

"What this Ordinance does is put the salaries of the board of supervisors  on the same level playing field as the employees"

Newly elected Supervisor Albaugh appears to be out of his element on the Board. He believes, as a new Supervisor, he received this pay raise on January 1, 2013.

Probably worth looking into........................

Lassen Municipal Utility District

Continues to

Lie About the 230 kv line.

The  "230 kv" project  is still 

Non-existent

LMUD lured the Colorado company, Invenergy, to Lassen County with the talk of the

230 kv project being a viable project. Invenergy promised LMUD ratepayers $40 million dollars in infrastructure but soon backed out when even they realized this was a NO go project

NO ONE in the energy market has any interest in this.  NO ONE

LMUD bookkeeper, Bill Stewart, has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the 60 kv line to connect to NVenergy in Nevada to import their renewable energy. Where does this leave Invenergy.........no where.

Trust LMUD if you want....................

LMUD installed the 60 kv line that will probably go no where ?

LMUD's New 60kv lines

not for District Stability but to import Nevada's green energy

 LMUD has quietly spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to upgrade substations from Westwood to Lambert Lane and eventually the plannedViewland substation for transmission of Nevada's renewable energy

NV Energy needs LMUD ratepayers to build the Viewland substation now to connect to the California Market.

  NV Energy has assumed that LMUD will build the Viewland substation for them. Has another secret "back room" deal been made by the LMUD Board members.

Lassen Municipal Utility District ratepayers are being told these infrastructure $$$$ are to improve their service

 Benefit to LMUD ratepayers, ZERO

LMUD's  60kv Wholesale Transmission Project almost complete for Nevada

LMUD has rebuilt Substations along this corridor to 60kv transmission  stations

LMUD Ratepayers are going to pay $$$ millions$$$ to import Nevada's wind and solar energy into the California Market. 

NVenergy

Kan We Help Exposed LMUD's Lambert Lane Lies from Day One

Lassen Municipal Utility District, under Bookkeeper Bill Stewart, is not that much different than Frank Cady.

LMUD management, at the 5/28/13 LMUD meeting,  had the audacity to ask the LMUD Board to increase the Lambert Lane Budget  $280,000

THE COST OF THE PAD, $87,000, WAS ALREADY IN THE LAMBERT LANE $850,000 BUDGET  

Kan We Help will continue to monitor Lambert Lane

 INSTEAD OF INCREASING THE LAMBERT LANE BUDGET BY $280,000,

LMUD REDUCED THE LAMBERT LANE BUDGET BY $280,000

TO INDICATE THE PURCHASE OF THE 2010 "illegal purchase" of transformers

Supervisor Jack Hanson Recall Election

set for September 10, 2013

Election Code 11381 (b) governs a Recall for a local official

Once the election date is set, September 10, 2013, Bustamante has given the candidates only 7 days to file nomination papers (June 27, 2013).

LASSEN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

SELECT THE INFORMATION THEY WANT THE PUBLIC TO SEE

This Board has a lot to hide

Since the Board of Supervisors placed their Clerk of the Board position back with the County Clerk, the Boards Agendas and Minutes have been of little use to the public. 

The public is directed to one Agenda website for current and past Board Agendas. The Board deliberately excludes access to important documents, Resolutions, Ordinances, Minutes, Letters.........

NO EXCUSES. If the Board maintains a website for the people, all public documents in the Agenda Packet should be available. NO EXCUSES

BROWN ACT VIOLATIONS

The Brown Act, California's Open Meeting Law, specifically addresses this issue in the first paragraph

Government Code 54950

"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"

More importantly the California Constitution states it even stronger

Article 1, Section 3 (a)

The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and  assemble freely to consult for the common good

Article 1, Section 3 (b)

The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, and therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to the public scrutiny.

The Lassen County Supervisors have published, on the website the public is directed to, only 53% of their Meeting Minutes prior to their meetings, prior to a vote. These minutes need to be approved by at least 3 members

The County Clerk is not only not making important documents available, but is now blocking documents

Lassen County Supervisors

Under Attack by:

Lassen County Supervisors Increase Their Salary as

Last Agenda Item on June 18, 2013 Meeting

The Supervisors often put potentially controversial issues, as the last agenda item, hoping the press and public have gone home. 

The Supervisor's salary is based on 25% ($43,500) of what a Superior Court Judge makes. The Supervisors allegedly receive $35,485 plus retirement, health benefits, sick leave, life insurance, vacation pay, holiday pay

 The Supervisors plan to introduce an amended Ordinance (532-C) at their June 18, 2013 meeting and hope the public does not notice. They will do it quietly (waive the first reading and then adopt the Ordinance on June 25, 2013). The Ordinance will increase their salary to offset the full cost of their CalPERS retirement plan.  It is supposed to be revenue neutral. The Supervisors net pay will allegedly stay the same.

Look at the last paragraph above. 

Supervisors direct County Counsel "NOT TO PREPARE A NEW COUNTY ORDINANCE ADJUSTING THEIR SALARY...."

Now look at the second paragraph of SECTION TWO below.

The Supervisors give the public an illusion the Supervisors are not taking a pay raise yet leave it open to a raise in the SECOND PARAGRAPH OF SECTION TWO BELOW

Lassen County Clerk

Under Attack:

Lassen County Clerk, Julie Bustamante Failed to Accept

the Recall Petition against Jack Hanson because

a "name" was mis-spelled.

There was an extra "e" on one name. This cost the Recall Committee thousands of dollars to fight her action in court. The Court ruled against Bustamante claiming this was a petty decision.

The Lassen County Clerk Can't Even Spell Her Own Name

Lassen County Clerk

Under Attack:

Lassen County Clerk Puts the May 28, 2013 Board of Supervisors Agenda in the "Minutes" column

The Lassen County Board of Supervisors approved their May 28, 2013 Minutes on June 11, 2013

 but the County Clerk does not place these Minutes IN THE BOS MINUTES column, so the public can read them. Instead she puts another copy of the Agenda there.

IS THIS ARROGANCE OR JUST INCOMPETENCY

LASSEN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.........WHO IS RUNNING THE SHIP ?

Lassen County Clerk

Under Attack:

Lassen County Board of Supervisors Agenda/Minutes Website: Unreliable

If the public wants to read or print any document that will appear on the "next" Board of Supervisors Agenda, The Clerk of the Board refers the public to a website for Board documents/minutes/agendas but the documents may or may not be there.

The Lassen County Board of Supervisors have done nothing to post ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS REQUIRING ACTION, REQUIRING A VOTE, prior to their meetings.

L to R: Larry Wosick, District 3, Bob Pyle, District 1, Jack Hanson, District 5, Aaron Albaugh, District 4, Jim Chapman, District 2

 They are allowed to pick and choose what the public should know.

Take a look before they change it. These Minutes have been like this for three years and it is only the tip of the iceberg. This public website is borderline dysfunctional

As of 9:00 PM, June 11, 2013, the July 27, 2010 Agenda has never been available on the BOS website. You will find the April 27, 2010 Agenda there.

2010 Board Agendas and Minutes

DOES ANYONE CARE THAT THE COUNTY CLERK HAS MADE A MESS OUT OF THIS PUBLIC WEBSITE

Time is running out to approve old Meeting Minutes that have never appeared on any Agenda to be approved. Only Chapman, Pyle and Hanson can approve these old Minutes. If Hanson is recalled, the BOS will not have a quorum to approve these old Minutes.

Lassen County Clerk, Bustamante Violates Election Codes

Can she be trusted with the election?

 Secretary of State. If you wish to file a complaint click here

No need to adjust your screen. The photo is crooked.

Lassen County Clerk, Julie Bustamante took the Certificate of Sufficiency [which allows a Recall Election against Supervisor Hanson to proceed] to the Lassen County Board of Supervisors, on June 11, 2013. By waiting the additional two weeks, She violated Election Code 11224 (d), 11225 (h) and 11227.

Kan We Help submitted a complaint with the California

Bustamante certified the signatures collected by the Recall Committee on May 23, 2013. The Election law states that she must deliver this Certificate at the Board of Supervisors "next" meeting (May 28, 2013).  That's all she had to do

Bustamante claims that she did not comply because by Thursday, May 23, 2013 the BOS Agenda had already been distributed. Oddly, County Counsel made the mistake of agreeing with her. (KWH will check to see if County Counsel is a licensed attorney)

The "Certificate of Sufficiency", itself, does not need any action by the Board.

NEXT.............

Lassen County Clerk/Registrar Julie Bustamante

Certifies Recall Election Against Supervisor Jack Hanson

on May 23, 2013

but did she manage to violate Election Laws in the process?

Veteran Tom Robinson killed in Susanville

On June 5, 2013, Mr. Robinson was hit by a truck while in a crosswalk.

Tom worked on getting LRB to stop at the new Veterans Medical Center and connecting Lassen County bus routes to Plumas County bus routes. He will be missed

Susanville Veteran Tom Robinson, Army First Division, Fort Riley, Kansas, was the first Veteran to ride the Lassen Rural Bus from his home to the front door of the new Veterans Affairs Diamond View Medical Clinic at 110 Bella Way, in Susanville, CA. According to the Clinic staff, more than 3200 veterans, in four counties (Sierra, Modoc, Plumas and Lassen), have been identified to use this facility. 

Veterans Medical Facility-Susanville

To be the Clerk-of-the-Board

      or not to be the Clerk-of-the-Board

.......Will that be the question?

No. The question is, why does the County Clerk decide what the public should know?

In November of 1996 the Lassen County Board of Supervisors passed Ordinance 531 which moved the Clerk of the Board position out of the County Clerk's office and placed this position back under the control of the Board of Supervisors. The Board could now hire and fire the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.

FROM 1996-2007-THE "CLERK OF THE BOARD" WAS NOT A DUTY OF THE COUNTY CLERK

The Board of Supervisors "appointed" Theresa Nagel to this independent position. Theresa Nagel held her elected office of County Clerk/Recorder/Election Officer and the independent position of Clerk of the Board of Supervisors  

  Kan We Help requested copies of the Clerk of the Board's payroll checks but Nagel ignored the Public Records Request. Determined to obtain these public records several requests were made. THERESA NAGEL DID NOT RESPOND, but County Counsel did. AND SHE LIED ?

Ordinance 531 stated the Lassen County Board of Supervisors could appoint any "Deputies" necessary to perform all the duties of the Clerk of the Board. These employees would serve at the will and pleasure of the Board

NAGEL CHOSE NOT TO RUN FOR THE COUNTY CLERK AGAIN AFTER SHE WAS NAMED IN THE DIEBOLD VOTER FRAUD LAWSUIT

In March of 2006, a lawsuit against certain California County Clerks was filed, which included Theresa Nagel. The Lassen County Times never carried this story. A Sacramento Bee Reporter Herbert Sample sent Kan We Help the article about the lawsuit.  This lawsuit was filed against County Clerks that were using the Diebold system. The lawsuit claimed the Diebold AccuVote system is vulnerable to fraud , the Interpreted Code is insecure and is subject to manipulation.

During the 2006 Budget meetings Theresa Nagel asked the Lassen County Board of Supervisors to separate the Registrar of Voters position from the County Clerk. Supervisor Bob Pyle also instructed the CAO to include a position for Theresa Nagel as "Clerk of the Board". In 2006, according to the Lassen County Auditor, the Clerk of the Board had a 2006-2007 budget of $118,000. The Registrar of Voters had a budget of $283, 417. Theresa Nagel wanted to gut the County Clerk's office to just Clerk/Recorder.

THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TOLD HER NO

On January 2, 2007, Theresa Nagel resigned her position as Clerk of the Board. Even though the 1996 Ordinance still maintained that the Board of Supervisors had the  authority to hire and fire the Clerk of the Board.

Serious discussions began, at the January 9, 2007 Board meeting on what to do with the Clerk of the Board position which keeps the Official Record of the Lassen County Board of Supervisors

Also on this same agenda, Fred Nagel secures a contract with Lassen County Public Works Department as Deputy County Surveyor. Next position for his wife, Theresa Nagel. A POSITION THAT WOULD NOT INVOLVE "ELECTIONS". County CAO Ketelson asks for direction on the now vacant Clerk of the Board position. Supervisor Dahle asks Ketelson to do a study on their choices and report back on January 16, 2007.

Discussion continued at the January 16, 2007 Board meeting about what action was needed to fill the Clerk of the Board position. Supervisor Chapman supported repealing Ordinance 531 and put the position back in the County Clerk's Office. The Supervisors voted to appoint Julie Bustamante, current County Clerk, to fill the position of Clerk of the Board until other options could be discussed. Supervisor Dahle and Supervisor Keefer voted NO.

Supervisor Jim Chapman, at the January 23, 2007 Board meeting, instructed County Counsel Craig Settlemire to bring an Ordinance to the next meeting to repeal Ordinance 531. Supervisor Chapman has been on this Board since 1977.

Lassen County Counsel brings the Ordinance 531-A to the February 13, 2007 [as Agenda Item H-1] Board meeting but Supervisor Pyle and Chapman change their minds on taking action and continue the issue to the February 20, 2007 Board meeting.

The Lassen County Supervisors approved the appeal of Ordinance 531 at their February 20, 2007 Board meeting. The Minutes show that Supervisor Pyle, Chapman and Hanson voted YES. Supervisors Keefer and Dahle voted NO.

If you look at the condition, of the Board Minutes, since this change was made, well they are appallingly dysfunctional

In the last three years alone, only 57% of the Board Minutes have been posted to the Lassen County Board's website prior to action by the Board. In this same period 14 minutes were never voted on.

This Board has decided WHAT THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO KNOW.

This is in direct conflict with the intent of the Brown Act. 

Do County Administration Officer's Have a Shelf Life?

California counties recycle their CAO's, but is it good management to do this? 

Lassen County has hired everyone else's Throw Aways so the public shouldn't expect too much from them.

Occasionally on rare occasions, the Supervisors have hired someone that is actually competent and refuses to be their "Yes" man and............exposes the underbelly of corruption

Lassen County Clerk Julie Bustamante

LASSEN COUNTY CLERK  REFUSES TO POST DOCUMENTS

ON THE BOS WEBSITE

AND

THEN CHARGES THE PUBLIC

IF THEY WANT COPIES.

Is this about  the money

OR Just

ABUSE OF AUTHORITY?

Sorry state of the County

Kan We Help presented the Lassen County Supervisors, at their May 28, 2013 meeting, a spreadsheet that showed that only 57% of the BOS Minutes are posted to their growing dysfunctional website.

Official Record of Board Business:

Meeting Minutes

Also, in the last three years 14 Meeting Minutes have never been approved. There are more minutes that were not approved but cannot be approved now because the Board of Supervisors no longer have a quorum to vote on them.

When Kan We Help Secretary Eileen Spencer asked that the Supervisors continue again the May 14, 2013 Meeting Minutes because they were not posted on their website for public review, Supervisor Jim Chapman, interrupted Chairman Hanson and began blurting out insults to Ms. Spencer.

Lassen Municipal Utility District Plans

to Increase the $850,000 Lambert Lane Substation Budget

Lambert Lane Shill

LMUD Meeting today @ 5:30 PM, 65 S. Roop Street, Susanville

The largest expense to build this new substation are the transformers, which LMUD purchased three years ago and can not account for them today. Documents indicate that these transformers came with a five year warranty. Only two years left on the warranty

On July 1, 2010 $87,721.78  was posted for the Richmond Road substation transformer

$280,000 "in stock" ??

Bill Stewart purchased 4 transformers  in 2010 for Lambert Lane Substation, $354,239.47.

Lambert Lane was not a project, was never budgeted and never appeared on any LMUD Agenda until 2012?

LMUD did budget the Richmond Road rebuild at $660,000

So WHERE are these transformers?

Lambert Lane did not exist on 9/9/10

LMUD has  redacted (covered up) the dates of these purchases, but the purchase orders and delivery documents show that LMUD did receive these transformers.

 The earliest start date on the Richmond Road Substation  is July 1, 2010. 

On July 1, 2010 $87,721.78  was posted for the Richmond Road substation transformer.

Wayne Langston was the LMUD Board President, Bill Stewart was the LMUD Accountant and Richard Vial was the LMUD Treasurer at this time.

LMUD ratepayers are paying for a substation that has been designed for the dead-in-the-water 230kv project.

Kan We Help Submits Request , under

the Brown Act, to

Receive the Lassen County Supervisors

Agenda Packet

....only to be met by an abusive County Clerk

Kan We Help is a government watch-dog website that monitors government in Lassen County and surrounding counties. Kan We Help is 11 years old

 Kan We Help submitted a formal request for copies of the May 14, 2013 Lassen County Board of Supervisors Agenda Packet. This request specifically identified Section 54954.1 of the Brown Act.

The Brown Act Section states this request is good for a calendar year in which it was made and entitles the requestor to a free copy of the Agenda Packet. If you wish it mailed to you, this Section states that the public agency can assess a fee equal to the mailing. The County Clerk Julie Bustamante claimed she could charge a fee to copy the Agenda Packet. Ms. Bustamante explained that everyone had to pay for a copy of the Agenda Packet.  Kan We Help was told, via e-mail, the May 14, 2013 Board of Supervisors Agenda Packet would cost $148.00 and $5.71 postage for the mailing service.

Ms. Bustamante claimed copies were only made for the Board of Supervisors. This was very much NOT TRUE

Julie Bustamante distributes copies of the Board Agenda Packet to the Lassen County Times and KSUE radio at EVERY MEETING.

The May 14, 2013 Meeting Minutes were not posted to the website and still are not posted for the public. The Minutes were included in the Boards Agenda Packet

On May 16, 2013, Kan We Help filed a Public Records Request under the Public Records Act for:

 TEN YEARS WORTH OF LASSEN COUNTY TIMES AND KSUE "Requests for Agenda Packets" and copies of their cancelled checks showing they paid for each and everyone.

KWH Secretary Eileen Spencer called Bustamante's office on Friday morning to find out how much the copies would be. Ms. Bustamante became indignant and yelled "I have until May 26" and then slammed the phone down.

At 3:41 PM on Friday, May 24, 2013, Bustamante responds by sending an e-mail:

Bustamante lied about the copying fees to avoid releasing a Board Agenda Packet to Kan We Help.

Kan We Help receives dozens of public board Agenda Packets every month and has never paid anything except the mailing costs.

County Clerk Creates Selective Access

 Bustamante claims the public has access to the Board Agenda and documents via the Board of Supervisors website. THE SAD TRUTH OF THIS WEBSITE, NOT OFTEN BUT ROUTINELY, EXCLUDES THE "SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS" LIKE COPIES OF THE MINUTES THAT REQUIRE ACTION BY THE BOARD TO APPROVE.

 ACTION THAT REQUIRES PUBLIC DISCUSSION.

Lassen County Clerk Julie Bustamante

Rude, Angry and Unprofessional

Angry Bird, Julie

A call was placed this morning to the County Clerk's office. The gentleman that answered the phone was asked if the Recall Petition had been certified. He quickly transferred the call to Ms. Bustamante who, in her angry unprofessional voice, said that it has not been finished and then she hung up the phone. The caller was asked not to call again  and said that this was a waste of her time. Really oh elected person...................

UNCIVIL FOR A CIVIL SERVANT

The last time a call was made, was April 17, 2013. The question: when is the deadline for certifying the signatures?  Bustamante yelled "May 29" and then slammed the phone down.

Ms. Bustamante recently was ordered, by a court action,  to accept the Recall Petition against Supervisor Jack Hanson. The Court determined that her reason for denying the petitions was petty and ordered her to count the signatures.

MAYBE IT IS TIME

TO PUT A NEW COUNTY CLERK IN

 Recall rules state that if the number of signatures are greater that 110% of the required number, the petition is considered qualified (Election Code 11225) Upon completing the examination the County Clerk must notify the proponents of the results. If it is determined that there are sufficient signatures, the County Clerk must submit it to the Lassen County Board of Supervisors at their next regular meeting

This angry public servant has not notified the Board of Supervisors as of the next meeting on May 28, 2013. This issue does not appear on the BOS  5/28/13 Agenda. It appears that Bustamante wants this to go to the June 11 meeting. 

It must be noted that the Election Code allows Bustamante to announce the disqualification of signatures and the Recall Petition at anytime and the Recall Petition dies.

Kan We Help Asks Lassen County Supervisors

 to Table Agenda Item

The May 14, 2013 Minutes were placed in the "Consent Calendar" as G1 on the May 21, 2013 Agenda to be approved.

All items placed within the Consent Calendar are voted on with one vote. They are considered "routine in nature". The problem: No Minutes were posted for public review. This isn't the first time this has happened.

Kan We Help has pointed this problem out many times and the Supervisors still are not posting the supporting documents, minutes and agendas prior to their meetings.  The excuse is that there is a glitch in the system, yet other documents seem to get posted on their website.

BOS Creates Selective Access

This time, Kan We Help asked the Lassen County Supervisors to table the Minutes until they figure out the minutes, if action is to be taken, must be available for review by the public. The Brown Act allows for public discussion prior to a vote.  Deputy County Clerk Susan Osgood appeared outraged at Kan We Help's objection. Evidently, the May 14, 2013 Minutes were included in the Boards Packet.

County Clerk Bustamante is clinging to the position that if the public wants a copy of the Board Agenda Packet you must pay for it. More to come on that position..............

CAO Nichols/Bustamante are responsible for the accuracy of the Board of Supervisors Agenda. Susan Osgood does what she is told to do.

Kan We Help was prepared to file a Brown Act Violation but the Supervisors agreed to continue this item until the Minutes are posted on their website.

This Board has  inconsistently failed to post their minutes on their website. Kan We Help reviewed five years of the Lassen County Board Minutes and found dozens of Minutes that have never been posted. The Supervisors are now playing "catch up". The Supervisors added another clump of minutes to be approved at their May 21, 2013 meeting [August 8, 2011, August 10, 2011, August 11, 2011, August 12, 2011]. Fortunately, four of the Supervisors were present during these 2011 meetings and will be able to vote to approve them. This is not the best way to approve minutes that are two years old.

NOTE: The May 14, 2013 Agenda included approving  the June 15, 2010 Minutes. The Supervisors placed these three year old minutes independently as the LAST ITEM ON THEIR AGENDA.

the public's business should be public

the public's business, isn't public

Lassen County Clerk, Julie Bustamante is  responsible for posting the Lassen County Board of Supervisors Agenda's and Minutes to the Board's website. 

The Lassen County website is just poorly maintained and has become useless to most. First, there are two sites for Board Agendas and Minutes. Both are poorly maintained and updates are random at best.

One properly maintained site would be the answer but Ms. Bustamante wants no changes.

Secondly, certain documents are missing on the site that does offer access to uploaded meeting documents but you can not print the Agenda.

The site that does allow you to print the Agenda (below) does not post access to agenda documents. You put that together with the fact Agendas and Minutes are simply not posted prior to the Board of Supervisors meetings make both sites useless.

Kan We Help has informed the County Clerk many, many times how undependable both sites are, including years old Minutes that have never been approved.

Only recently, the Board of Supervisors have been placing these old minutes on their agenda to be approved one by one.

On the May 14, 2013 meeting agenda they placed Agenda item H1, the June 15, 2010 meeting minutes, to be approved as the last item on their Agenda.

On their May 21, 2013, meeting agenda the Board of Supervisors has placed Agenda Item H4, the last item on the agenda,  to approve the August 8, 2011, August 10, 2011, August 11, 2011 and August 12, 2011 meeting minutes

It is difficult to approve minutes that are years old because, one,  the Board members have changed and it is unlikely that the Board members that did attend these meetings are not in a position to approve two or three year old recollections of those meetings.

Conspiracy...No

Sleazy policies, arrogance and disregard for the Brown Act.......Yes

These practices are not a glitch, oversight or a conspiracy

When public agencies, such as the Board of Supervisors fail to approve meeting minutes, they have their own agenda and have something to hide.

When public agencies hide issues in the Consent Calendar that are not "routine in nature", they have something to hide.

When an agenda item is purposely vague to the point the public is mis-informed as to the real issue, they have something to hide.

When public documents are not available, they have something to hide

When an agenda item is placed in closed session as an erroneous existing litigation, they have something to hide

When a closed session is placed on the agenda as "time certain"

THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RELY ON THE PUBLIC just  NOT NOTICING

The Brown Act  can be an awful nuisance for those public officials that believe they have the right to decide what the public needs to know.

Government Code 54950

The Open Meeting Law, Brown Act

"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"

On May 14, 2013, Kan We Help requested a copy of the Lassen County Board of Supervisors Agenda Packet under Section 54954.1 of the Brown Act. This section allows anyone to request a copy of the Agenda Packet distributed to the Board.

The County Clerk wants to know "why" Kan We Help wants a copy.

The County Clerk cannot ask why. The right to ask for a copy of the Agenda Packet is law.

To further impede the process and discourage the public from their right to have a copy, Julie Bustamante, claims that she can charge $148 for a copy of the Board Agenda packet.

The Brown Act only requires a written request for a copy of the Agenda Packet and allows the public agency to recover the mailing cost if the public member wishes it mailed.

All public Board Agendas and Agenda Packets are free for the asking, to anyone.

opinions@kanwehelp.com

Lumberjacks

restaurant

coming to susanville

Check out the menu

Kan We Help Files Brown Act Complaint

Against Lassen County Supervisors

Brown Act Violations

left to right:  Supervisor Larry Wosick, Supervisor Bob Pyle, Supervisor and Chairman Jack Hanson, Supervisor Alan Albaugh, Supervisor Jim Chapman

After the April 23, 2013 meeting debacle, by the Lassen County Supervisors, this Board did not learn a thing. Instead of moving their entire Closed Session Agenda, to 1:30, they placed only the the Mountain Meadows Conservancy case (with no apparent activity) when there would be minimum to no public in attendance.  

The Board insisted that the Closed session item D4 was about the Mountain Meadows Appeal and not the pressing $3.2 million dollar tax delinquency on the Dyer Mountain Resort property in Westwood.

The Board of Supervisors DID NOT PUT THIS ISSUE ANYWHERE ON THIS AGENDA ?

The Dyer Mountain Tax Issue is an OPEN SESSION issue.

The Board of Supervisors

do not want THE PUBLIC TO KNOW THE PUBLICS BUSINESS

County Clerk completes Review

of

Recall Signatures

Bustamante will not certify until May 28, 2013

Lassen County Clerk Julie Bustamante places an Elections Resolution on the Board of Supervisors Agenda under their Consent Calendar.

The Consent Calendar is reserved for matters that are routine in nature and are approved by a single vote.

This Resolution is not "routine in nature".

Why was the Resolution agendized like this?

To avoid any notice or challenge by the public.

gotcha frog

Lassen County Supervisor Jack Hanson's

 Second Amendment Resolution

Just a Political Stunt

SUPREME COURT WILL NOT HEAR THE NRA'S

 ATTEMPT TO OUTLAW CALIFORNIA GUN CONTROL LAWS

In April, the Supreme Court refused to hear the NRA's objections to the gun laws in New York, California, Hawaii, Massachusetts and New Jersey.

California Governor Jerry Brown then  signed Gun Control Law SB 140. California's gun control laws are some of the strictest in the nation and they just got harsher.

On April 9, Lassen County Board of Supervisor  Jack Hanson attempted to slip into the "Consent Calendar" Agenda Item G7. Agenda Item G7 was an alleged Second Amendment Resolution stating that the Board of Supervisors would not comply with a "law" they thought violated the Second Amendment

Kan We Help objected to this language since it would violate their Oath-of-Office and subject them to a criminal act.  The Board wisely changed the language.

The Supreme Court decides what violates the Second Amendment, not the nra or the Lassen County Board of Supervisors

CALIFORNIA GUN CONTROL LAWS

Present

All gun sales require a background check

All sales must go through a licensed dealer

All gun dealers must be licensed

Hand gun owners must have a license & pass a written test

Hand gun sales are limited to one gun per month

Ten Day waiting period for the sale of transfer of a firearm

All sales of firearms must be recorded

Bans assault rifles

NEW

A $19 state fee charged  on background checks (fees used to confiscate guns from felons , mentally ill or court order)

Bans shotgun/rifle firearms

Bans "bullet button" devices

Mandatory background checks on ammunition purchases

Mandatory trigger locks or lock boxes

Bans all semi-automatic rifles

Requires yearly safety certification

Requires background checks if gun owner loans or sells a firearm

Prevents felon or mentally ill to live in home where firearms are owned

Kan We Help has just received a copy of the audio of the April 23, 2013 afternoon Lassen County BOS meeting.

We will try to post the entire recording so that the public can hear what actually happened.... even the two minute recess when Larry Wosick escorted Jack Hanson out of the meeting.

[Jack Hanson told Susan Osgood not to come back. Ms. Osgood records all of the public meetings for the BOS]

SHAMEFUL

LASSEN COUNTY TIMES EDITOR, SAM WILLIAMS LOSES CREDIBILITY

5,001 stories too many?

If poor Sam Williams IQ gets any lower we will have to water him twice a day

On April 23, 2013, Lassen County Times Editor was present when Kan We Help Secretary Eileen Spencer filed the Brown Act Violation that objected to the way the Lassen County Board of Supervisors Closed Session item had been agendized with a 2009 dead lawsuit.

Sam is awarded another Stinky Award

Lassen County Times Editor Sam Williams was NOT PRESENT for the 1:30 reconvened meeting when the Board of Supervisors fully intended to hold the illegal closed session.

If there was any truth to any part of Sam Williams 4/30/13 story, which there is not, the Board of Supervisors could have taken care of their "mistake" with Agenda Item A2.

Supervisor Jack Hanson chose to slip over Agenda item A2 and go right into Opening Ceremonies

Former Lassen County Counsel Richard Crabtree (Richard Crabtree left Lassen County in February, 2012 and is presently the Red Bluff City Manager and County Counsel @ $170,000. Red Bluff's City Manager Martin Nichols then came to Lassen County and was hired as the 7th CAO in a ten year period)

Kan We Help forced the cancellation

appeared suddenly in the Board Room and corrected Mr. Nichols. Mr. Crabtree stated the closed session item was incorrect and this closed session subject had nothing to do with case #47432 (Friends of Lassen Forest) or case #45938 (Dyer Mtn).

SAM WILLIAMS WASN'T EVEN PRESENT FOR THE STORY HE WROTE

..........SO WHO MADE UP THESE LIES?

Mr. Crabtree stated the closed session item was incorrect and this closed session subject had nothing to do with case #47432 (Friends of Lassen Forest) or case #45938 (Dyer Mtn).

Even though the Supervisors did not allow the public comment to be recorded there were plenty of people still in the audience that witnessed this farce and Sam Williams was not one of them.

Lassen County Board of Supervisors

Quid Pro Quo

Land

Water

Greed

Lassen County Clerk Must File

Jack Hanson Recall Signature Sufficiency

by May 29, 2013

California Secretary of State Rules on Local Recalls

California Election Code states the Lassen County Clerk has 30 days from the Courts ruling (April 16)  to certify the Recall Petitions signatures.  Due to the fact the Lassen County Clerk floated several signature requirements to the petition proponents, the Court ordered Bustamante to state a number that she would have to comply with.

County Clerk Julie Bustamante gave the Court 596 signatures that were needed to certify the Jack Hanson Recall Petition.

The Election Code states that 25% of registered voters, in Supervisor Jack Hanson's District 5, need to sign the Recall Petition. The Proponents of the Jack Hanson Recall collected over 700 signatures.

Currently there are 2,521 registered voters in District 5.

If the Recall Petition receives a Certificate of Sufficiency from the County Clerk, the Board of Supervisors have 14 days to determine the Recall Election Date (Election Code 11240). The Recall Election must be held not less than 88 days and not more than 125 days from the issuance of the Certificate of Sufficiency (Election Code 11242)

If County Clerk Julie Bustamante does not issue a Certificate of Sufficiency by May 29, 2013, the Proponents have 21 days to review Bustamante's challenged signatures.  

Reference: page 24, Recall Election Rules

If the Jack Hanson Recall is successful then the Successor with the highest number of votes wins the remainder of Hanson's term. Jack Hanson was elected [with no opposition] in 2010. Jack Hanson received 889 votes.  932 votes were cast. 

Over 700 signatures were obtained to Recall Hanson

79% of District 5 Want Hanson Removed

A NOTICE IS REQUIRED TO BE POSTED BY THE LASSEN COUNTY CLERK FOR DISTRICT 5 REGISTERED VOTERS WISHING TO RUN FOR OFFICE

Kan We Help Stops Lassen County Board of Supervisors Phony Closed Session

What should have been a normal weekly Supervisors meeting at 707 Nevada Street in Susanville turned out to be anything but normal.

The Lassen County Supervisor Agendas typically have "Closed" Sessions as their first Agenda item. Closed Sessions traditionally are scheduled to begin at 9:00 AM and go until the Supervisors conclude this business but normally the 9:30 AM Regular Meeting starts on time. 

At the April 23, 2013 meeting however, Supervisor and Chairman of the Board Jack Hanson schedules  Agenda Item A, Closed Session, at 9:30 AM.

The California Open Meeting Law (The Brown Act) clearly states that public meetings must allow for Public Comment. Here you can see that Agenda Item A 1 is PUBLIC COMMENT. Unless the Board takes action to amend their Agenda the public must rely on the published Agenda.

Chairman of the Board, Jack Hanson, quickly and intentionally skipped Agenda Item A1 & A2

 and proceeded with Agenda B, Opening Ceremonies. Kan We Help intended to submit the Brown Act Violation complaint, to the Supervisors, during Agenda Item A1, "Public Comment" but had to wait for Agenda B3.  The public relies on elected officials to follow the law. Susan Osgood, the Deputy County Clerk, believed there was to be a closed session at 9:30 AM and posted the yellow Closed Session signs on both doors to alert the public that the Board of Supervisors will be holding a Closed Session prior to the Regular Meeting. Clearly Ms. Osgood was not informed of Jack Hanson's personal agenda.

CONFIDENCE LOST

The Kan We Help representative, Eileen Spencer, objected to the way Agenda Item A1 & A2 were dismissed as though it didn't exist on the Agenda. Supervisor Chapman snapped at Ms. Spencer stating the Chairman covered Agenda Item A and there was no need for Public Comment. In the afternoon session, Chapman would complain that the objection to the Closed Session  should have been addressed in Agenda Item A.  KWH Secretary, Eileen Spencer, suggested Mr. Chapman should review the audio of this meeting.

The Kan We Help Brown Act Violation complaint was submitted, to the Supervisors, during the Regular Session's Public Comment. This is the third Brown Act Violation filed against the Lassen County Board of Supervisors this year. The Lassen County Board of Supervisors have developed a bad habit of hiding existing litigation as "exposure" to litigation which violates the Brown Act. Now they just think the public will not notice phony closed sessions.

This infraction is just CONFIDENCE LOST in the honesty of the BOS

Attached to the complaint was a full print out of the Case History of Lassen County Superior Court Case 47432 showing that this was not an "existing" lawsuit but had been settled in 2009.

People were starting to arrive for the illegal Closed Session scheduled for 1:30 PM. It appeared the Supervisors were going ahead with the illegal closed session. 

Lassen County CAO Martin Nichols approached KWH Secretary Eileen Spencer and told her and others that "You don't know what you are talking about. This is an active case". Ms. Spencer asked if he had looked at the attachment to the Brown Act complaint. Nichols said he had not. After looking at the attached case history of Case #47432 he further commented that the closed session discussion was about the Appeal filed in the Third District Court of Appeals. Of course, this was a lie also. To make matters worse, Martin Nichols then claimed that the closed session item was about Dyer Mountain. Ms. Spencer added that if that was true, then it would have been easy to put that on the Agenda.  Martin Nichols then began explaining the Brown Act in a condescending and demeaning tone to people that most likely could recite the Brown Act law to him.  KWH Secretary then told Mr. Nichols that he was just WRONG.

Former Lassen County Counsel Richard Crabtree (Richard Crabtree left Lassen County in February, 2012 and is presently the Red Bluff City Manager and County Counsel @ $170,000. Red Bluff's City Manager Martin Nichols then came to Lassen County and was hired as the 7th CAO in a ten year period)

appeared suddenly in the Board Room and corrected Mr. Nichols. Mr. Crabtree stated the closed session item was incorrect and this closed session subject had nothing to do with case #47432 (Friends of Lassen Forest) or case #45938 (Dyer Mtn).

Agenda Item D5, Closed Session

Chairperson Jack Hanson reconvenes the meeting for the Closed Session.

To compound the violations, No Public Comment was listed on Agenda Item D5? Supervisor Jim Chapman objected to any public comment because it should have been done in Agenda Item A1. REALLY? Short term memory loss could be the explanation for Chapman's objection.

THIS MEETING HAD TURNED INTO A CIRCUS THAT HAD A TERRIBLE STINK

Kan We Help Secretary Eileen Spencer asked that Agenda Item D5 Closed Session be cancelled due to the fact that the issue was clearly misrepresented to the public and then asked Richard Crabtree, who clearly was representing Rhetta Vander Ploeg who was absent, what was the real reason for this Closed Session. Mr. Crabtree responded that "It was about some other stuff"

Eileen Spencer asked why Susan Osgood (Board Secretary) was not present to record the meeting. Jack Hanson stated that she was told not to come back but he was taking notes. Apparently it was the intent of the Board of Supervisors to steam roll over the Brown Act and just go into Closed Session at 1:30 with no public comment (the closed sessions are not recorded but all public sessions are recorded and considered to be the official record of a meeting).

Susan Osgood missed recording the donnybrook that broke out when Jack Hanson was removed from the Board Chambers, by Supervisor Larry Wosick, after his tirade. The Board took a two minute recess. Hanson was offended by Spencer's comment that he was rude to her but more likely it was Spencer's announcement that the Jack Hanson recall was going to proceed.

Hanson later apologized to Spencer before leaving the meeting. 

Lassen Municipal Utility District's

Tit-in a Ringer Lawsuits

LMUD issued a check on March 29, 2013 to Downey Brand law firm for another $129,152.07 for these lawsuits that LMUD cannot win. Hundreds of thousands of dollars that have been wasted. 

LMUD v Hayden Hill Amedee v LMUD

Gross Mis-management by Bill Stewart and LMUD Board

LMUD Regular Meeting, 5:30 PM,  April 23, 2013, 65 S. Roop Street, Susanville, CA   530-257-4174

Court Re-Affirms Tentative Ruling

Supervisor Jack Hanson Recall Moves Forward

Lassen County Counsel Rhetta Vander Ploeg offered no new evidence to Judge Ervin at the Jack Hanson Recall Hearing this morning

County Counsel regurgitated evidence that had already been submitted and considered by Judge Ervin in his Tentative Ruling to grant Mr. Hammond his Writ of Mandate allowing the 70 page Recall of Lassen County Supervisor Jack Hanson to proceed. Vander Ploeg could offer the Court no evidence..  The Jack Hanson Recall Petitions were rejected by Lassen County Clerk Julie Bustamante for "minuscule" reasons.

Miscreant Clerk

Mr. Hammond's Attorney Stephen King claimed "She had a dog in the race"

Vander Ploeg claimed that Julie Bustamante was highly trained but then Judge Ervin pointed out that one of the County's exhibits claimed that Bustamante was inexperienced in processing public petitions. 

Judge Ervin asked Vander Ploeg "HOW DID THE PETITIONS MIS-LEAD THE PUBLIC". 

Lassen County Counsel Rhetta Vander Ploeg

Vander Ploeg answered simply "THEY WERE ILLEGAL"

Judge Ervin amended his ruling to clearly state that the Petition needed 596 verified  signatures.  The County Clerk had changed this number three times.  The Court made sure Bustamante could not change it a 4th time.

Over 700 signatures were collected by the Group.

Judge Ervin took the matter under submission.

Lassen County Counsel Rhetta Vander Ploeg
Asks for Hearing to Object to Judge Ervin's  Ruling Allowing the Jack Hanson Recall Petition

to Go Forward

RULING

Lassen County Superior Court @ 10:00 AM, April 16, 2013

Fired Lassen County CAO Tom Stone's

Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Hearing

Rescheduled

to April 30, 2013  @ 9:00 AM

COURT FINDS COUNTY CLERK

JULIE BUSTAMANTE'S

OBJECTIONS TO THE

JACK HANSON RECALL PETITION

MINUSCULE

Read Judges 3 page  Decision

The next hurdle for the Recall Petition is that Bustamante will attempt to disqualify signatures.  With Bustamante's history of  shenanigans, this process should be closely monitored and challenged if necessary.

If the County Clerk does not try this, the Recall of Lassen County Supervisor Jack Hanson should proceed.

Kan We Help Objected to

Resolution submitted by

Lassen County Supervisor Jack Hanson

that included the statement that all five Supervisors

will not comply with the law

At the Lassen County Supervisors meeting this morning, Lassen County Supervisor Jack Hanson put a Resolution in the Consent Calendar, hoping that no one would notice. Generally, items included here are approved with one sweeping vote.  Kan We Help pulled it for discussion. Supervisor Hanson stated that he had obtained a copy of a Second Amendment Resolution from another County and thought that he could adopt it in Lassen County . The only problem, it is a felony for any elected official to state that he or she will not comply with a LAW .  They take an oath that states they will obey the laws, ALL LAWS. 

We are a nation of law and order. If everyone or anyone can decide what laws they want to comply with, well that is called anarchy.

The Supervisors didn't understand that it wasn't all of the WHEREAS....pigs can fly,

but the statement that BE IT RESOLVED they cannot comply with a law.

Last we checked, this elected body was not the Supreme Court, nor members of Congress and therefore

cannot determine WHAT VIOLATES THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

Supervisor Jim Chapman suggested an Amendment, to Hanson's Resolution, by taking out the words "but cannot abide by any order, provision, law or agency that violates the protections of the Second Amendment"