Issue link: https://www.epageflip.net/i/643083
GregStevens,Publisher Chip Thompson, Editor EDITORIALBOARD How to have your say: Letters must be signed and provide the writer's home street address and home phone number. Anonymous letters, open letters to others, pen names and petition-style letters will not be allowed. Letters should be typed and no more than two double-spaced pages or 500words. When several letters address the same issue, a cross section will be published. Email: editor@ redbluffdailynews.com Fax: 530-527-9251 Mail to: P.O. Box 220, 545 Diamond Ave., Red Bluff, CA 96080 Facebook: Leave comments at FACEBOOK.COM/ RBDAILYNEWS Twitter: Follow and send tweets to @REDBLUFFNEWS TheCountyBoardofEducationmeetingon Wednesday evening was well attended, and there was lots of input from the audience as the Board tried to piece together a plan to replace the disgraced County Superintendent. Althoughallofthestaffre- ports to the County Board of Education essentially said ev- erything was "hunky dory" the cloud of sus- picion in the room created an unpleasant at- mosphere. The suspicion has been obvious to me since the last Board meeting, February 8. I wrote about some of the reasons for that suspicion last week. As you may recall the Board seemed to be rushed about making an appoint- ment to replace the County Superintendent at that hast- ily called and poorly posted meeting. Nevertheless, there was a huge audience, many of whom were suspicious the de- parting superintendent had greased the wheels to make sure his choice was picked to succeed. The rush was abated by the presence of the large audience, and the Board cre- ated a subcommittee to de- velop a proposal for appoint- ing a successor. One of the reasons for the suspicion is that the County Office of Education does not appear to be the "hunky dory" operation its leaders claim it to be. Communica- tion seems to be a big prob- lem, and poor communication breeds suspicion. Documents produced by the County Office referred to a "Deputy Superinten- dent." As of the week before the February 8 meeting no such person existed; no one I spoke to had heard of any promotions, something that might happen in a lame duck administration. I e-mailed the Assistant Superintendent involved, who is perceived as the in- side favorite; he replied "The appointment was made this month, on the advice of le- gal council [sic], anticipat- ing the office of Supt. would be vacant until an appoint- ment was made. The business of the dept. needs to continue seamlessly until the board makes their decision. There has been no increased com- pensation for these duties just increased responsibility." I contacted Karen Matray, Human Resources Adminis- trator, after this week's meet- ing, and asked about the ap- pointment process, and she told me no one had been pro- moted, but that the Assistant Superintended had been "dep- utized" so the transition would go more smoothly. County of- fice materials were in error in referring to an actual deputy. If all of this is true and it had been communicated clearly to employees, some of the suspicion may have less- ened. At Wednesday's meet- ing someone told the Board there was a fully paid As- sistant Superintendent who was only working as such one day per week. I e-mailed Ma- tray about this claim. I re- ceived a response that one Assistant Superintendent had three itinerant assignments in addition to that of Assis- tant Superintendent. These included being a principal at various programs and loca- tions. Apparently this is a re- cent reassignment; there was no explanation why the ad- ministration would choose to dilute the central manage- ment pool and place a highly paid administrator in nor- mally lower paid positions. This is another example of poor communication. Another contributing factor to the suspicion was the fact that although the original con- dition set by the State Attor- ney General's office when Su- perintendent Allen pled no contest in November was that he would leave office on De- cember 31, 2015; that did not happen. A representative of the Attorney General said the Superintendent told that of- fice the county board needed him to stay two more months. There is no record I can find of that request. So the reality is that some knew Allen was leaving long before the sud- den rush on February 8 to re- place him. Clear communication and veracity should be one of the key characteristics of the new superintendent to bring trust and respect back to the oper- ation on the County Office of Education. Fortunately, the County Board has slowed down the process of selection so that the new Superintendent will not be selected until after the cur- rent one departs. One Board member commented at the meeting that delay should as- sure that the exiting Superin- tendent will not have any un- due influence on the process. In addition to a poorly use- ful application called Sur- vey Monkey to be posted on line, they will survey depart- ment employees and school districts. The Survey Mon- key app is not a sophisti- cated method to garner in- sights or in depth concerns. It is normally used to simply tally something. For example, the Chief of Police uses it to generate convenient meeting dates for his advisory board. Members of the audience suggested the other two sur- veys and the Board rightfully responded. I have mentioned before that county boards are of- ten the afterthought used to rubber stamp actions by the County Superintendent. This may be an opportunity for this County Board to forge a true partnership with the new Superintendent. They will be developing a job de- scription, seeking input from stakeholders, and, hopefully, understanding the challenges the department faces. If that is so, they can tailor their screening process to sort out the right candidate, help that person see their vision and the needed direction for the department, and begin with a true partnership with the new leader. JoeHarropisaretired educator with more than 30 years of service to the North State. He can be reached at DrJoeHarrop@sbcglobal.net. Joe Harrop Suspicion, hope and opportunity Cartoonist's take Supervisorssetdangerous precedent Editor: In recent years, I have no- ticed that the county Board of Supervisors is treating many ordinances as "Emergency Or- dinances." When an ordinance is deemed an "emergency ordi- nance" it does not go through the same rigorous review pro- cess with public meetings, and the time line for ordinance pas- sage is significantly shortened. This "Emergency Ordinance" clause allows the Supervisors to act more autonomously. Sev- eral of these recent ordinances affect owner's property rights regarding wells or wind mills. Specifically, Ordinance 2006 was passed June 9, 2015, as an "Emergency Ordinance," giving the County of Tehama many rights over the owners' use of well water on their private property, and whether the well located on their private prop- erty can remain operational. Section 9.42.399, "Mainte- nance of Dormant Wells, states the following in Part A: "I. 'Dormant well' shall mean any individual well with a cas- ing diameter to eight (8) inches or less which has not been used to supply water to a permitted use located on the same parcel for a period of ninety (90) days or more.' '2. 'Permitted use' shall have the same meaning set forth in Section 9.42.334." Part B and Part C of this Sec- tion state the following: "B. Except as provided in subdivision (d), every dormant well shall be idled by (i) re- moval of the pump and mo- tor to render the well inopera- tive, and (ii) covering the well with a watertight welded seal that cannot be removed with- out the use of tools to prevent injury to persons the entrance of undesirable water, rodents or foreign matter.' 'C. Any person idling a well under this Section, or reacti- vating a well that was previ- ously idled, shall provide writ- ten notification to the Direc- tor or Environmental Health. It shall be unlawful and a vi- olation of this chapter for any person to tamper with the seal placed upon a dormant well, or to extract water from a dor- mant well, or to cause, permit, aid, abet, suffer, or furnish equipment or labor for such tampering or extraction, with- out first notifying the Director of Environmental Health as provided herein." Part D is an exemption clause for permitted wells with off parcel water usage. Part E states the following: "Any dormant well that is not idled in the manner set forth in this subsection is hereby declared to be a public nuisance. Such nuisances may be abated in the manner set forth in Chapter 10.16, in addi- tion to any other remedies." Chapter 10.16 gives the county the right to levy fines against anyone that they deem is out of compliance with this ordinance, from $100 per day up to $1,000 per day. These fines may also be imposed by court order without an admin- istrative process. County officials have stated that this ordinance was de- signed to target pot growers taking water from a well on a vacant parcel in Rancho Te- hama, and that they weren't going to prosecute most prop- erty owners that may have a dormant well per the county's definition in Ordinance 2006. These officials blatantly stated that there will be selective en- forcement of this ordinance. For an enforcement prob- lem, these Supervisors pass more ordinances instead of enforcing existing laws and regulations. Aren't all citizens to be treated equally? Also, this ordinance puts the bur- den on the property owner to enforce this ordinance or be punished while it's his water that is being stolen. It is making criminals out of victims, who have no crim- inal intentions, or it may cost property owners thousands of dollars to meet the county's whimsical ordinances. There are many reasons that a parcel may have an unused well for 90 days or more: a rec- reational parcel, and the owners only utilize their well seasonally during vacations, agricultural parcel with a well that has less than an 8-inch diameter cas- ing, for sale properties that are unoccupied, for rent properties that are unoccupied and mining claim with an RV hookup for water and septic tank. Besides being difficult to en- force a 90-day time line, it can be expensive for the county to enforce and expensive and in- convenient for the property owners to comply. The legality of this ordi- nance, and other ordinances regarding property rights, needs to be questioned by our citizens. The intentions of our elected supervisors, and county officials also need to be questioned. Ordinance 2006 was passed unanimously by our elected su- pervisors. Selective enforcement of or- dinances will eventually lead to lawsuits. A notice of intent needs to be filed, and these ordinances need to be repealed. Should these people be re- elected when they won't en- force the rules and regulations already in existence? Dennis Albright, a prominent attor- ney in Red Bluff, believes that this county needs new supervi- sors and has offered his assis- tance for those wanting to run for office. — Lerose Lane, Corning Medicare not affordable Editor: I want to complain about Medicare. I'm married but my husband did not want Medi- care but he got it anyway be- cause the government says ev- eryone in the household had to have it. So our co-pay per month is $4,446 a month. That has to be paid before Medicare even will even kick in. All the cheaters playing Med- iCal have no co-pay and there's nothing wrong with that kind of cheating. I just want people to know that they only help the ones that don't really need it. I know of plenty of people that get ev- ery bit of help they have to give, but yet they are plenty OK to work a job. They don't really care in this town one bit unless they're making money off people that need help. It's lousy medical here. The Tehama Clinic won't even ac- cept my Medicare card until I pay $2,223 monthly. I bring home $992 a month. — Julianne Shelley, Red Bluff Letters to the editor One of the reasons for the suspicion is that the County Office of Education does not appear to be the "hunky dory" operation its leaders claim it to be. Communication seems to be a big problem, and poor communication breeds suspicion. State and National President Barack Obama The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C. 20500, (202) 456-1111, Fax: (202) 456-2461, Email: president@whitehouse.gov Assemblyman James Gallagher 2060 Talbert Drive, Ste. 110, Chico 95928, 530 895-4217, http://ad03.asmrc.org/ Senator Jim Nielsen 2634 Forest Ave., Ste. 110, Chico 95928, 530 879-7424, senator.nielsen@senate.ca.gov Governor Jerry Brown State Capital Building, Sacramento 95814, 916 445-2841, fax 916 558-3160, governor@governor.ca.gov Representative Doug LaMalfa 507 Cannon House Office Building, Washington D.C. 20515, 202 225-3076 Senator Dianne Feinstein One Post St., Ste. 2450, San Francisco 94104, 415 393-0707, fax 415 393-0710 U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer 1700 Montgomery St., San Francisco 94111, 510 286-8537 Local Tehama County Supervisors, 527-4655 District 1, Steve Chamblin, Ext. 3015 District 2, Candy Carlson, Ext. 3014 District 3, Dennis Garton, Ext. 3017 District 4, Bob Williams, Ext. 3018 District 5, Burt Bundy, Ext. 3016 Your officials Joe Harrop OPINION » redbluffdailynews.com Saturday, February 20, 2016 » MORE AT FACEBOOK.COM/RBDAILYNEWS AND TWITTER.COM/REDBLUFFNEWS A4