Your account does not include highlighter on images.
Searches Highlighted on Image
National Sponsors
| October 5, 2011 Indian Valley Record |  |
|
©
Indian Valley Record. All rights reserved. Upgrade to access Premium Tools
PAGE 7 (7 of 32 available) PREVIOUS NEXT Jumbo Image Save To Scrapbook Set Notifiers PDF JPG
October 5, 2011 |
|
|
Website © 2025. All content copyrighted. Copyright Information Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Request Content Removal | About / FAQ | Get Acrobat Reader 
|
Indian Valley Record
Wednesday, Oct. 5, 2011 7A
Mona Hill
Staff Writer
mhill@plumasnews.com
It was all about fair entries
for the bulk of the Plumas-
Sierra County Fair board
meeting Wednesday, Sept. 28.
Plumas County Auditor
Shawn Montgomery was on
the agenda to address W9s,
among other things.
In addition, Norma Wood
spoke on behalf of ALIVE
participants during public
comment. ALIVE is a pro-
gram of Plumas Rural
Services for adults with
developmental disabilities
and special needs.
Wood took the board
to task about the delayed pre-
mium checks. She said it had
been difficult to encourage
entries into the photographic
competition and winners had
been eage~:ly anticipating
their premium checks.
In the past, premium
checks for ribbon winners
were usually ready for pick-
up at the fair office at the
same time exhibits closed.
This year, for the first time,
W9s were required with the
exhibit entry form.
Montgomery addressed the
board following the close
of public comment and
explained the reason for
the W9s and for the delayed
premium checks.
The Internal Revenue
Service form is required for
miscellaneous income. When
more than $600 comes from a
single source, in this case
Plumas County, the payor
issues a 1099.
Following the 2010 fair,
Montgomery noticed a
few large premium checks
nearing $400. At that point,
she became concerned about
the county's ability to report
1099 income accurately to the
IRS. In accordance with IRS
policy, she asked that the W9
form be included with the
exhibit entry form.
Miscommunication be-
tween the auditor's office and
the fair office about who
would cut the premium
checks meant no checks were
ready by the end of the fair.
Fair staff had understood
that'the auditor's office
would issue all premium
checks.
The auditor's office only
intended to issue checks for
amounts over $10.
After about an hour's lively
discussion, Montgomery
and fair directors agreed to
collect W9s for premium
awards exceeding $300.
In addition, the auditor's
office would issue any pre-
mium checks over the $300
limit. No 2011 fair exhibitors
received more than $300.
All outstanding premium
checks are expected to be
mailed by the end of this
week.
Budget finalized
Montgomery was also on
hand to explain delays in
county payments to fair
suppliers.
A combination of factors
led to late payments. The
county budget process this
year meant that proposed
budgets were frozen.
Fair manager John Steffanic
told the board he'd had his
tentative budget ready to
submit early in the process,
but Chief Administrative Of-
ricer Jack Ingstad instructed
him and other non-general
fund department heads to
wait. He also mentioned that
he'd attended Montgomery's
"how to do a budget" class
earlier in the year.
According to Steffanic and
Supervisor Jon Kennedy, In-
gstad did not use Steffanic's
budget. Saying he would'
enter it himself, Ingstad
cut the amount available in
professional services below
the fair's obligations.
ff the money available in a
particular line item account,
in this case professional
services, is insufficient, with-
out an adopted budget the au-
ditor cannot transfer money
from another line item
account to permit payment.
In response to questions
from fair directors about:
who was responsible and::
how to avoid the problem in
the future, Kennedy said,
"Jack Ingstad is responsible~
because he was plugging ini
arbitrary dollar amounts:~
without careful thought ta~
achieve a tentative budget,":~
and pledged to ensure thaf~
did not happen again.
Montgomery also suggested i
the county could adopt a i
budget July 1 and refine it
later. She said that would
allow her to process her l
accounts payable.
In other business, directors :
voted to discontinue board-
ing animals on the fair-:
grounds.
Plumas County jail facil
I
Plumas County District Attorney David Hollister explains the details of California's prison realign-
ment bill (AB 109) during a townhall meeting at the Plumas-Sierra County Fairgrounds in Quincy
Wednesday night, Sept. 28. Photo by Dan McDonald
from page 1A
their criminal history.
Community based sanctions:
The county is authorized to use
a range of community-based
punishment and intermediate
sanctions other than jail time
alone or traditional routine
probation supervision. The
offenders might be picking up
trash or pulling weeds.
County jail could overflow
The Plumas County Jail
has 67 beds to house inmates.
However, the facility is
outdated and has safety and
probably i
housing issuesfor its staff.
The 67-bed capacity can
shrink substantially depend-
ing on the fluctuations of
male and female population.
Problem inmates can make
the ,jail's capacity even
smaller.
And according to informa-
tion from the district attor-
ney's office, 34 defendants
were sentenced to state
prison in fiscal 2010-11.
Had AB 109 been in place,
24 of those people would have
remained in the county
jail. Of those 24 inmates, the
average sentence was 24.33
months.
equ
During the same time period,
455 defendants were sentenced
to the county jail as a term
of probation. Their average
length of stay was 39 days.
The jail also houses
inmates being held for
probation violations,.parole
revocations, warrants, immi-
gration holds and other
offenses.
The state has estimated
Plumas County will assume
responsibility for approxi-
mately 69 additional offenders
by June 30, 2013.
Many local criminal justice :
officials believe that number
will be much greater.
JURY, from page 1A
Training. The board also
wrote that it plans to con-
tinue coordination with law
enforcement agencies to
ensure proper response to
any future incidents.
Superintendent's response:
Harris agreed with the grand
jury's conclusions and cited
the efforts outlined by the
board above.
Atmosphere of intolerance
The grand jury report cited
examples of intolerance from
direct observation, inter-
views, local media reports
and public comment at
school board meetings.
The report called for an
ongoing general program of
tolerance schoolwide, as well
as communication of specific
guidelines and performance
expectations for,teachers.
School board's response:
The board agreed with the
report's finding that public
perception is controversial
and needs to be addressed.
The board also wrote, "The
Board is concerned with the re-
ported perception of teachers
regarding how they view the
work environment and is
working hard to improve
communication."
The trustees' response cites
its review of all its policies and
bylaws, stating, "The Board is
also focused on improving
communication to employees
and the community."
Superintendent's response:
In his longest response,
Harris agreed with the board
response and expanded to
include a request: "Vehicles
with speech qualified as .'hate
speech' are recommended to
be kept away from sight of
all county educational pro-
grams. While the County
Office of Education nor the
Plumas Unified School dis-
trict have no control over
items not on school property,
I respectfully request that
all visitors to county educa-
tional sites of allLEA's avoid
driving vehicles or parking
vehicles, with objectionable
hate speech within visibility
of PUSD properties."
He also noted that last year
all county school administra-
tors received sensitivity
training involving various
cultural and sexual issues
with regard to employee
supervision.
Additional training is
upcoming.
The report also outlined
allegations of employee
harassment: Teachers felt
they worked "in an envi-
ronment of intimidation, ha-
rassment, and retribution
if there was any questioning
or dissent." ,
Qual from
a trust!
,: :!:::i::::~::~ ::::~. ,:':~ :~