Local News
District Attorney earned his stipend back, BOCC says
Commissioner Ann Samuelson proposed that since the District Attorney had completed his performance measures as requested that he receive a stipend at the same rate as when it was taken away, $1,125 per month retroactive to April 1, 2008. Commissioner Sam Patrick made a motion that a Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) increase be added to the stipend, the motion died for lack of a second. All Oregon District Attorneys received a COLA increase in July 2007. Commissioner Hazen continued to vote no on the stipend, reiterating his viewpoint that the state should fund a state job. Chair Roberts then proposed that the stipend be placed in the 2008-09 budget for consideration by the budget committee. At this point Patrick became agitated, stating that the budget committee has no right to make a decision on the stipend and that only the Board has the right, according to state law, to make a decision on the stipend. After a brief awkwardness the Chair was able to explain to the Commissioner that the stipend was not a part of the budget for 2008-09 and if it wasn’t added now to go through the budget process then it couldn’t become part of the budget for the following year. Patrick was able to understand and an unanimous vote placed the stipend in the budget for the next fiscal year. Hazen said he felt it should be a part of the budget and can be discussed and voted on at that time.
During Business from the Public, heard from Nancy Autio, Chairperson for the Lighthouse for Kids and Executive Assistant Marvin Bermudez explained more about their program and thanked the Board for the money that they recently received through the annual Non-Profits granting process from the county.
The Board discussed what could be done regarding the Marine Reserves that the state of Oregon proposed to bring into being back in 2002. In April 2007 Kulongoski stated, ““It is essential that you develop and communicate a clear set of goals and objectives for creating a network of marine reserves along the Oregon coast,” the Governor wrote the Council. “I have watched with interest as the State of California has worked to create a system of marine protected areas. I think there is much to learn from California’s experience and I encourage you to actively engage…with their work on this.” Local fishermen have expressed great concern regarding this project with Lower Columbia Alliance for Sustainable Fisheries meeting with the Board last month to ask them for support. The Board decided to write a letter to the Oregonian to bring attention to the problems that the reserves will create, as well as writing to the governor and to the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association. Another idea that was discussed was to approach the AOC on behalf of the coastal communities for support.
Other Items
Gail Galen and Kim Kines were both appointed to full terms on the Recreation Lands Advisory Committee. The committee still has one more opening and the staff will re-advertise for it.
Set a time for the May 7th meeting for public comments and to interview the candidates for the vacant commissioner seat.
Tabled an issue that will involve drafting a “media policy” for a future work session.
Approved a resolution and order in support of relocating the NOAA fleet to Tongue Point.
Conducted the second reading and approved the Ordinance for Big River Comprehensive Zone Map change.
Under consent calendar approved the following items: several sets of minutes from previous meetings, Purchase of Oil Rock for Chip Seal Program, Purchase of Rock for Road Maintenance Program, 2008/09 Grant Application for Assessment and Taxation, Approval of Contract for Purchase and Installation of Animal Control Crematorium, Consideration of Offers and Adoption of Resolution and Order approving sale of county property, Personal/Professional Services Agreement with Personnel Department for fish marking payroll services for Clatsop County Fisheries, Approval of Grant Proposal Letter for Technical Assistance through Community Block Grant Disaster Assistance Program.
Local Media
Police Blotter
Articles Elsewhere
Recent Comments
The fact that Skinner, the one that …
By Staci from the article Former School Director asks Ethics Commission for investigation.No Doubt you do not get it. …
By No Doubt ? from the article Former School Director asks Ethics Commission for investigation.There is a direct connection between the …
By No doubt about it from the article Former School Director asks Ethics Commission for investigation.Like another said, this simply comes down …
By LEAD BY EXAMPLE from the article Former School Director asks Ethics Commission for investigation.Good correction, forgetting the overlap of the …
By PLEASE READ from the article Former School Director asks Ethics Commission for investigation.Who taught you math? Oly was on …
By ridiculous from the article Former School Director asks Ethics Commission for investigation.Remember Oly and Lauren were not board …
By Another from the article Former School Director asks Ethics Commission for investigation.Not being a big fan of Oly …
By Response from the article Former School Director asks Ethics Commission for investigation.
21 Comments
On Apr 26, 11:26 AM, Ginger wrote:
Q: How often or what kind of time frame did the commissioners ask for the DA to present the performance measures before they decided to take away the stipend? Just wondering.
On Apr 26, 2:11 PM, same old thing wrote:
Three years, same as all other department heads. In the 2004 budget it was introduced with 2005-06 being first year for use. All departments were to come into full conformity by 2007. Each year the budget packet that every dept. head recv’d had the performance measure information in it. Each year the DA ignored the performance measure format and did his own thing.
On Apr 26, 4:50 PM, guest wrote:
What nerve to ignore the required performance and at the same time asking for money back he hand’t earned!
Our country would fall apart if we all had his views about money!
On Apr 26, 7:49 PM, heavy load wrote:
Would fall apart?? to late now!! entitlements and public employees benefits and retirements are dragging it down fast. The sooner it goes broke the better. I feel my taxes are just wasted. I read last week someone thought that the jewell teachers were underpaid. what a joke. Recession, depression bring it on, the USA needs some rebalancing. Everybody will be happy, we won’t be powerful any more We all will be scratching to get by, just like the rest of the world. So it’s really one of those win win situations. Be Happy
On Apr 27, 12:30 AM, Halley's Comment wrote:
...the DA ignored the performance measure format and did his own thing.....Our country would fall apart if we all had his views about money!.....
Someone, please correct me if I’m wrong, but.....
...wasnt one of the main reasons that the BOCC was sore at Marquis because he presented a budget that was based on something like 7000 cases handled by the DAs office in a year? And someone caught on that he had included 4000 traffic tickets with it, but the DA doesnt prosecute traffic tickets. So, essentially, he was trying to bill the tax payers for services not rendered. The claim was he needed extra staffing for the heavy caseload, but the reported caseload was bogus and inflated. It was speculated the extra lawyers on the staff were to do his job so he could traipse around the country doing interviews on Court TV and otherwise being a media rock star. I know what they call people who overcharge and skizzle customers in the private sector, but what do they call them in the political field? Getting him to present an accurate performance measure based budget was the whole thing behind the stipend removal.
Marquis needs to move on. He’s bad news.
On Apr 27, 8:31 AM, Ginger wrote:
The conformity was due in ‘07, how long after the due date did they take away the stipend?
On Apr 27, 8:58 AM, Tryan Hartill wrote:
Ginger
Here is much of the info on the old site:
http://clatsop.northcoastoregon.com/2007/06/12/EmailsMarquisDericksonHazen
They officially took it away when they voted for the budget on June 27th.
On Apr 27, 9:18 AM, Avid Reader wrote:
What difference does it make how long after the due date it was? Three years should be enough notice for anybody. As I recall, Marquis produced his non-performance based budget in March or April - and was promptly informed it was not in the proper format. I forget the exact date in May when Hazen introduced the motion to rescind the stipend. Marquis had about 6 weeks after that before the budget was finalized to produce what he knew was being requested. Instead, he saw this as a golden opportunity to make himself the highest salaried (I didn’t say paid) DA in the State and spent the time on a PR campaign and colluding with Sam Patrick to pass an unconstitutional amendment to our charter.
On Apr 27, 10:23 AM, Ginger wrote:
Wow, after all that reading...so, was it documented and confirmed that the performance measures were submitted Jan. 25,’07? If so, why was the stipend taken away in June? I see comments from people who seem pretty pissed off that the performance measures WEREN’T submitted, therefore the stipend was taken away (and that is how it is presented to the public nationally)...was there something else that I am missing? Was there any kind of personal vendetta against the DA? It was taken away, from what I can tell because of the performance measures, but then given back ten months later? Also, Why wouldn’t Scott discuss requests FROM department heads regarding their budget and staffing? Why would a department head have to wait until the final draft was approved before discussion could be entertained or even responded to? I saw Scott as being holier than thou by keeping info close to his bosom. Were other departments privy to input or any kind of previous info regarding THEIR departments before final approvals? I hope that is not how the county handles business all the time.
On Apr 27, 10:26 AM, Wasted Timber wrote:
In the big picture Marquis is just another Seeley
On Apr 27, 12:17 PM, Ginger wrote:
Wasted Timber,
Funny how you correlate the two. That’s a two way street, isn’t it.
On Apr 27, 12:39 PM, Avid Reader wrote:
Ginger appears to be reading through Marquis-tinted spectacles. The DA submitted what he chose to characterize as “performance measures”. This was not the performance-based budget required as he well knew. The only people who carry on vendettas around here are Josh Marquis and steve Forrester (with a little help from people who seem to think they have a right to impose their opinions on the rest of us).
On Apr 27, 1:19 PM, Go figure wrote:
Ginger,
With all your expertise in business matters, I’m wondering if you are a CEO of a corporation.....you are quick to be the critic, might want to understand something before you pass your judgements. I saw on a past post somewhere you are on the budget committee for Jewell School, what are your plans for that.
On Apr 28, 5:33 AM, Best Guest wrote:
Isn’t it interesting that once again there is another way to connect the dots and see Josh has an involvement in those who are campaigning for another recall. Josh has become the Baghwatti Podar of the 21st century in Clatsop County.
On Apr 28, 6:15 AM, OH MY wrote:
I see the splashes of comments in several posts tying in LNG opponents to the Jewell recallers to the Jewell recall ( aka LEE recallers, Josh supporters, Astorian-Josh supporters). I see Ginger here with some comments on present action and also asking questions ? Ginger is a person that is growing and those that are attacking her appear to be heading in the opposite direction. Unfortunately Jewell is small potatoes in the big field of LNG , Josh, commissioners. Those presenters tying them together are way off base ( They dont have time for Jewell). The only correlation is Ann sticking her finger in the wind then and now.
On Apr 28, 1:23 PM, Ginger wrote:
I don’t have a problem asking questions. I am interested in what is going on. As my older kids were growing up, I felt comfortable relying on those elected/hired to do what they were elected/hired to do. Within the past couple of years, I have become very uncomfortable with the way things have been going...I am not going to sit around and just rely on the info provided to me by one or two sources. I am new to this blog site and find alot of the comments pro/con to be very interesting. It gives me a new perspective on the situations at hand. Some of you take the question one way...and some another. That is very interesting to me. I have not even told you what I really think about the subject...and yet those who think I support one subject are also quick to be “critics” of my questions, even correlating the stipend w/ Seeley...why is that? They are merely innocent questions from someone who wants a bit more info. I AM flattered that the question of me being the CEO of a corporation popped up (not really). I have worked at large corporations and I have seen a hand full of “upper management” really screw things up...even close down departments because of their own egos. I think people need to get more involved...but by the looks of a few comments, some want to try and squelch anyone who might question a process (or the lack there of) or “the powers that BE”. When I said that it’s a two way street, I meant that both sides will definitely have opinions on the subject of the correlation. As far as what I have to say about the budget committee and MY plans...you’ll have to wait until the final draft is approved and made public...How’s that for an answer
OH, by the way, I keep meaning to say this...I know that writings can come off a bit cold...please take what I say w/ a light personality...I have no ill intentions when I ask questions.
Avid reader: Thank you for the second and third of your sentences. Can you answer any of my other questions? As far as someone “imposing their opinions on the rest of us”...look in the mirror and ask yourself that question...Why are you here w/ your post? You are too funny!
On Apr 28, 2:59 PM, a guest wrote:
Ginger. Have you visited the other good forums? Much is posted about Josh Marquis, Richard Lee, County Goverment especially well written words by Carton CCM, I find most Clatsop County blogs are good reading , a couple need to go bye-bye like burning corn and objects something or other I don’t get the point.
On Apr 30, 11:08 PM, Richpix wrote:
Someone please explain to this out-of-stater how an employee of the State of Oregon should receive anything beyond the salary they agreed to when they took their position. Do postmasters get a stipend? Does any other state or federal employee get a little something extra from the county? Why is this an issue at all?
On May 1, 1:45 AM, William O Douglas Fir wrote:
how an employee of the State of Oregon should receive anything beyond the salary they agreed to when they took their position
Look at that perq as a shake down or protection money...it all but guarantees that the local DA wont prosecute people in County Government who run afoul of the law. Say, the commissioner who lives in Knappa (the one who is REALLY a Californian) get’s caught drunk driving with a 14 year old dead hooker, an ounce of meth and an out of season elk in his truck. Since the fix is in, it all gets reduced down to reckless driving or 3rd degree littering or not using a turn signal.
On May 2, 4:01 PM, no name (although required) wrote:
Avid Reader wrote:
“”... The DA submitted what he chose to characterize as “performance measures”. This was not the performance-based budget required as he well knew. … “”
The DA in Clatsop County - and 23 other Oregon counties such as all the ones around us - gets paid a stipend because unlike any other state employee, he manages county employees - 17 of them - and prepares and manages a county budget of $1.2 million. The 3 commissioners who reinstated it did the right thing because there was no warning given and when Marquis ran (for the fourth time) for DA in 2006 he had every reason to believe that the $13,000 was part of his compensation since he’d been getting paid it for the previous 11 years. If they declared their plan not to pay a stipend before a new term started then your argument about “he knew what he was getting in for” might fly.
But it does not.
On May 2, 5:48 PM, Avid Reader wrote:
I did not state “he knew what he was getting in for”. I said the material Marquis submitted was not a performance-based budget, and he was well aware of that fact. After being given notice three years earlier of what he was expected to produce for the budget committee, if anyone should be giving notice of an intended action, it should have been Marquis giving them notice that he had no intention of complying with their requirement. The rationale for paying him a stipend may include the fact that he manages county employees and a county budget, but he is also being paid to provide the County Commission with the information they are asking for IN THE FORMAT THEY HAVE SPECIFIED. This year, of course, Marquis managed to do that because, having failed to etch an unconstitutional amendment into our charter, he decided that his old stipend was better than no stipend.