Halo, you have to stop drinking before you post here! ;-)

First, a link which should answer every related finance question for "FT", again, as it lists and explains every county budget policy, fund purpose and expenditure:

http://www.lanecounty.org/CAO_Budget/Budget/documents/Adopted0708/FinancialSummary.pdf

The year end report can also be bought from the county, as can copies of all the internal and external audits. The "CAFR", referenced in the above-linked financial summary, is the hyper-technical accounting of every dime that is required for compliance with the federal grant audits and the audits that are performed for the purpose of bond market risk assessment.

A friend who works for LCOG recently reminded me that the individual county departments are also audited, sometimes twice per year, if they are dependent on state and federal grants. That would include the Sheriff, the DA, Juvenile and Health and Human Services, as they are all increasingly reliant ony non-county money that just "flows through" from state and federal grant sources. Health and Human Services is the best example of that, with a budget of almost $105 million, only about 4.5 million is Lane County money. The DA is increasingly dependent on grant money too, to keep the Medical Examiner, Family Law and the clinic for sexually abused children (Child Advocacy Center) alive. His family law program is over 67% funded by the federal government too, so all that is audited by the feds. That's all pubic record too, so you and FT can account for every penny if you're really interested.

As many others have pointed out, Lane County is already audited to death. The finances are as transparent as they can be.

Most of the data can be accessed via the county website too. The balance can all be purchased from the county for the price of copying time.

Now, a clarification for Halo: You are correct that county budget policy requires the individual departments to return 2% of the authorized general fund budget. It's in the county APM. That means a department with budget authorization to spend $1,000,000 is really only authorized to spend $980,000, a concept which makes no sense to me, but one which has been in place at the county for many years. The county "FIN" (finance) plan includes the assumption that 2% of every department's general fund budget will be returned to the commissioners for reallocation the following year. Generally, turnover and difficulty hiring make it relatively easy to make that 2% requirement, especially for the departments that are farther away from market salary ranges. Others, like those thin on professional staffing, fill positions more easily and more quickly, so they may have a harder time.

BUT: Although that lapse requirement is the general rule, some departments or programs are routinely partially exempted, by board order or policy, to the extent necessary to manage larger capital expenditures. So, for example, fleet services has to be able to retain cash because it is constantly replacing vehicles to meet the needs of the large motor pool. Similarly, since the Sheriff now manages his own vehicle fleet, his department is allowed some limited retention past the normal fiscal year boundary. The Sheriff also successfully petitioned the board of commissioners to retain half of his surplus lapse four of five years ago because the HVAC system and the roof at the jail needed substantial repair, so there are times when the commissioners will allow the departments to retain some of the lapsed money for a specific need. That may be what has FT all fired up, though I can't see a more sensible alternative to the course they have chosen and, once again, they're doing basically what every other similar government agency does to fund roof repair or vehicle replacement.

Or maybe his personal "ax to grind" prevents him from seeing the obvious. Let us know what you find out about the lawsuit, as FT wont be "giving that up" anytime soon.

foundation trilogy:

1) This is self-referencing, the district attorneys research branch provides skewed statistics that are being used to build a case for an over funding request.

2) Spanky, you have also not addressed the $10 million funds moved out of the general fund or the $3 million dollar carry-over.

3) One last question, if you include all the city (town sheriff, police) federal, park and state law enforcement officers, how many actual officers are in Lane County, Oregon? Please post a number not a rate per whatever. In other words, when they have a major disaster drill, how many people could they call upon as law enforcement? What is our real police force size?

Answers: 1) "Self-referencing"? No. It is a professional training, standard-bearing, professionalism-improving organization that provides professional evaluation and consulting. There are similar national organizations for most professional disciplines. A quick trip to their website makes their purpose clear. Furthermore, if you did your homework you would have found that they don't always recommend adding staff. "Skewed statistics"? Which ones? Inserting these patently untrue statements impeaches your own credibility.

2) I have provided the county budget documents which show the allocation of every dollar and provide an explanation for every fund. I have provided or linked audit references, and I continue to point out the transparent, thoroughly -examined nature of the process. One of us simply doesn't understand what he's being shown. Your lawsuit and impeachment effort should conclusively show which of us is reading from the confused music. How's the lawsuit/impeachment progressing, by the way?

3) I cannot find the data on the number of federal agents in Lane County, nor can I find any state or local jurisdiction which has considered that data relevant to decision making on local police staffing. Not one. I doubt the federal government will disclose the location and number of it's enforcement assets, for obvious reasons. The other numbers have been provided in the other reports, including the Lattimore report.

I often don't understand what it is that you don't understand. For example, if you know the population, and you are given the "rate per whatever", you can figure the number of sworn officers as of the census time. The rates as of 2004, higher than present, were calculated and published in several of the linked reports, so you can do the simple calculation and get a number of officers. That isn't done, generally, because that number is meaningless in a vacuum -- especially to a lay-person, like you, who knows nothing of law enforcement structure, function and operation. That's why you see police staffing expressed as a ratio or proportion -- it allows a comparison of enforcement staffing per workload which is typically measures in terms of the following:
- officers per population
- officers per area (often square mile)
- officers per reported crime

Such measures facilitate the comparison of statistics across jurisdictions, and they are the benchmark used all over the country. Similar types of analysis and comparison are used for fire-service. The reasons for presenting the information in this readily comparable form are intuitive to everybody I have spoken to so, once again, I don't understand what you don't understand. How's that lawsuit/impeachment effort coming?

I’ll say this very plain and simple so that even Spanky could understand it. The Sheriff’s department is under-staffed because the Lane County Commissioners did not do their job correctly. They should be removed because of this. They knew that the “Forest” money was set to end on a specific date. They did not solve that problem. They chose to reduce the Sheriffs department to a critical level as a political move to “force” their agenda.

 

Why do I keep saying the statistics that Halo and Spanky bandy about are deceptive?

1.    Using percentages on numbers less than 50 gives high shock value numbers. For example if you have 4 employees and 1 leaves, that is a 25% loss. To get back to 4 employees you need to increase your workforce by 33%.

2.    Using graphs or charts that do not show a full 100% range. One graph shows a statistic that varied from around 40% to 45%, but because it was on a graph that only went to 50% , it gave the impression of being in the 80% to 90% range.

3.    Using Lane County population without a clear reference that 50% of the population resides in the small 2 city area of Eugene/Springfield. Spanky, I used the 2000 population number because they were not the “ESTIMATED” population number.

4.    Using area numbers without clearly stating that Lane County has about 50% of its land area as federal or BLM land. It is undeveloped, un-roaded and virtually unpopulated. The Sheriffs do not “patrol” the forest. Also most of Lane County, Oregon’s population is focused on only a handful of roads.

5.    Not clearly stating that the Lane County Commissioners have known exactly when the “Forest / School” money would expire. They are solely responsible for resolving that known problem. Spanky will continue to say that the voters wouldn’t pass a tax to replace the money. It is the Commissioners DUTY to find a solution. If the voters refuse to just give them a blank check tax increase then the commissioners still have the DUTY to find a solution. Cutting the Sheriffs budget is just plain extortion. If the voters had voted to accept a tax increase to fully fund the Sheriffs department the commissioners would then continue to fund their pet projects. As it is, the commissioners should all be removed for not solving a known problem that they knew exactly when it would hit us. Spanky will say, “What is your solution?” I have put forth the idea of increasing the use of a current technology tracking/recording bracelets that also activate/notify existing cameras. For example this would alert a school that a known sexual offender was near and record video/audio of the offender.

There is a problem with the number of law enforcement officers in Lane County, Oregon, we need more. The County Commissioners are responsible. They should be removed from office before they cause more problems. Our law enforcement personnel deserve all the support we can give them. The Commissioners deserve to be removed, investigated and incarcerated when appropriate.

 

Regarding the Lawsuit; I received the e-mail below. I have, as a matter of courtesy, sent to them a chance for pre-trial settlement. 

“Mr. :

Our public information officer forwarded this request to me when she learned that you have served notice on us that you may be suing the County regarding this issue.  Please direct any further requests to me, as they will be routed through me and it will take less time if they come directly here.  We have some of the information you have requested; we are not the appropriate agency for some of the requested information.   I don't know what information you have already been given, so please excuse any redundancy. 

Information on actual expenses can be found in the County CAFR.  It is located at www.lanecounty.org/MS_Finance/default.htm   The information on the web only goes back to 2003.  Earlier issues of the CAFR are available for inspection at the County.  I believe you can also locate actual expenses at www.lanecounty.org/CAO_Budget/default.htm   If you go into the adopted budget, you can find the actuals for the two years prior.

The County receives very little non-governmental grant revenue.  For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007, the only non-governmental grant revenue was $102,686 that Youth Services received from the Serbu Endowment Fund. 

The Oregon Government Standards and Practices Act contains the ethical rules for government employees and public officials.  The website is located at:

http://www.oregon.gov/OGEC/index.shtml

In regards to your 4th request, Lane County is not the appropriate agency for that request.  Community Sharing in Cottage Grove would be the appropriate contact.

In regards to your 5th and 6th requests, you will need to contact the HOME TBA program; Lane County does not have those statistics or information.

http://www.oregon.gov/OHCS/CSS_HOME_Tenant_Based_Assistance_Program.shtml 

 

Liane Richardson
Assistant County Counsel”

Another reason to not blindly accept Spanky’s statistics.

Referring to “Public Safety Resources: Lane County & Similar US Counties”

 …”Report on Staffing and Capacity for a Balanced Criminal Justice System - Dr. Pamela

Lattimore, PhD

John Clague introduced Dr. Pamela Lattimore, PhD. He noted that Dr. Lattimore is a professor in the department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of South Carolina, Director of the USC Center for the Management of Risk Behaviors and principal scientist in the Crime Violence and Justice Center for Research Triangle Institute, where she is currently principal investigator for the Multi-Site Evaluation of the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative. Prior to taking the position with RTI, Dr. Lattimore worked for 10 years for the National Institute of Justice, US Department in Washington D.C. serving most recently as the Director of their Criminal Justice and Criminal Behavior division. In her role at RTI, she was the principal investigator for two national evaluations which included two of Lane County’s grant funded projects: Jail Diversion for Mentally Ill Defendants and Safe Schools/ Healthy Students.”

 

…“Dr. Lattimore said when she is referring to law enforcement staffing the data is only from the Sheriff’s department because of overlapping jurisdictions, but the crime reports are the total crime reports for the county, including the other law enforcement agencies”

.From

http://www.lanecounty.org/cao_pscc/meetings/2006/documents/pscc_october_2006_minutes.pdf

As you can see they included crime reports for which the Sheriff’s department is not responsible. This would tend to indicate a staffing level increase based on a false number.

FT, you're simply wrong. About the numbers, the math, the statistical analysis, accepted accounting practices, the practices of the Sheriff's office -- and every other material piece of the equation about which you pontificate.

The Sheriff does in fact patrol the forests, every day, which is why there is a dedicated forest patrol team. It's discussed ad-nauseum at the budget hearings, because the forest patrol funding is always at risk. Moreover, it is the national forest area which absorbs 95% of the search and rescue resources.

Next, the census data are ALWAYS estimates. The measuring process is imperfect and infrequent, so the best numbers are used to project numbers which have consistently been very accurate.

Regarding the lawsuit: Sorry, FT, it's complete B.S. Just as your analysis of the numbers has been.

The county commissioners have repeatedly tried to bring Lane County up to the funding level appropriate to a jurisdiction of this size, and the public has declined. Our citizens don't WANT the Sheriff, the DA or the other public safety components to be funded. Obviously.

FT, I'm afraid you and the two folks buying your drivel here are representative of the Lane County electorate. You're convinced there is some grand conspiracy, that money is being wasted, that the management is incompetent and or corrupt, and so on. It's simply not true, and all who take the time to pay attention and/or do a thorough investigation find that out.

The few, like you, who choose to obfuscate and misrepresent in order to advance a political agenda are reprehensible, as you make it even more difficult for the lazy citizen to discern the truth.

As long as people like you and that other moron who made the last equitable effort at a tax system his cause, we may NEVER have a normal public safety system. I can live with that as my kids are grown and out, so I can leave whenever I wish to do so.

And I knew you'd never prevail in your alleged lawsuit. I guess you knew that too.

When Spanky wrote, “FT, you're simply wrong. About the numbers, the math, the statistical analysis, accepted accounting practices, the practices of the Sheriff's office -- and every other material piece of the equation about which you pontificate.” I knew I had been bested by the greatest debater in the county. How can one counter the logic of  “FT, you're simply wrong.” I sit dumbfounded and bamboozled.  Spanky has found the secret to winning any argument. The legendary philosopher’s stone of logic. Declare any criticism as simply wrong; ignore all information that points to the fact that the underlying statistics that will be used to coerce the taxpayers into accepting a tax increase are based on deceptive numbers.

 

Oh great Master Spanky, illuminate us about your statement; “The Sheriff does in fact patrol the forests, every day, which is why there is a dedicated forest patrol team.” I don’t wish to jump to any absurd conclusions that portray the sheriff’s deputies walking a beat in the heart of the federal forest lands. I don’t wish to be “simply wrong” without first looking at your links to verifiable FACTS. Just the facts, Spanky, just the facts.

 

By the way the lawsuit is still on track and the paperwork is in the mail to the federal court in Eugene, Oregon.    

FT: If the County Commissioners have 'pet projects', that should be cut before funds for the Sheriff are cut, you should list what they are.

.

Spanky: If the Sheriff does, in fact, patrol the National Forest - Why? Isn't the National Forest 'Federal' land? And thusly  a 'Federal' responsibility?

Red,

Indeed the Sheriff patrols the National Forest.  Here is a quote from the Sheriff's Office Web Site (http://www.lanecounty.org/Sheriff_PoliceServices/Forestland.htm):

==============================================================

The “Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination act of 2000” (P.L. 106-393,) allows for provision of emergency services on federal forestlands.  Lane County developed and implemented deputies and support staff to patrol and respond to calls-for-service involving these federal lands. A sergeant, an investigator and four deputy sheriff’s are assigned policing, search & rescue (SAR) and emergency medical responsibilities related to the three National Forests and BLM lands in Lane County.

This program works closely with existing patrol, investigations and SAR operations to provide a visible presence on federal properties.  Liaison with federal agencies provides an emergency response capability new to Lane County in this decade.  In addition to reported crimes, deputies attend to illegal drug operations, dumping of stolen/abandoned automobiles, environmental enforcement, enhanced marine functions, initial fire response, follow-on support and homeowner fire educational programs.

Deputies in the Forestland Emergency assignment complete an intensive 10-week course which included federal policing procedures, private timber security, fish & game regulation, explosive disposal and drug lab briefings, marijuana eradication, managing search operations, helicopter operations, first responder medical training, incident command system operations, marine operations, a man-tracking course and advanced GPS operations/map reading.

Established in July 2002, the Forestland Emergency Services program returned deputies to the remote forested lands of Lane County.  Activity this year included:

214 Calls-for-Service	28 Search & Rescue Missions
63 Felony Arrests	36 Recovered Stolen Vehicles
51 Misdemeanor Arrests	6 Boat Inspections on federal waterways
110 Motorist assists	268 Traffic citations
2157 Public Contacts

==============================================================

Indeed, the funding for the forestland patrols comes from the Secure Rural School funding.

 

 

And, on the search and rescue page (http://www.lanecounty.org/Sheriff_PoliceServices_SpecOper/Search_Rescue.htm):

==============================================================

The Lane County Sheriff's Search and Rescue program (SAR) responds to lost, injured or missing people that are in need of rescue and/or recovery from natural or technological danger within Lane County on a 24-hour basis as mandated by ORS 401.560.

This includes but is not limited to the recovery of deceased subjects, aircraft related beacon searches, support of criminal investigations with evidence searches, disaster response, and general logistic support of Sheriff's Office personnel.

==============================================================

And, as you probably can surmise, most search and rescue occurs in the remote county areas.  I personally wouldn't want to wait for the Feds to come to my rescue if I had a problem.  The local Sheriff's Personnel know the terrain and weather better than any one else.

Both of these programs will be shutdown, no doubt, by the funding budgets.  It makes sense that the Forestland Patrols would go away since they are supposed to be funded by the Secure Rural Schools funding.  But that will only make the National Forests a place that will become dangerous to travel in, due to no policing, and (more importantly) no more search and rescue.  You're on your own.

I, for one, would most likely no longer go into the National Forests. 

Nobody wins.

 

 

“The “Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination act of 2000” (P.L. 106-393,) allows for provision of emergency services on federal forestlands.  Lane County developed and implemented deputies and support staff to patrol and respond to calls-for-service involving these federal lands. A sergeant, an investigator and four deputy sheriff’s are assigned policing, search & rescue (SAR) and emergency medical responsibilities related to the three National Forests and BLM lands in Lane County.

This program works closely with existing patrol, investigations and SAR operations to provide a visible presence on federal properties.  Liaison with federal agencies provides an emergency response capability new to Lane County in this decade.”

 

So including that expense or staffing in the regular sheriff budget would be redundant. The county commissioners are supposed to fund the policing with title III funds. Expecting that it should also be funded by the general fund is redundant. Either the commissioners didn’t fulfill their obligation to use the title III funds to fund the specified expenses or they are being deceitful in trying to get it funded from the general fund.  From the link below it appears that Oregon uses a lot of title III funds for what might be called “non-tangible” expenses. It doesn’t break these numbers down by county. Where it does break down title II expenditures by county it appears that they use contracted as opposed to county to complete a project. This link does not provide enough information to make judgements but it does point to where to look in an investigation.

 

So the “Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination act of 2000” (P.L. 106-393,)  

https://wwwnotes.fs.fed.us/r4/payments_to_states.nsf/b21825ca706c908d88256ccb007255e6/215d26ea7223a85c88256ccc0079a649/$FILE/106-393_text.pdf

 

“SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds the following:

(1) The National Forest System, which is managed by

the United States Forest Service, was established in 1907 and

has grown to include approximately 192,000,000 acres of Federal

lands.

(2) The public domain lands known as revested Oregon

and California Railroad grant lands and the reconveyed Coos

Bay Wagon Road grant lands, which are managed predominantly

by the Bureau of Land Management were returned

to Federal ownership in 1916 and 1919 and now comprise

approximately 2,600,000 acres of Federal lands.

(3) Congress recognized that, by its decision to secure these

lands in Federal ownership, the counties in which these lands

are situated would be deprived of revenues they would otherwise

receive if the lands were held in private ownership.

(4) These same counties have expended public funds year

after year to provide services, such as education, road construction

and maintenance, search and rescue, law enforcement,

waste removal, and fire protection, that directly benefit these

Federal lands and people who use these lands.

(5) To accord a measure of compensation to the affected

counties for the critical services they provide to both county

residents and visitors to these Federal lands, Congress determined

that the Federal Government should share with these

counties a portion of the revenues the United States receives

from these Federal lands.

(6) Congress enacted in 1908 and subsequently amended

a law that requires that 25 percent of the revenues derived

from National Forest System lands be paid to States for use

by the counties in which the lands are situated for the benefit

of public schools and roads.

(7) Congress enacted in 1937 and subsequently amended

a law that requires that 75 percent of the revenues derived

from the revested and reconveyed grant lands be paid to the

counties in which those lands are situated to be used as are

other county funds, of which 50 percent is to be used as other

county funds.

(8) For several decades primarily due to the growth of

the Federal timber sale program, counties dependent on and

supportive of these Federal lands received and relied on

increasing shares of these revenues to provide funding for

schools and road maintenance.

(9) In recent years, the principal source of these revenues,

Federal timber sales, has been sharply curtailed and, as the

volume of timber sold annually from most of the Federal lands

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:10 Nov 16, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL393.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL393

114 STAT. 1609 PUBLIC LAW 106–393—OCT. 30, 2000

has decreased precipitously, so too have the revenues shared

with the affected counties.

(10) This decline in shared revenues has affected educational

funding and road maintenance for many counties.

(11) In the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993,

Congress recognized this trend and ameliorated its adverse

consequences by providing an alternative annual safety net

payment to 72 counties in Oregon, Washington, and northern

California in which Federal timber sales had been restricted

or prohibited by administrative and judicial decisions to protect

the northern spotted owl.

(12) The authority for these particular safety net payments

is expiring and no comparable authority has been granted

for alternative payments to counties elsewhere in the United

States that have suffered similar losses in shared revenues

from the Federal lands and in the funding for schools and

roads those revenues provide.

(13) There is a need to stabilize education and road maintenance

funding through predictable payments to the affected

counties, job creation in those counties, and other opportunities

associated with restoration, maintenance, and stewardship of

Federal lands.

(14) Both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land

Management face significant backlogs in infrastructure maintenance

and ecosystem restoration that are difficult to address

through annual appropriations.

(15) There is a need to build new, and strengthen existing,

relationships and to improve management of public lands and

waters.

(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act are as follows:

(1) To stabilize payments to counties to provide funding

for schools and roads that supplements other available funds.

(2) To make additional investments in, and create additional

employment opportunities through, projects that improve

the maintenance of existing infrastructure, implement stewardship

objectives that enhance forest ecosystems, and restore

and improve land health and water quality. Such projects shall

enjoy broad-based support with objectives that may include,

but are not limited to—

(A) road, trail, and infrastructure maintenance or

obliteration;

(B) soil productivity improvement;

(C) improvements in forest ecosystem health;

(D) watershed restoration and maintenance;

(E) restoration, maintenance and improvement of wildlife

and fish habitat;

(F) control of noxious and exotic weeds; and

(G) reestablishment of native species.

(3) To improve cooperative relationships among the people

that use and care for Federal lands and the agencies that

manage these lands.”

 

I went to http://www.healthyforest.info/title3            

NATIONAL Title III Info 

EXPENDITURE CATEGORY BREAKDOWN | Contract Preparation And Administration | $2,990,756.00 Total Expenditure

Of which $2,397,657.00 is for Oregon.

EXPENDITURE CATEGORY BREAKDOWN | Review And Consultation | $1,956,546.00 Total Expenditure

Of which $1,307,614.00 is for Oregon.

EXPENDITURE CATEGORY BREAKDOWN | Monitoring | $342,135.00 Total Expenditure

Of which $339,835.00 is for Oregon.

EXPENDITURE CATEGORY BREAKDOWN | Other | $11,971,870.00 Total Expenditure

Of which $8,300,924.00 is for Oregon.

 

LANE Title II Info

METHOD OF ACCOMPLISHMENT | 174 Total Projects

Contract 146

 

 

 

FT:

"So including that expense or staffing in the regular sheriff budget would be redundant. The county commissioners are supposed to fund the policing with title III funds. Expecting that it should also be funded by the general fund is redundant. "

Yes, I suppose that could be interpreted that way.  But the budget documents, including actuals, also include the income from the Feds in thier income and expense breakdown.  Loss of income, loss of expense....  and loss of service.  The net general fund is still short after that, and additional cuts will have to be made. 

"This link does not provide enough information to make judgements but it does point to where to look in an investigation. "

No one is going to investigate this for you, FT.  Allegations aren't going to sway anyone unless you do your own investigating and prove things.

The breakdown of Fed funding by County is available on several web sites (Sorry, FT....  not gonna' provide them - you can find them doing some searches). 

All your huge cut and paste points out is that indeed the Feds recognize that they should be providing funding to the Counties for lost revenue to keep the forestland as federal land. That they are going to back out on their promise is what is criminal. 

Why should the federal funds be specific for certain things?  They are a landowner that provides the equivalent of tax payments because of the land.  That would be like you saying that you only want your property taxes to go to schools, or only to police services.  The Fed SRS funds drop right into the general fund, like everyone elses tax payments.  I suppose that some of it is earmarked, but specialty funding usually comes from specific federal programs and are not linked to the SRS funds. 

It also looks like you are trying to make a direct correlation from the Fed SRS funding (income) to the Title III and Title II expenditures.  It's not a one-to-one correlation. The counties recieve more than the Title III and II funds from the SRS funding.   I find that you do that a lot (make statements with facts, and then throw a few extra things in without backup).  It makes the good points you make come across as suspect.  It's the same with the huge cut and pastes that you do.

The list of purposes in the last section you posted is broad and far-reaching.  It covers the basics, such as schools, roads and also the County infrastructure.  The County budget is pretty much roads, infrastructure and services.  Since you can't cut infrastructure and still have the roads and services (how would you administer, track, and provide accountability?), the roads and services are the first to be cut.  The list of potential cutbacks and total services lost is staggering.

Doomsday?  Yup.  We got lucky last year, and we might even get lucky one more year or perhaps two.  Even with the declining scenario that many are proposing over 4-5 years, by year 2 we will be experiencing major loss of services and road maintenance.  It's not all police services, though they are the most prominent service that people see.

I'm not sure of the reason for your last post other than to point another direction that someone else should 'investigate' for you, and to attempt to raise unspecified suspicions in general.  More allegations.  No substance to back it up.  The pattern continues........

Referring to the sources linked below

There are 3 parts to the “forest funds”

Title I (50% of total) goes to general fund

Title II and Title III (the other 50%) goes to forest projects.

Part of title III is reimbursed to county general fund for emergency and rescue services (not sure if this is precise meaning) rendered by county. What seems to be happening is that what you see as “the forest payment” is Title I and not notice that the same amount is being put into Title II and III. Out of that Title III fund part is returned to county general fund. Which leaves a big portion that is “forest projects” controlled by the county commissioners. When they seek to get “the forest funds” replaced with a tax increase they will be including the Title II and III project funds.

So as a test of your awareness of this explain in your own words how the millions of dollars of Title II and III funds have been spent in Lane County from 2000 to 2006, and how much you think that was in dollars.

From last  link below the Title II and III funds were $8.8 million.

 

http://www.lanecounty.org/CAO_Budget/Budget/documents/Adopted0708/FinancialSummary.pdf

 

Federal Revenue

Federal revenues total $23.5 million and make up 25.2% of the General Fund budget. O&C timber revenue from the Secure Rural Schools Act is $15.3 million and makes up 65% of the federal dollars coming to the County. These dollars are also called Title I funds. Another 11.6% or $2.7 million comes from federal reimbursements from Title II and Title III of the Secure Rural Schools Act. These combined revenues make up 76.8% or $18 million of the General Fund’s federal revenue. Another $3.4 million in Title II and Title III funds are budgeted in special revenue funds for programs that receive no general fund support. The entire $21.5 million in Secure Rural Schools funding is restricted by Congress to only grow at half of the annual inflation rate. This revenue was first authorized in 2000 and received in 2002.

These dollars sunsetted in the fall of 2006, however, Congress renewed funding for one additional year. The big unknown is whether or not Congress will renew the Act, and what form the payments might take. Will it be complete renewal, a lower average payment, a downward glide slope, or will it shift back to the old formula of sharing actual timber receipts 50/50? The latter option would bring the O&C timber revenue down from $18.0 to around $3 million dollars due to the current low timber harvest levels.

 

http://www.lanecounty.org/cc/timberreceipt.htm

 

http://www.lanecounty.org/news/news_2002/release_5570.htm

 

“The Act provides the County with new federal funds totaling approximately $21 million per year through 2006. Much of the funding, $11.8 million, in Title I is pre-allocated for such services as roads, bridges, and schools. Key parts of the Act are implemented under Titles II  and III, each valued at approximately $4.4 million annually.”

 

 

Sorry FT.  I don't take tests anymore.  If you have a point to make, just let us know.  You're asking for facts again that are probably readily available.  I'm not an expert on Title III and Title II, as you can probably tell, and it's not in my interest to do the digging for you.  I'm sure you can cut and paste something as needed.

I believe I understand what you are saying about the County knowing the money was going away a long time ago, but I also think, like many others, that the Feds would, and should, continue to fund the lost revenues from having so much forestland in the state that we cannot receive taxes on.  The Lane County tax rate of 1.28/1000 is low compared to other counties and was set as a permanent rate with the inception fo the SRS funding, and it cannot be changed to be in line with the other counties. If I recall, it must be changed at the legislature level.  That's not likely to happen, given the politics.  It's as bad in Salem as it is in Lane County (Eugene specifically), where everyone keeps saying "no", but then complains about lack of service.

I don't disagree about the funds coming from the Feds and them going to a general fund, and being spent in various directions.  I also don't have enough facts to know just how much or where it goes.  I'm sure it's available.   But if the funds go away, this is all just a moot point.  We won't be able to argue about who's spending what money.  There won't be the money to spend.

Lawsuit papers received by federal district court in Eugene.

From www.usps.com  

“Your item was delivered at 12:00 PM on February 27, 2008 in EUGENE, OR 97401.”

 

Has any one heard of the “American leadership forum”?
 from the site below it looks like they are a pretty connected group.

From http://www.alfo.org/people/?function=all_fellows&PHPSESSID=ef789f016e465e6cb9f0f3ea662c70cb

"Greg Chaillé
 Class V
 Oregon Community Foundation
 President
 
Merced Flores
 Class XI
 Mt. Hood Community College
 Dean, Adult and High School
 
      

 

John Frohnmayer
 Class II
 
 retired lawyer
 
Diana Goldschmidt
 Class III
 
 No Information on File
 
      

 

Bobby Green
 Class XIX
 Lane County Board of Commissioners
 County Commissioner
 
Victor Merced
 Class VII
 State of Oregon
 Director, Oregon Housing and Community Services
 
      

 

Chuck Meyer
 Class XVII
 Bonneville Power Administration
 Retired
 
Sherry Sheng
 Class IV
 Oregon Economic & Community Development Dept.
 Former Deputy Director
 
      

 

Brent Stewart
 Class XX
 United Way of the Columbia Willamette
 Executive Director
 
Leo Stewart
 Class XIX
 Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
 Vice Chair, Board of Trustees
 
Faye Hills Stewart II
 Class XXII
 Lane County
 Lane County Commissioner "
 

Sep 14    American Leadership Forum, Class 22 - Eugene

 I didn't hear about this in the local news so I'd like to personally give Faye my pat on the back for being accepted into this influential group of policy makers. Guess Faye should get either a political nod for state office or maybe just an appointment by the GOV.

From http://www.alfo.org/downloads/JuneE-News.htm

"ALF-Oregon is delighted to welcome the following outstanding Oregon leaders to ALF Class XXII, to commence next month:

Michael Alexander

Vice President Account Management, The Regence Group
Portland

Robert E. Bluth
Senior VP and General Counsel, Harry & David Operations Corp.
Medford

Brian G. Burby
Vice President, CH2M Hill
Portland

Craig Campbell
President/Legal Counsel, The Victory Group, Inc.
Salem

Brian D. Cole
President, Orbis Group, Inc.
Baker City

Rita Conrad
Executive Director, Oregon Progress Board
Salem

Peter W. Cookson, Jr.
Dean, Lewis & Clark Graduate School of Education/Counseling
Portland

Gregory K. Delwiche
VP Environment, Fish & Wildlife, Bonneville Power Administration
Portland

Christine J. Dupres
Sustainability Officer, NAYA Family Center
Portland

Lilisa Hall
Executive Director, Pacific Power Foundation
Director, Communication, PacifiCorp
Portland

John A. Hancock
President, Junior Achievement
Portland

Meredith Lee Howell
Grant Writer/Fundraiser
Philomath

Pamela Stebbeds Knowles
Chief Operating Officer/General Counsel, Portland Business Alliance
Portland

Tamy S. Linver
Director Customer Acquisition, NW Natural
Portland

Mary Monnat
President/CEO, LifeWorks NW
Portland

James J. Piro
Executive VP Finance, CFO & Treasurer, Portland General Electric
Portland

David C. Plotkin
VP Academic Affairs, Marylhurst University
Marylhurst

Willie Poinsette
Chief Officer, Office of Student, Family and School Support
Portland Public Schools
Portland

Julia Pomeroy
Chief of Staff, Congressman Earl Blumenauer
Portland

Suk Rhee
Director of Operations, Northwest Health Foundation
Portland

Maria Elena Ruiz
Assistant Professor, OHSU School of Nursing
Portland

William Schertzinger
Principal, Schertzinger & Party Architect
Redmond

Debra J. Smith
Director Employee, Customer & Community Services
Eugene Water & Electric Board
Eugene

Faye Hills Stewart II
Lane County Commissioner, Lane County
Eugene

Gary R. Swanson
Owner, Swanson Stained Glass Studio
Fire Chief, Gates Rural Fire Protection District
Mill City

Jean Ann Van Krevelen
Executive Director, Cascade AIDS Project
Portland"

From
http://www.alfnational.org/?link_id=45&PHPSESSID=ffc5a0055af436066e36e182fc148698

"ALF Chapter Focus: Oregon
 
ALF Oregon is a non-profit, non-partisan organization whose mission is to join and strengthen a network of Oregon leaders, rural and urban, to better serve the public good and to promote a collaborative approach to solving our communities' and state's most pressing issues. Founded in Oregon in 1986, ALF has been building leadership capacity and social capital in communities throughout the state for nearly 20 years.   

The Oregon chapter is the only state-wide chapter in the national ALF system, an acknowledgement of the need to fully engage Oregon’s many diverse constituencies – including racial, ethnic, rural, and urban – while also including a broad cross-section of public and private interest groups in building networks focused on a shared vision and common goals.

The Oregon chapter of ALF’s selection process is designed to ensure representation from an especially diverse group of public, private, non-profit, and community leaders in the state.  As a result, few organizations in Oregon have the kind of geographical, professional, ethnic, and political diversity of ALF, and this commitment to diversity is one of the ALF Oregon program’s well-known hallmarks. "

 

 

From http://www.alfo.org/

"History of ALF

The national American Leadership Forum (ALF) organization was founded in 1980 by Joseph Jaworski, who left his successful law practice to address what he increasingly saw as a crisis of leadership taking place throughout the country. His vision was to establish a national organization dedicated to bringing together leaders from various sectors in communities across the country to develop their leadership skills and capacity and strengthen their commitment to work together on public issues.

After a year of meeting with leaders from across the United States, Jaworski and seventeen other prominent Americans launched the American Leadership Forum with this vision in mind. This group, many of whose members still serve on ALF's national board of trustees, included John Gardner, former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare; James MacGregor Burns, Professor Emeritus of Williams College; Warren Bennis, former Professor at USC and respected author; Tom Bradley, former mayor of Los Angeles; Harlan Cleveland, former ambassador to NATO and President of the World Academy of Art & Science; Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business School, and James B. Stockdale, Vice Admiral in the U.S. Navy.

Through the vision of this group, ALF began in 1980 to address a need for more skillful, more ethical, more effective leadership on a local basis. They were convinced that if a cross-section of a community's business, elected, academic, minority and religious leadership could be brought together to work on public issues, no problem would be beyond solution.

In 1996, Joe Jaworski published a book, Synchronicity: The Inner Path of Leadership, in which he chronicles his efforts to build the American Leadership Forum and highlights the principles and values that ALF embodies."

 

foundation trilogy:

Lawsuit papers received by federal district court in Eugene.

From www.usps.com  

“Your item was delivered at 12:00 PM on February 27, 2008 in EUGENE, OR 97401.”

 

Me too:

Lawsuit papers received by federal district court in Eugene.

From www.usps.com

"Your item was delivered to Captain Kirk at 12:00 PM on February 27, 2078 in EUGENE, OR 97401.

Whatever...

I love the way ol' FT makes patently false statements, has them stuffed up his backside, and then motors along as though he wasn't caught in another bald-faced lie... Like this great one a few posts up:

".... The Sheriffs do not “patrol” the forest..." Of course, they DO patrol the forest, as bad to the bone pointed out. Of course, the source he cited, the Sheiff, will be contested, depreciated, and discounted by FT.

Whatever...

By the way, any idiot can file a baseless, imaginary lawsuit. Let's see if you do it and WIN!

Halo, where's the answer from the county officials shutting this idiot up for good?!