Sometimes a picture is indeed worth a thousand words or more. Access Humboldt films both the Humboldt County Board of Supervisor Meetings and the Arcata City Council Meeting.
You should watch the videos. To summarize the paperwork I have from Mr. Kent Sawatsky cannot do proper justice to him calling Mark out and addressing the Arcata City Council. You will also get to see the responses from Mark and the City of Arcata.
Watching Mr. Sawatsky explain why this is unfair to the County and the taxpayers and the connection between all the agencies on video is better and less time consuming than me number crunching a lengthy history.
Perhaps one of our investigative reporters, Thad, Ryan or Hank, could follow up on this?
In Tuesday's afternoon session of the BOS meeting, Mr. Sawatsky asked Mark to resign from the Oversight Board.
"Whose interests is Mark watching out for," Mr. Sawatsky told me on Tuesday, when we walked out from the morning session of the BOS. "The County's or Arcata's?"
So what is Mr. Sawatsky's beef with Mark.? I will give you one short excerpt of Mr. Sawatsky's claim.
In 2013, the Oversight Board, which Mark sits on retroactively approved a $7, 153,857 in transfers. The remaining amount of unallowable transfers, $8,751, 168 was returned to the successor agency, Arcata. This move was not legal according to the California State Controller's office.
Mr. Sawatsky intends to pursue this weekly until Mark provides answers to the public and resigns.
Mr. Sawatsky would rather have seen this money go towards "boots on the ground" and Sheriff deputies.
The argument of who a BOS member works for goes both ways.
ReplyDeleteIn the election that saw Ms. Fennel show the door to Mr. Clendennan; one of the points she made against him was Mr. Clendennan failed to adequately represent his district because he voted for a measure funding improvements to the Eureka-Arcata 101 corridor. Mr. Clendennan evidently failed to get Fortuna an adequate cut of that particular pie.
I think a Supervisor on the BOS has to balance representing one's constituents with the needs of the county in general.
As to the specific issue Mr. Sawatsky is on about... I can't say. If I remember it concerned the State raiding Arcata's pretty hefty Redevelopment Fund and Arcata's attempt to save at least some of it. It didn't work out... both in the legal world and the real world.
Could be wrong... wouldn't be the first time today.
MOLA, the Arcata Community Development Agency is involved.
DeleteAnd yes there is always legalese, claims, counter claims.
Let's see what develops.
You are sorely misinformed about the topic at hand. The dollars in question either go back to Arcata (as approved) or are returned to the State of California for Redevelopment funds that Arcata spent on behalf of the former State program. The State Contollers Office is "disallowing" all reimbursements in a money grab that will bankrupt Cities caught in the middle of this mess. Do your homework Chiv.
ReplyDeleteHrforreal, since you seem to be so sure of yourself, why not use a real name and address? Your response is one that has already been presented. I think the voters deserve the facts to decide for themselves. All the information,not opinion, not spin.
ReplyDeleteI presented some valid concerns and Mr. Sawatsky provided me with paperwork. Would you care to do the same?