Egan responds to recent Lassen News reports regarding the Lassen County Fair

Publisher’s note: Richard Egan, Lassen County’s Administrative Officer, expressed his dissatisfaction with our recent reporting of the county’s budget issues, particularly the Lassen County Fair. We understand and respect Egan’s concerns, and we publish his comments here in our sincere and never-ending attempt to join him and all others in the community in “elevating the discussion to a level of factual truth and logic rather than bias and emotion.”

Here is Egan’s statement
It’s very disappointing to see the misinformation and false narrative being spread through individuals, including elected officials past and present, internet tabloids and others utilizing the fair to wage unrelated local political wars. I send this in hopes that you will join me in elevating the discussion to a level of factual truth and logic rather than bias and emotion.

1. The fair is a department of the county, not an entity separate from the county. This has been the case for more than 25 years, when the county stepped in to bail out the failing nonprofit which had previously operated the fair. All assets allocated for fair department use (including the multimillion dollar facility known as the fairgrounds) belong to the county, and always have. All employees related to the fair including the fair manager are county employees. The fairground facility , in and of itself, generates significant recurring revenue annually, that has historically and continues to be dedicated to fair operations. It also generates sporadic windfalls like the Dixie Fire funds from time to time. It’s a year-round operation with year-round expenses. Anyone who believes that one paid staff member is solely responsible for the success or failure of the operation is mistaken, in my opinion. The real magic of the fair operation lies with the countless hours of the volunteers, mostly made up of 10 Fair Advisory (Board) members who dedicate an enormous amount of time and energy yearlong to making it happen.

2. The fair, as a department of the county, is subject to the same requirements as other departments including employment policies, purchasing/contracting policies and perhaps most importantly the California County Budget Act. The board of supervisors is the governing authority of the fair (and every other county department) for purposes of budget appropriation. Departments are charged with remaining within compliance with appropriations approved by the board. The county auditor/controller is responsible for ensuring compliance with board approved appropriations. This structure of county governance has been in place since counties were formed. The budget for the fair department represents less than two percent of the county budget for reference. Many other departments have far larger and far more complex financing structures and also contend with much more significant timing issues than the fair department. During the 23/24 fiscal year, the department heads responsible for the other 98 percent of the county budget have lived within their respective budgets without need for significant control by the county auditor. I find it irresponsible for anyone involved in the county process to suggest that somehow the fair should be treated differently in terms budget control, contract compliance than other county operations.

3. The fair deviated significantly from the approved 23/24 budget both in terms of disappointment in revenue and over expenditures in appropriations. Frankly,  some of the responsibility does lie with me and my recommendations regarding revenue. The revenue projections presented were unrealistic, in hindsight. It should have been more apparent to me that the rhetoric of how successful the fair was operating was false. Despite anecdotal reports of how active the fair has been, and personally viewing some of the activities, I should have recognized that the fair revenue projections made by staff would not be realized. Once that became apparent, I corrected that error for future years by recommending lower revenue estimates.

Compounding the fiscal issue was a failure in the financial system where expenses were requested by the department and paid by county auditor without proper approval in some cases, and without appropriation in others. My hope and belief is that the new financial system will allow future auditors an easier method of fulfilling their duty to control appropriations.

With regard to the recent music festival which is responsible for approximately half of the fair department’s fiscal problems please consider the following: The event was largely planned outside the classic budget process, with last minute approvals sought from the board of supervisors for funding after unrefundable commitments had een made. Many contracts were entered into and payments made without my approval, nor board of supervisors approval. I cautioned,  in an unpopular fashion, of the risks associated with this event if you care to review the record of the board meetings. Some the the same critics bloviating today were in that meeting essentially demanding that the board blindly support this event without limitation. In the end due to the 11th hour requests and prior unrevokable commitments, the board reluctantly approved the event. Very interesting how the narratives of the supporters has changed from a “Golden Goose,” to “we should break even”, to “we might lose a little,” to “maybe we’ll lose $150,000,” to the reality that the event will cost the general fund of the county approximately $300,000, with bills still appearing. For those that believe this is some novel event never tried before, can I please remind you that it was tried and failed in similar fashion more than 30 years ago by a local service club. As I have stated, I believe a discussion should be had about the value of events like this. I am not making a judgement here, rather suggesting that all county priorities should be considered when these decisions are made.

In the end, I recommended, and the board approved a spending plan for 24/25 that will allow for the continuation of operations. I caution, however, that if proper budgetary controls are not observed further deficits could result.

4. County employees (including the fair manager) enjoy a variety of protections based on the assigned bargaining unit/union to which they are members. In the case of the fair manager, the position is designated as a department head in the county structure, with compensation established by resolution of the board of supervisors. It is considered an “at will” position, but due to California employment restrictions that is essentially a misnomer. The notion that any department head can be randomly fired without good cause is simply a false narrative designed to generate unwarranted fear. The county is actively recruiting for a permanent fair manager and experiencing robust interest.

Richard Egan, Lassen County Administrative Officer, Special to lassennews.com.