Just received a post Card full of Lies about Elk Creek Fire

When I picked up my mail I found a postcard that says' "Vote No on 4A." As I read the thing, I noticed that it makes the same accusations that have been posted here and on PineCam, and have been answered (repeatedly). From what I understand, the gentleman who arranged for the post cards to be sent out forgets to mention that he was the Treasurer for the Elk Creek Fire Protection District when this "overspending" occurred. And he also fails to mention, that the "overspending" was actually an error in the outside audit, which has long since been corrected. I guess the truth wouldn't have made as good a post card. Who knows, may be a liable suit in the works, but meanwhile the Friends of Elk Creek Fire posted the not so exciting truth behind these mailers.

http://www.facebook.com/FriendsOfElkCreek?ref=hl

The post is five pages of facts and figures. It's not nearly as sensational as the lies, but if you're interested in facts, it's a good read.

Guess you forgot to share your role at Elk Creek and the extreme abuse of the HATCH ACT, and that almost 100% of the Funding for your PAC came from the Elk Creek 501-c-3 and the Elk Creek Union.

Wonder what the IRS would think of donations sought by a 501-c-3 for a different purpose being used for political campaigning.

If the Audit error as "long since been corrected" why is still the identified information from page 25 of the Current Elk Creek 2012 audit.

BUDGETARY COMPLIANCE
In fiscal year 2012, General Fund expenditures exceeded amounts shown on the budget by $260,938.

Maybe that treasurer has this dialed in. I could only assume that he would have a superior knowledge base regarding the finance processes at Elk Creek.

KINCAIDSPRINGS wrote: Guess you forgot to share your role at Elk Creek and the extreme abuse of the HATCH ACT, and that almost 100% of the Funding for your PAC came from the Elk Creek 501-c-3 and the Elk Creek Union.

Wonder what the IRS would think of donations sought by a 501-c-3 for a different purpose being used for political campaigning.

If the Audit error as "long since been corrected" why is still the identified information from page 25 of the Current Elk Creek 2012 audit.

BUDGETARY COMPLIANCE
In fiscal year 2012, General Fund expenditures exceeded amounts shown on the budget by $260,938.

Maybe that treasurer has this dialed in. I could only assume that he would have a superior knowledge base regarding the finance processes at Elk Creek.

Also see page III in the narrative portion of the same document...

“the largest dollar variance was for expenditures related to the District’s wild land fire suppression activities carried out under the CRRF [Cooperator Resource Rate Form] agreement” (page III).

http://www.elkcreekfire.org/ECFD/Announ ... 0FINAL.pdf

And as stated in the Chiefs 2014 budget proposal...

"When the district sends assistance to other jurisdictions past the mutual aid period, we are reimbursed for our expenses and the use of our apparatus. That reimbursement varied from nothing prior to 2011 to $298,113 last year. As this program should be treated as an enterprise fund, we have moved all revenue and expense to a separate fund."

http://www.elkcreekfire.org/ECFD/Announ ... Budget.pdf

FYI