>> good morning. Time is 9:00 am. All board members are with us today,
including ceo dave rickert, county counsel joe larmour, and from the clerk of the board's office,
stephanie blankenship, marcy winstead. Out in the foyer, we have miranda angel.
we encourage those wishing to participate in public comment, fill out a speaker request card,
and submit it to the clerk in the foyer. Speaker request cards must be submitted to
the clerk before public comment for each regular item begins. Before I turn the meeting over to ms. Blankenship,
most of you have probably heard, for those of that you have not, our congressman doug lamalfa died
last night in emergency surgery about 10 minutes till 7:00.
he was 65-years-old. I'd like to have a moment of silence in honor of our congressman doug lamalfa.
thank you. With that, I'll turn things over to ms. Blankenship. >> thank you. Through the chair,
I would like to remind everyone in attendance today of the board room rules of order as outlined in administrative policy 1-101,
which can be found online through the clerk of the board's website. This policy includes signage restrictions, attendee seating,
and overall conduct to ensure business is done in an orderly fashion, and that all have an equal opportunity to observe and participate.
unless addressing the board, all those in the audience shall remain seated in the chairs provided.
standing along the back wall of the boardroom is acceptable, so long as no person blocks the ingress or egress.
members of the media who want to observe, record, or otherwise document at board of supervisors meeting are requested to
set up equipment from the designated area along the south windows. Shasta county remains committed to conducting
business in a professional and accessible environment, and we kindly ask that all attendees adhere to these rules.
I do have a few announcements regarding today's agenda. Item c 3 regarding chairman appointments
has been pulled for discussion by supervisor plummer. Additionally, related to item c 3,
the attachment inadvertently included appointments for the water agency. Those will be removed and brought back to
the water agency for consideration on january 20th. Persons wishing to speak to items pulled from consent must submit
a separate speaker request form to the clerk of the board before public comment on the item begins.
with that, chair, I'll turn things back over to you. >> thank you, ms. Blankenship. Before we move on at the recommendation of ceo rickert,
I will be pulling item c 7 for discussion, and with that, I'd have you all rise.
we will have our invocation, followed by the pledge of allegiance, led by supervisor crye today. Today, we are joined by pastor david stark from grace presbyterian church.
>> good morning. I'd like to read a brief section of scripture just before we go to god in prayer.
these be the last words of david. David, the son of jesse and the man who was raised up on high,
the anointed of the god of jacob, the sweet psalmist of israel, said, spirit of the lord spake by me,
and his word was in my tongue. The god of israel said, the rock of israel spake to me.
he that ruleth over men must be just ruling in the fear of god,
and he shall be as the light of the morning when the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds as
the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain. Although my house be not so with god,
yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant ordered in all things and sure,
for this is all my salvation and all my desire that we make it not to grow.
amen. Our gracious god and heavenly father, we thank you for your love and your kindness to us.
we thank you for the beauty of your creation. We thank you for the grace you've given to us
and the privilege of living in shasta county. We thank you, lord, for every supervisor that's here and for your work in their lives.
father, we do, at this time, want to pray also for the family of congressman lamalfa.
we pray that you would comfort their hearts, that you would be with him, that your grace and your comfort would really
reach into their heart of hearts and be with him with his unexpected loss. We do pray, lord, that you would sanctify his memory, lord.
we thank you that he was a man who loved his country, a great patriot, and one who loved you.
we thank you, lord, for his testimony that he left behind. Give us grace, lord. We pray to follow the footsteps that he followed, lord.
we pray you be with the board this day and all who come to speak. We pray that you give each person that comes up
the liberty and the freedom to speak freely and give the supervisors grace to listen
to everyone that comes up and to consider what they're saying. We pray you just keep us all in your love and grace.
we thank you, father, and this I ask in name of our lord and savior, jesus christ. Amen.
>> I'm in the pledge.
>>
>> thank you, pastor stark, and thank you, supervisor crye. Moving on.
r1, adopt a resolution, which recognizes brook lowther, county executive officer assistant-confidential with
the administration office at shasta county's employee of the year for 2025.
do we have any speakers, stephanie?
allen, did you want to read the proclamation? >> I would be honored to. Brook, congratulations.
this is quite an honor to present this to you.
whereas the board of supervisors of the county of shasta has adopted
the shasta county employee recognition program to identify
exceptional employees who deserve to be recognized and honored for their contribution to county service.
whereas, such recognition is given to employees meeting the criteria of the program,
namely exceptional customer service, professionalism, high ethical standards, initiative, innovation,
teamwork, productivity, and service as a role model for other public employees.
whereas, the shasta county employee recognition committee has considered
all current nominations for the shasta county 2025 employee of the year.
whereas, brook lowther has been employed as
a county executive officer assistant-confidential since july 2022.
as previously mentioned in brook's employee of the month nomination, brook has consistently demonstrated
high quality customer service through her engaging interactions with representatives from county departments,
members of the public, and anyone trying to connect directly with the county executive officer.
in many respects, brook is the face of the county administrative office as she is often the first person people engage with,
either in person via email or over the phone. Brook effectively resolves conflicts and exceeds standards in answering
questions and providing assistance both to internal and external customers.
brook's ability to be a positive influence and boost morale is second to none and highly appreciated.
brook is also the face of teamwork within the county administration office.
on any given day, brook
has tasks thrown her way by the leadership team which are often paired with challenging scheduling demands.
at various points over the past 12 months, the county administrative office has been short staffed.
during these times, brook has stepped up by learning new responsibilities to support the department.
brook also saves everyone in the office time by anticipating the needs of the county administrative office staff and planning ahead.
additionally, brook does not hesitate to help other county departments when they are in need.
brook is a role model for other public employees due to her positivity,
cheerful attitude, willingness, and dependability. Brook maintains a smiling,
solution-oriented approach to problems, and is a beacon of optimistic morale throughout the county administrative office,
clerk of the board team and county as a whole. Brook has demonstrated her high quality customer service
since her designation of employee of the month in march of 2025.
brook strives to be a positive influence in the workplace and is appreciated by all those she supports within and outside of her department.
brook is a true asset to the county administrative team and embodies
all the positive attributes and skills one would expect of an exceptional shasta county employee.
for the reasons stated above, the employee recognition committee recommends brook lowther,
county executive officer assistant-confidential, in the county administrative office to be selected as the employee of the year for 2025.
now, therefore, be it resolved that brook lowther, county executive officer assistant-confidential,
with the shasta county administrative office is hereby named shasta county employee of the year. [applause]
>> supervisor long, if you would make a motion to adopt? >> I make a motion that we adopt r1,
recognizing brook lowther as the employee of the year for shasta county.
>> corkey harmon second it. Brook, would you like to speak
or would you like somebody to speak on your behalf? [laughter]
>> I would love to. First, thanks for the do over, appreciate that.
thanks for my family and my co-workers and friends being here today.
working for the county, especially in the administrative office, there are some great times and sometimes not so great times.
an anonymous person said, the same water that softens the potato boils the egg.
it's about what you're made of, not the circumstances. As government workers, we have many policies and rules
to enforce often in difficult circumstances. But I'm so proud to work with amazing people who do their best
to treat others with empathy and respect while still working diligently. I have seen co-workers spend hours talking to
members of the public simply because they needed someone to listen. I have seen them step up to help someone in trauma,
and then cry and sympathy when the trauma is over. I have seen them use their own money to assist those in need,
and day after day, I see county employees who truly care about those they serve.
it's an honor to be counted among these people, and I'm so proud to accept this award. Thank you.
>> thank you, brook. [applause] I think we all take.
>> thank you, chairman. I would like to say a few words too.
brook is an amazing person. We really enjoy the diligence, effort, good spirit she brings to the office.
she's really the heart in silva ceo's office. She keeps me directed and going where I have to go,
keeps me to my meetings, does this for me, my senior staff, and for the supervisors.
I really appreciate the time, effort, energy she devotes to her job. She goes well above and beyond the call of duty,
and we really appreciate that. Thank you, brook. >> thank you, brook. [applause] I think we'll take
a quick vote and then I believe supervisor long may have a few things for you. All those in favor?
>> aye. >> any opposed? Thank you.
>> is this on? Well, this is quite an honor.
like I just said to you, I'm starting to see a pattern here. [laughter] you were employee of the month in march,
and now employee of the year. That's a big deal.
we have some gifts for you, and a unique gift as employee of the year.
this will be $50 amazon gift certificate donated by the department head forum,
an $80 amazon gift certificate donated by the board of supervisors,
two $25 one-for-all gift
certificates donated by united public employees of california, upec,
general bargaining unit, a family pass to the caverns donated by shasta lake caverns,
a one-night stay at the sheraton and $100 gift card to mosaic restaurant donated by the sheraton redding hotel,
a 30-minute photo session donated by k. Delaney intermountain photography,
nike sunglasses and a case donated by vsp,
museum passes and merchandise coupons donated by turtle bay.
>> thank you. >> that's awesome. [applause] we have this for you,
which is only for the employee of the year. That's a beautiful thing.
this is your certificate for employee of the year for shasta county.
>> thank you. [applause] >> let's take a picture.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, brook, and well deserved. Moving on to r2,
we're going to receive an update from county executive officer on county issues and consider action on specific legislation related to
shasta county's legislative platform and receive supervisors reports on county-wide issues. Ceo rickert.
>> good morning, chairman kelstrom and members of the board of supervisors. Dave rickert, county executive officer, reporting.
first, an update on county issues. Shasta county risk management team just received notice that they were ranked number
2 out of 49 entities audited by the california department of industrial relations,
workers compensation audit enforcement unit with $0 in
unpaid compensation for the 2023 calendar period year.
we have a very strong team of workers, compensation professionals and,
because of their collective efforts of shasta county, has continued to meet or exceed expectations in
all audits and assessments by prism and [inaudible] both. I congratulate director fugitt and our risk management team,
truly an outstanding job. Finally, I'd like to take a moment to express
my sincere appreciation for chairman kevin crye and his leadership over the past two years.
throughout 2025, chairman crye has presided over 46 regular and special board meetings of the supervisors,
helping to guide hundreds of agenda items and to keep county operations moving forward.
his commitment to increasing transparency in local government, reducing fees, and identifying cost-saving measures has made a meaningful impact.
the budgets approved, during the supervisor crye's to your tenure as chairman,
resulted in increases in the general reserves totaling $950,000,
culminating and in projected fund balance of 31.7 million by the end of the current fiscal year.
thank you, supervisor crye, and thank you for all your dedicated service to the people of shasta county.
please accept this plaque as a token of our recognition and gratitude. [applause]
>> this concludes my report. >> thank you, ceo rickert.
we'll start on my left here to supervisor long.
>> thank you, chair. Board reports.
first of all, I'd like to welcome everyone here. It's great to see everyone here,
and my hopes for the new year are that we all can be heard in a respectful manner and that
we value everybody's input and
contrary to what some might think we actually listen to the input from speakers,
because it's important for us in trying to navigate this process of making good decisions for the entire county.
thank you for your input, your continued input, and I think we're going to have a great year with that kickoff.
I attended a few meetings. I won't go into much detail. We're going to have some of this brought back,
but we attended multiple strategic planning meetings for setting the goals for the county,
and we're going to be bringing those back to the public and the board here in the near future.
I attended a shasta county fire safe council board meeting,
and we're working on some of the same things, which would be five year strategic plans and things like that.
we're trying to do some of the same things that we're doing here at the county, and it's exciting times,
and we've got a lot of updates on grant monies and projects that have been completed.
I went on with kqms, steve gibson and clark safin,
to talk to them about general update stuff, so that was a great opportunity.
met with ceo rickert, we just had some general updates and caught up on some things.
I attended another strategic planning meeting.
I met with sean ewing, who is our natural resources director,
and I just want to give a shout out, the code enforcement is doing a wonderful job.
in the community survey, we found that code enforcement operations are a huge priority for
our public and blight and cleanup and squatting and homelessness on some of these properties.
it's a big deal, so I want to give a shout out to sean because he and
his team are working tirelessly to help us with limited resources,
and so I got an update from sean about gourmet frozen foods down on airport road.
the hearing commissioner upheld the county's thorough investigation,
and we'll be levying fines of assessments of about
$130,000 on the property and additional cost recovery measures for the county's involvement in this.
that will be a powerful motivator to get this thing resolved once and for all.
we've got another project out in rock creek in keswick area.
that is moving to an abatement hearing sometime in february or march,
so I'm excited to see the resolution of that because it's gotten really bad out there on some of these properties.
I think that's all I have. That's the end of my report. Thank you.
>> thank you, supervisor long. Supervisor harmon. >> good morning. About now. Good morning.
I should have said this earlier, but I want to say it, burkle heart.
I just love that lady smiles all the time.
it's nice to walk into that office and see her smile. She's not the only one, but she does a good job of smiling.
on the 17th, I met with chief o'hara
and completed a survey for the fire program in shasta county,
and then on the 18th attended the transportation board meeting.
on the 19th, was in sacramento.
you would have been in that meeting except for you were upstairs and you'll talk about that, the wind farm.
sheriff johnson was in that meeting as well, regarding the wolves.
I'm going to keep bringing it up because it's going to get worse. It's already getting worse.
it's going to explode into a huge problem. I'm going to bring forward a proposal at some point,
not quite ready to come up with somebody, an individual for liaison for shasta county regarding the wolves,
because they did this in siskiyou county. It's working quite well for them,
and I met with sheriff johnson over this.
I think we met on the 19th, after that meeting, we had here that special meeting.
I met again with sheriff johnson, and he's talking with the sheriff of siskiyou county about how they handled this program.
we're not getting enough help.
it's at a point where the population growth is going to explode.
it's already exploding. They're keeping the numbers down. If you're following any of that,
I know if you're not in that farm and ranching arena,
I think it's gotten to a point where you're not seen as much because
they're getting tired of speaking out and they're not getting represented.
we're going to see if we can do something about that going forward.
also met with ceo rickert.
I always appreciate meeting with you. Mr. Rickert. He does this fine job,
and with that, I'm going to conclude my report. >> thank you, supervisor harmon. Supervisor crye
>> thank you, chairman. I attended the shasta regional transportation agency meeting,
and I was there very, very shortly before I received a call and had to step out.
I'll let supervisor plummer fill you in with that information, but I do appreciate supervisor harmon
stepping in as the alternate as that meeting was getting started.
I had a trip planned with the sheriff to go back to arizona to
visit with the amity organization, amity foundation.
we're partnering with the alternative custody program. That has been moved later this month,
so there's a lot more information that'll be coming about that and touring that campus.
had a youth options meeting. They're going to come back, if you remember, they're one of the original grantee or awardees of some of the opioid funds,
along with raising shasta. They're going to come back and do a mid year report,
and I believe, ms. Plumb, was that moved to february? Or is that the 20th?
>> that's january 20th. >> it is the 20th, so that will be coming on the 20th. This board had asked them to come back the first meeting of the year,
but they asked to extend it, so we've done that. I am going to make a motion that we put on our next agenda for january 20th,
I would like to have a dr. Norman hall from simpson, of course, schedules being available, as well as dr. Dhanuka come
back and whether that's dr. Irene salter coming back as well or others with that group,
but I'd like to get a medical school committee update on the 20th.
if I could make a motion to have that brought back for the 20th.
>> I second. >> we have it. >> motion made by supervisor crye, second by supervisor plummer.
>> I started to say. We have a second. I'd appreciate that,
and then the last thing I'll hit on is, and just stephanie, just to clarify two for that motion.
this is just them to come back for an eight or 10 minute presentation. The committees had four meetings.
christy, I know you guys met yesterday.
I didn't get a chance to talk to dr. Dhanuka since the meeting yesterday, but I think it would just be great to bring them along in that.
then the last thing I want to hit on is I attended the celebration of life for coach bob reid at anderson high school in the rain a little over a couple of hours,
and then went over to the fairgrounds after that. For anybody that grew up here or followed any type of sport scene,
coach reid was probably one of the most iconic coaches our area as ever produced.
you talk about enterprises gym is the manitou gymnasium,
or you have strohmeyer court and different coaches,
but coach reid, you could tell how far and wide people came to pay honor to that man.
if there's nothing else you can take from that, you're never going to lose when you invest in the life of a child,
and coach reid exemplified that. That concludes my report.
>> thank you, supervisor crye. Supervisor plummer. >> chair, before we move on, so we don't forget. We do have a motion and a second on the table if we could take that vote.
>> we'll go ahead and take the vote on the supervisor crye's motion. All those in favor? >> aye.
>> any opposed? That's 5-0. >> thank you.
>> good morning, everyone. Good to see you happy new year. Five updates for you.
one briefly on the strategic planning advoc, which just to echo what supervisor long said is,
we plan to bring back five goals, building off of the work that was done this fall,
including a community survey, community sessions in most of the five districts,
as well as conversations with department heads and staff. I'm looking forward to that conversation
where the full board will be able to engage around those five goals and set a strategic path forward for the community.
part of the real value that I see in that is that we have limited resources,
as many of you know, and so we do have to make trade-offs in terms of how we spend and allocate those resources.
this will help give us kind of direction informed by you that we're saying,
these are the things we're going to prioritize, and if push comes to shove and we have to allocate resources in one way over another way,
then this will be our priorities. Looking forward to that conversation and that direction
being set for the county and the community. Second conversation I had is with our economic development corporation,
executive director rebecca baer, and one of the things that we've been talking about for a while and is
the idea that shasta county would benefit from having an economic identity.
that being saying, this is who we want to be when it comes to the economic development,
and she has experience working in other communities and just witnessing in other communities where they've set out and said,
"this is the industry clusters is a phrase that's used that we want to build
and really build an ecosystem of jobs and companies around certain industries."
that if we say this is who we want to be, that that will begin to attract those resources,
attract those companies and the talent around it. That's something that we're continuing to have conversations about,
and we'll see where that progresses, but I think that would help us contribute to we saw
in the strategic planning survey is that while a lot of people say this is a great place to live,
they seem to say that it's a little tough to open or run a business here, and so we want to see that change over the coming years.
the third thing is something I've talked a lot about. But just to bring that some closure is,
as it relates to the corrections and rehabilitation campus that the sheriff has proposed,
we have been working with the state to try to get them to put aside funding for a partnership around
a re-entry program for those who don't know a re-entry program is taking people who have six months to two years
left on their sentence and putting them into a program where they'll be monitored and they get the skills,
the connections, the job, the savings, they need to then successfully reintegrate.
we're not just letting them out the door of the jail and saying, we hope that you're successful and don't come back here in a week,
and so we pulled together a letter working with staff to pull together
a letter for the governor's office that combined letters from assemblywoman hadwick,
senator dahle, us senator schiff, five other boards of supervisors,
as well as a letter with 13 sheriff logos on it, all supporting this.
january 10th is when the governor's budget comes out, and so we're hopeful that that will be included in that,
and we'll take a look at that point and have a better update for you.
fourth update is that, I went to the california state association of county's annual meeting in early december,
and they have what they call policy committees that help set what is that group,
which is a collection of 58 counties. What are they going to be prioritizing and advocating for with the state?
as many of you have been really interested in the health and human service area,
and so I basically applied, so to speak,
to be on that committee, and I was appointed to be vice chair of the health and human services policy committee
for the california state association of counties. Beginning to work with them to figure out what that looks like
and how shasta county's priorities can be represented at the state level and that we can advocate for those in that particular capacity.
the last update that is around the mental health alcohol and drug advisory board.
I've been on this past year and was appointed by that board to be vice chair for the upcoming year,
obviously pending this board's appointment,
and so I met with our incoming chair and as well as county staff to discuss what the vision is for this upcoming year.
we've seen, I would say, a great year in terms of engagement from the public in terms of engagement,
including many of the folks here who want to be on that board. I know for a while, there was a lot of vacancies,
and that has changed. In terms of that group being both active and advocating for the mental health of the community,
so we look forward to more on that. >> thank you, supervisor plummer.
on the 17th, I also met with sean o'hara down at the calfire office and fill out the survey.
later on that night, I went to the shingletown auxiliary fire department christmas party,
and I was very humbled and honored. They made me an honorary member member. They gave me a shirt that only members of
the shingletown volunteer fire department on the 19th,
I went down to sacramento with ceo rickert, and corkey harmon was there on a wolf issue.
ceo rickert and I were there on the windmill farm. It looks like we've put the final nail in the coffin on that.
I'd like to have a special thank you to the pitt river tribe and all the native american representatives that were there.
there was probably 30 or 40 people that spoke, and they did not want to see their sacred lands scarred by these windmills.
that looks like that is over and not coming back. Then I met with michelle nystrom from the spi office.
I'm looking forward to working with spi in the future, and then I had an agenda review on the 31st on new year's eve.
I had an agenda review with ceo rickert and clerk of the board, stephanie blankenship. Then on the fourth, I did go to
the anderson senior citizens breakfast and shout out to trish clark, and it was nice to see her son.
we used to work together almost 40 years ago now, but he came up for bob reid's funeral,
and I also was at the celebration there afterwards at the fairgrounds.
great man, and once again, I'd like to send condolences out to douglam office family,
and that will conclude my report. We'll move on to public comment.
do we take a vote on the consent first or? >> no, chair. We can go on to public comment open time.
we do have 20 speakers, so there will be two minutes each. If I call your name, please get in que. First up.
alex, followed by david stark, don duckett, then heather mcfall.
>> thank you. Good morning. I'm here to speak a little bit about our laws.
I know someone said there's a difference
between ethical laws and ethnical laws.
seems that different people are allowed to do different things unlawfully and get away with it.
it seems that we're not incarcerating our criminals.
basically, instead of we the people,
it's we the persecuted. They come here and they take what they want, when they want.
what does our law enforcement do?
everybody starts pushing the buttles and their pedals and pointing the fingers.
the fact is simple. They shouldn't be around here doing those kind of things.
now, let's go over the medical for our state. Real simple.
we don't get the medical coverages and unlawfuls do.
I'm not saying we shouldn't help, but let's take care of our own first.
next week, if I get a chance, I'll be speaking about
our little food supply shortage that we have between los angeles and redding.
thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next up, david stark,
followed by don duckett, heather mcfall, then bretton hara. If I called your name, please get in queue.
>> thank you. Appreciate the opportunity to address you, gentlemen.
on behalf of grace reformed presbyterian church of shasta county,
2095 alvarado street in redding, we'd like to donate six copies of the 1560.
it's a facsimile edition of the geneva bible. This is the bible that the pilgrims brought with them to the new world,
and it's facsimile, so it has all the old spelling conventions and takes a little getting used to.
but we're donating six copies to shasta county, one for each of the supervisors and their families,
and then we have one for the public. If anybody was wondering what on earth is that?
well, you can access it. If you want a copy, contact me, I'll see that you get one, for anyone here.
anyway, so these are for you gentlemen, and I hope that you will read them because god's word is the oil that keeps the wheels of
government running smoothly because it keeps us in check in a good way and gives us his promises and lets us know that we're loved.
that we serve a really wonderful good and a great people that he's raised up.
this is to encourage you and to let you know. We really appreciate all of you and all your efforts
to have shasta county be a really wonderful place to live, and you're doing a great job.
thank you, and that's all I wanted to share. I'll leave these in your capable hands to distribute to these gentlemen. Thank you.
>> thank you, if you could please give it to my clerk. >> okay. I'll settle up. >> next up, don duckett followed by heather mcfall,
bretton hara, then larry s. >> thank you, pastor stark. >> you're welcome. Thank you.
>> come on up, don.
>> morning, board. Happy new year. I didn't do this on purpose,
but it appears that I am in solidarity with
my high viz yellow on today with all of the men and women here from the teamsters union.
I know that many of them will be getting up to speak. Heather mcfall follows me today during open time.
they're concerned with the cost of their healthcare benefits and the county's resistance
as to making a reasonable contribution to those.
I thought I'd give you a few ideas on how to come up with some extra money to make that happen.
first thing that comes to mind is you could reinstate the municipal impact fees.
that's a gift of public funds to developers, and we are losing money with every building permit that has
an impact on shasta county by not charging those fees.
you have an agenda item later today to subsidize data requests at the elections department.
that would be a big no. Let's not subsidize anything when we can't pay our workers a living wage.
we could not give ourselves a raise, which is also on the agenda.
you could come up with some money, and then lastly, you could come up with $100,000 by decommissioning your elections commission. Thank you.
>> next up, heather mcfall. Followed by bretton hara,
then leslie, larry s and billy stenson. >> good morning. Congratulations on
your 4% wage increase that you'll receive on january 11, and we hope to be in that situation very soon by ratifying an agreement,
barring this one disagreement that we have with the county right now.
in recent weeks, I've made contact with each of you individually.
I've received responses from two of you, so thank you, matt and kevin for at least acknowledging the email that I sent.
unfortunately, we weren't able to connect yesterday when we thought we were going to be able to.
what I would like to say is that you as individuals with the decision making authority have an obligation
to engage in this critical issue that we're dealing with, and I would appreciate
the opportunity to have a constructive conversation with you about that. You're making significant life and career
changing decisions for shasta county employees without considering all perspectives.
in my opinion, that neglects your public service responsibility.
given the limited responses and the absence of meaningful dialogue,
I feel compelled to publicly express my opposition to the county's proposal to reduce healthcare funding for the teamsters bargaining units.
as you can see today, we have significant support. This is how dire the situation is
when they're willing to take their own time out of their workday, to show up, to be here to show you how important this is.
I don't know if there's anybody on the side, obviously. You can tell the side.
if I may have just one more minute, would that be okay? >> you should have 30 seconds.
>> okay. It's worth noting that these team street bargaining units, and there are four,
have already saved the county over $100,000 by taking retirees out of the caltrans healthcare system,
putting them into our health trust. Every single month, there are thousands of dollars that you're already saving based
on the teamsters units, I should say.
as a result, these retirees [overlapping] >> bretton hara followed by larry s,
billy stenson, then susan weiss. Ma'am, your time is up.
>> thank you. >> brenton.
>> [inaudible]. >> ma'am, your time is up. Next up, brenton.
[applause]
>> good morning. My name is brenton. I'm a supervisor in the economic mobility branch and
a part of the negotiating team for the supervisory unit. In the past, as negotiations go,
there has been a history of give and take, compromises made on both sides and a meeting of the minds somewhere around the middle.
in my opinion, that has not been the case during this round of negotiations.
at this point, I feel that the board has failed to operate in good faith.
the board has drawn a hard line on their desires, specifically concerning how we are compensated in regards to our health coverage.
the board is absolutely determined to compensate our units differently than others without equitable,
long term trade off. In previous board meetings,
you've expressed how three or four of you are independently well off enough that you have no need for your income serving on the board.
those of us working as parts of these units are not that fortunate.
every penny of our compensation is essential to pay our bills,
feed our families, and allow us to continue to do the work that is vital to our county.
I could express how the colas have not kept up with inflation.
of this fact, I know the board is painfully aware. The main point here today is the combined desire from
the teamsters units to continue to receive the same health coverage compensation as other units.
it is imperative that all bargaining units are treated equally.
please relinquish your stance on forcing us to give up our compensation and operate in good faith in the ongoing negotiations. Thank you.
>> thank you. [applause] >> larry s, followed by billy stenson,
susan weiss, then matt woolery. Larry, come on up.
>> good morning, board. From time to time,
since it is in your purview and your jurisdiction to write letters to different people,
especially elected officials, I thought this would be an appropriate day to send this letter to president trump.
"dear, mr. President. This being january 6,
the anniversary of an infamous day in our history. We thought it appropriate to write you and ask just one question.
why did you pardon the insurrectionist, unamerican,
anti american constitutional hating traitors that tried to overthrow our government on january 6?" [applause]
>> next up, billy stenson, followed by susan weiss, matt woolery, then john doe.
billy, come on. Is billy here? Not seeing billy. Susan, come on up.
>> I want to talk about the fact that a decision was made or is up
for the next meeting to take matt and allen off certain committees.
I don't understand this decision why it was made.
have you had complaints from the committee members saying they're not doing a good job?
have they requested that they don't want to be on the committee?
>> that's on the agenda so if you want to make those comments? >> it was pulled.
>> we'll take separate public comment on that in just a moment. >> okay. We can make open.
I'll make another comment. I'll come back. >> thank you. >> I was confused from outside. I'm sorry.
kevin, I was very shocked, once again,
by the fact that when you have the employee of the year up here,
receiving kudos and all the attention from the other board members
that you were looking either at your phone or trying to plan for what you were going to do later on in the meeting.
the employee of the year, she's up here and you didn't pay a bit of attention.
is that worth a smirk? You should be ashamed.
>> next up, matt woolery, followed by john doe, jeff gorder, then christian gardner.
if I called your name, please, queue. >> I got to tell you,
I appreciate all you guys laughing down here. We do this every single week for you guys.
>> welcome. >> go ahead, matt. Good morning. I'm speaking to you this morning for myself, my co workers.
the road maintenance department. Day in and day out, we respond to whatever this county needs.
does not matter the time of day or the conditions. These men and women do the best they can to keep the roads open and safe.
they put their lives on the line daily, just like the caltrans worker on 273,
the night of december 22, doing a road closure. This is what we signed up for.
we also signed up for medical benefits to help take care of our families. We need these benefits,
to help us out daily. We do not want any more than any other employee at the county.
we want the same across the board, just like the county wants everything across the board
when it comes to negotiations. Good faith and fair. The county has been paying the same amount of money for
benefits across the board for as long as I have lived, worked here 13 years.
now you want to cut our benefit package to the benefit of the county. Is that across the board?
how is this fair and equal across the board if you cut our benefit?
I fear we will lose good employees. By losing good employees,
it will cost the county far more than what you want to take from us.
mr. Harmon, you are a successful business owner. Would you want to put a brand new driver right out of
truck driving school with no experience in your brand new transfer truck? I wouldn't want to, but we've had the same brand new transfer truck wrecked twice.
the second time it was a total loss, and we are so lucky that no one was hurt.
I fear if we lose good employees, this will happen more often. When I applied here 13 years ago,
120 people applied for this position, 56 interviews were given.
our most recent hiring was less than 20 with 10 interviews given.
we struggled to get good experienced people to want to work here.
we need to keep our good employees. Please keep our benefits the same. Yes, there was a flaw in the system,
but the auditor got it corrected by ensuring that the benefits are going to the employees, and now they want to take it from us.
the only wanted to be fairing across the board for the county, not the boots on the ground. We have [overlapping]
>> next up john doe followed by jeff gorder, christian gardner, then vue bishop.
john, come on up. [applause]
>> in 2004, the board of supervisors approved a 54% raise to themselves.
your pay at that time was already close to what a road maintenance worker to topped out at,
taking your hourly rate from $26.50 to over $40 an hour.
that equated to over a $14 an hour raise. Over the last three years,
my raise was over only two dollars total. Your raise was more than half of what we top out at.
during our current contract negotiation, you have proven you only care about
money and what you are not willing to do to help us out.
you only care about our health and welfare fund. You have been negotiating in bad faith.
I take that back. You haven't been negotiating at all. How would you feel if we the taxpayers came after your $14 an hour raise?
our raises haven't come close to the cost of living increase.
pay us fairly. Give us livable wages. You expect a fire department member to fight
fires and prevent property damage and save lives. You expect law enforcement to fight crime and protect lives and property.
>> to do that, are they paid appropriately? Yes. We keep roads open and maintain roads,
deal with fires too and are out in the elements during the snowstorms and the worst of it all.
pay us livable wages, pay us fairly. Stop negotiating in bad faith.
based off of job qualifications, not anyone can walk off the street and do our jobs.
ours requires knowledge, experience, certifications, and training.
yours doesn't. You say you care about the people in your districts,
now's your chance to prove it. We live in your districts, start caring about us too,
not just the seat at the table that you obviously feeds you very well.
[noise] [applause] >> jeff gorder, followed by christian gardner,
joe bishop, then jennifer waltman. >> thank you. It was just stated,
in may of 2024, the prior board voted itself a 60% raise.
last general meeting, supervisor plummer just brought to the board's attention a proposal that
allowed the voters to decide the raises for supervisors.
chairman crye at that time went into a moral indignation,
a self righteous tirade, accusing matt of somehow trying to make a political statement out of it.
he asked matt to give his money back, even though matt wasn't on the board when that raise was voted. Matt agreed.
but matt asked supervisor crye, who voted against the raise on principle,
why didn't supervisor crye give back his raise? And supervisor crye said he would tell us, but he never did.
I'm offering this opportunity to you right now, supervisor crye to tell us all why you did not give back that raise.
please. You voted on principle, you said, against the raise,
that you shouldn't have done it. Please tell us why aren't you giving back that raise?
the floor is yours. >> you have no idea how much money I give away.
>> you're taking the taxpayer's money. I don't care if you're giving it to the mountaintop times or to the ninja gym.
why are you taking the taxpayer's money and not giving it back to these people?
let me hear that. The floor is yours. You've got my last 25 seconds.
explain to these people why you are not giving back that raise.
are you familiar with matthew chapter 7 verses 1 to 5?
>> from you it's going to be probably misquoted. >> well, it has to do with hypocrites, and it says,
take the log out of your own eye before you try to remove the spec from your brother's.
[noise] thank you. [applause]
>> next up, christian gardner, followed by joe bishop, jennifer waltman, then leslie.
>> first off, thoughts and prayers and whatever for lamalfa.
>> whatever. I see. >> I'm sorry. You be quiet.
well, I disagreed with lamalfa on many occasions.
I do believe he thought he was doing the right thing for his country. However, he was an insurrectionist who tried
to withhold my vote of the american people. That's treason.
I want to also talk a little bit about the insurrection because today's the fifth anniversary?
I know a few of you, probably a couple at least, are very happy to celebrate that insurrection,
where police officers were attacked and killed. 150 were hospitalized because your adjudicated rapist,
34 count felon, decided to try and create an insurrection.
to celebrate it, we're going to appoint john knight to the board.
john, I know him. He's a nice guy. He showed up to the insurrection.
very enthusiastically with a lot of selfies. But reported, I didn't go inside.
that's like a high school football player bragging about,
"yeah, I had sex. I didn't penetrate".
this board needs to stop with its partisan baloney.
we are people of all kinds of diversity, all kinds of political views and opinion.
you are elected to represent us all.
>> joe bishop. Not seeing joe.
jennifer waltman? Joe, come on up.
followed by jennifer waltman, leslie, and dolores lucero. If I called your name, please get in q. Go ahead, joe.
>> hello. My name is joe bishop. I currently work as a road worker too with shasta county road department.
I'm here today to voice my concerns of our latest negotiations. Better stated the strong arming or bargaining
and bad faith that plagued our department for years. For the past two contract negotiations,
the first and last proposal of a new contract has been ran down the throats of
our road department with the hopes of the next contract making up for the shortfalls of the prior one.
today, we stand together. Our needs are not being met. In fact, it's the opposite.
now you want to take away health benefits currently in place. In these times, most of the people here in bright yellow are struggling to get by.
but in a flash are going to lose a small amount of hope they have for a peaceful retirement.
I realize we're not wearing a police uniform or a fire hat.
however, we're the ones who opened the road so they can get there. At night, in a flood,
three feet of snow on the ground, it doesn't matter. We're there. We answer the call,
but maybe not as much going forward. My hope is it doesn't come to that.
I relinquish my time. [applause]
>> jennifer, come on up. [applause] after jennifer, we have leslie, followed by dolores lucero then steve khan.
>> good morning, chair and board. My name is jennifer waltman and I've worked for shasta county health and human services for close to 20 years.
I'm here today because I feel the current majority of the board does not care about its employees.
we are on the front lines providing services to the community. Our requests have been minimal this year,
but you, the board have rejected most of our requests. My biggest concern is the loss of of the proposed loss of our healthcare remainder,
which is used to fund both retirement and health savings accounts for our members.
the loss of these funds means that any increase to our salary is pretty much wiped out.
we are feeling the hurt of inflation, and I know we will see even more employees jump
ship and head for greener pastures than already have. The loss of experienced employees should concern this board as it will result in
financial impacts to the county that are more than likely greater than the cost of the benefits that we're requesting to keep.
consider the cost of employee turnover. In addition to the lost experience,
it takes a minimum of six months in some cases a full year to bring a new employee up to speed.
not only does a new employee lack productivity, but to ensure proper training,
it also requires the time of supervisors and co-workers to answer questions
and provide the training which reduces the effectiveness of our whole team.
hhsa alone hired over 100 new employees in 2025.
that online search shows the minimum estimated cost of turnover to be about $15,000 per employee.
that's $1.5 million for hhsa in 2025.
by some estimates, the cost of turnover is actually more than twice that.
I asked our personnel director for an estimated cost of hiring our new employees, but she wasn't able to provide that information and said it wasn't available.
I urge you as the board to invest and offer the employees an adequate incentives to stay.
>> next up, leslie, followed by dolores lucero. [applause] steve khan, then kim moore. [applause]
>> it's taken a few minutes to compose myself because the absolute vulgarity and disrespect that was just displayed up here has me so rattled.
doug lamalfa was a wonderful man.
he was a great individual. He has been at every huge community event since I was a young child.
he was my first introduction into politics. I have the funniest stories from being a kid and just looking up to
him and asking him questions and how much he poured into our community.
the fact that we lost somebody who fought for us day in and day out,
I sat there and watched as he put forward legislation to support parental rights and our kids,
even when he knew not one person was going to support it. That is a man of integrity,
and that is somebody who deserves to be respected. That being said,
mountaintop media has never received funding from anybody that sits on this dais.
they have never, ever given. I want to make that abundantly clear because even when we were in need of funding,
we never asked so that we didn't put any one of these men in a bad place.
when they offered, we said, no, to not put them in that same bad place.
I want to clarify that. Also, five years ago today,
many people gave of themselves,
they went to do what they are allowed to do based on our constitution, to be patriots,
and they were held without any reason,
and they have lost their livelihoods. They lost their freedoms,
and I thank god. Trump pardoned them, merry six-mas. [noise] [applause]
>> dolores lucero, followed by steve khan, kim moore then danny spaulding.
if I called your name, please get in queue. >> you might have not received money or funding for your radio show,
but you actually slandered people, and you actually continued to slander.
that's abuse. Here's my public comment to all of you.
it's sad that you actually don't even have a good agenda for the people to represent the people.
it's all about you. This agenda, from what I see,
you haven't fixed anything that you guys have done, like kevin crye or you,
chris, and I'm going to have to put this out. Chris, you need to change the cycle.
you need to change what's been happening by kevin crye. You want to continue doing what kevin crye,
then you're going to get what you deserve, what's coming to you.
I think about a year ago, port benjamin,
who actually was a county employee of shasta county by chris castro,
sent me a text saying "that guy is such a douche bag.
I love nothing more than to beat his ass and take his lunch money.
thanks. Now I'm throwing up. Not mentioned I just voted to give that little piece of shit a raise".
that's how these public officials treat employees.
I'm going to tell you this has got to stop, and we cannot continue to have public officials
in office who's going to treat people like this. I am sick of you guys.
how you slander us. You violate our constitutional rights.
you tried to dictate our freedom of speech every time when kevin crye was in control,
he always tried to throw in his two cents. If you said something, he will say,
"oh, that's your first warning. That's a second warning". He actually did dictate our freedom of speech.
I'm going to tell you you got some things coming up. You're going to see what happens when you accuse people. [overlapping].
>> steve khan, followed by kim moore then danny spaulding, jenny, then nick gardner.
if I called your name, please get in queue.
>> morning board, staff, community members.
it's wonderful to see so many people here. For one thing, I'm glad you guys are here so you can see
the childlike behavior that crye displays so often.
he seems to be controlling himself somewhat, but it sneaks through.
I want to appeal to chair kelstrom to again allow the public to speak for three minutes on items.
the excuse to limit public comment no longer exists. It was during covid when there were massive numbers of speakers,
and it did create a burden to a certain extent.
today is a great example because we have a great number of people here supporting the union,
and we got 20 speakers, that was a rarity these days.
I think again, allowing people to speak three minutes is reasonable.
as you can see, with people getting cut off as they're trying to make a point,
two minutes is almost impossible to be able to make a good point. I'd love to see that.
maybe you could limit it to 20 speakers. That if there are situations that overburdens the system,
you have some limit there.
also, I hate to see crye still able to interrupt here with
his microphone as he had done so many times as chair. The speakers should not be interrupted with.
they should be able to complete their thought. [noise] oftentimes he used it as a tool to interrupt their train of thought.
I also support reestablishing impact fees, building impact fees.
I don't believe that there's any reason that the taxpayers of shasta county should shoulder those fees.
it should be put on the development, and it should be incorporated into the cost of that development.
it was supposed to support the building. It did not. Please reinstate those fees.
thank you. [applause] >> next up, kim moore, followed by danny spaulding, jenny, then nick gardner.
>> good morning, board members. It's good to be back from florida. I actually missed you guys a lot while I was there for the past four months.
I want to say you all have heard me come in here screaming and hollering about
the fraud waste and corruption in the housing complex that I live in.
on december 17, I returned on december 19. I went to the office to meet
the new manager and spoke briefly with the mhsa on site employee.
I wanted to reserve the community room on new year's eve to just hold a place open because a few years ago,
we lost lucas, he committed suicide on new year's eve.
mhsa hasn't been doing what they say they're going to do for those people.
we need to make sure that there's always somebody in that building on the holidays for mhsa tenants who may be feeling lonely.
my request was denied. That discrimination continues and
I will say some of you heard me speak to this a few years ago. There were times I contemplated my own suicide
because living in that program was so extremely hard.
today, I'm more hopeful than ever if anything ever happens to me,
I promise you it wasn't suicide. That being said, I wanted this to be a psa for not only shasta county,
but for the rest of the residents in the state of california. This is from benny johnson this morning.
fraud investigation announcement. Next week, our team is traveling to the fraud capital of california.
the fraud uncovered in minnesota was bad and led to the destruction of tim walz career.
but gavin newsom's, california is far worse. We're talking about over 76 billion in fraud.
I want you guys to understand. They want you to have your raise. They want you to have your health benefits.
it's not them. It's the corrupt governor and we all need to stand against him.
>> time's up. Next up, dan spaulding, followed by jenny, nick gardner, then laura hobbs.
if I called your name, please get in queue. >> kim, that's.
>> danny, go ahead. >> hello, supervisors. My name is danny spaulding.
I work for dpw facilities management. I am here on my own time to address the current negotiations between the county of
shasta and the teamsters local 137 bargaining units.
our members, including myself feel as though the county is not negotiating in good faith when it comes to our health insurance coverage.
the county currently pays the same amount for all employees for health coverage.
however, the county is demanding to decrease the amount paid to the four teamsters bargaining units,
with no explanation as to where the difference in premium will go.
it feels as though you are trying to cover gaps in the general fund and budget off the backs of the employees.
the amount you want to decrease currently goes into the employees health savings accounts and 401(a) retirement accounts.
not for luxuries, not for dining out, not for new toys. The employees affected include everyone from line staff to mid management,
the same people that clean and sanitize, everything from offices and restrooms to public health facilities.
the same people that clear and maintain our roads in severe weather. The same people that keep the lights on,
critical mechanical and hvac systems running, just to name a few. Thank you for your time today.
>> next up, jenny. Is jenny here?
not seeing jenny moving on to nick gardner? I'm going to pass.
did I hear jenny's here? Jenny, it's your turn. Do you want to speak? Come on up, then.
nick's passing so after nick will be laura hobbs.
>> dear board, congratulations, chris kelstrom on your appointment to chair.
I was hoping that with your appointment, the culture of the board room may be different. I'm afraid it appears to be more of the same,
and I'm very disappointed. My first warning to the board for this new year is listen to
your employees and the things that they say and ask for. They keep the county running and you need them.
the second is respect your constituents, interrupting them, disrespecting them,
limiting the time we speak. It sounds a lot like your fight against the corrupt acid canal board,
and it didn't work out well for them. I'm not asking for much disrespect for your constituents, for your citizens,
and for those who take the time to participate in serving their community and however they wish to do that.
I don't think that my conviction changes anything for how I behave in this board room, either.
I've never been one to be afraid of consequences, only doing what is right.
if you step over the line in how you treat people, I will always push back as long as I live and all I ask is for
others to quit being afraid and do the same because silence is compliance.
>> laura, come on up. Chair, this will be our last speaker.
>> last speaker? >> yes.
>> good morning, board. J6,
it was a fed surrection, not an insurrection.
this was a psyop conducted by nancy pelosi and other treasonists who were trying to hide and
distract from the public from realizing their crime of stealing the 2020 election.
I just want to make that statement there. As far as our agenda in the consent calendar.
we have a number of items, which are hhs items,
health and human services, and I don't think that any of those items belong in the consent calendar.
it's not right. But we're seeing happening in minnesota with the somali daycare,
medicare, hud fraud, you name it. That's all.
they say it's a statewide problem, but everything there is being funneled into individual counties in minnesota.
the same thing is happening here in shasta county. All of the monies,
the california state taxpayer money is being funneled from the state to the county,
to these ngos, to these people who are fraudulently collecting money,
and we need to do something now at the county level, you guys as supervisors to stop that.
I say no more, just rubber stamping it through consent. Each item needs to be evaluated for the number of people who are
served with those monies, and the outcomes.
if you guys continue to funnel money out in that fashion,
you are complicit in the fraud so please take an active role in reducing that type of fraud here in shasta county.
another thing that does not belong on consent calendar, this is from our last meeting are any pay raises for
the elected officials or for the board of supervisors, that needs to be discussed openly. Thank you.
>> thank you. That was our last speaker.
item c3 has been pulled by supervisor plummer, and item c7 has been pulled by myself,
so I would entertain a motion to approve the rest of it.
>> I'll make a motion to approve minus those two items. >> motion made by supervisor plummer?
>> I'll second. >> second by supervisor long. All those in favor.
>> aye. >> any opposed? Passes 5-0.
ceo rickert or possibly councilman larmer.
I pulled c7 just for one small part of that. Can we take that before we get to c3?
>> you would have to vote to reorder the agenda. I would recommend just taking c3.
that's fine. Supervisor plummer, you pulled c3. Did you want to start us out here?
>> sure, yes. My request to you as a chair and to
the rest of the board would be of the four that I was removed from.
one I'm totally fine with, and I've talked with supervisor harmon, which is shasta regional transit authority or
agency and I think he's better qualified to be on that so that makes complete sense.
the other three I would definitely like to continue to be on. That being the mental health alcohol and drug advisory board.
as I mentioned earlier, this year, if I remain on the board, would be vie chair.
we've done a lot to, I believe, increase both engagement with that board
and the effectiveness of that board over the last year, including working with staff to basically designed the mental health director's report,
which provides kudos to staff a ton of really valuable information now much more than it did in the past.
we have also activated that board to make some changes around the annual report.
you'll see that was on consent today, but we're going to make changes so that there is more reporting on outcomes,
which is another conversation that we've had as a board. There's a lot of good stuff happening there,
and I'd love to be able to continue to be on that that's been a topic and an area of passion for myself over the last year and before that.
the other two is for the county functional areas with sharc,
that being on health and human services, and then on sharc, which is the shasta health assessment redesign collaborative,
has the healthcare leaders that has been something that I've really worked to be a bridge
between this board and that group of leaders on the medical school issue,
where they were initially pretty opposed, I would say, and we were able to through be a bridge to bring them along.
same thing with true north project there. They fostered that and a bridge between us and the board.
then I've also brought a number of groups to present to them that are connecting things like,
residency programs and neonatal care early literacy
to the healthcare establishment that's another area where I'd love to continue to be on that so would,
again, just request the board that I would be able to continue to stay in those roles.
>> well, so first of all, you had requested to be on 17 different boards and commissions,
and I think I gave you 15 of those 17 requests. I took you off that,
I'll just be blunt. I took you off the sharc board because it was coming back to me that you
were using that position to direct staff as a single board member, we don't direct staff.
staff answers to ceo rickert. If we need something that we want to implement, we go to ceo rickert and ask him to direct staff.
I spend a lot of time down in not only public works, but in resource management when I work with sean,
I notify him of a problem I don't tell him what to do. I don't tell him how to solve the problem,
I just notify him of the problem or we discuss it or whatever.
it was coming back that you were directing staff from those two positions,
and that's why I took you off them. >> I'd be happy to hear examples of that and understand that because,
on sharc, for example, I don't even have a vote on that board, so I can't do anything to even direct that group.
I only give input there as is relevant I in some cases, bring presenters,
and I submit that to their executive director, and they decide if they're going to hear them so I don't really have
any direction there with the mental health board.
I don't have any direction there either aside from what the board decides to do,
and the board is an advisory board so we can't tell staff through that board to do anything in particular,
we can only make recommendations. >> well, I'm going to go ahead and stand by my assignments.
I heard you and I listen to you I appreciate the work that you have been doing on those boards.
I really do. I know you're very in trained you can obviously still go to the meetings,
nothing says you can't still continue to go to the means and continue working with them, but I'm going to stick by that.
I would like to make one change on this. I touched base with supervisor crye yesterday and rcrc,
I would like to be the member of rcrc, and I'd like to move supervisor crye to the alternate.
do I have any board approval for that? >> yes, chair.
>> I'll make a motion to swap kevin on my spot. I'll be the member of rcrc and move supervisor crye to the alternate position.
>> I'll second. >> you're essentially asking for approval on the entire item
so a motion should include approval with the changes.
>> does anybody else want to discuss. Did you have more supervisor plummer?
those two were the main ones. >> well, ssac is another one that is related,
that's something I've been very engaged in, I've gone down to the annual conference and the legislative conference.
as I mentioned, I'll be vie chair of the health and human services policy committee for the upcoming year I would love to continue to be the alternate.
I'm happy to be the alternate and have supervisory you remain as the board member and primary.
but I would love to continue to do that as well. >> again, I'll be blunt, one of the reasons I did that
is the cost of travel is fairly high. Anderson does a great job,
and they found themselves in a bit of a deficit they have canceled all travel for the entire city council. Nobody goes anywhere.
I know you are going there as an alternate you're going to those meetings. This county, although we're certainly not flush with funds I think we need
to control as many dollars as we possibly can I know you were doing a lot of traveling even as the alternate,
and all that county cost that was why my decision to take you off of that one.
I know your trip to the ai conference, that costed the county $5,000,
and I have to wonder what did the county get for that?
what did we get in return for that? I know you got something personally out of it,
but I have to ask, what did the county get for the $5,000 that it costs for you to go to the conference back in utah, believe it was.
>> well, I'm not sure that it costs $5,000, and I have no idea what I personally would have gotten from that.
but what we could potentially get from that is significant cost savings and
into the future that would save potentially our departments millions of dollars so that's the potential.
that was what I brought back in a board discussion
around the social services fund is I wanted the board to direct staff to pursue ai solutions.
I've already had three phone calls between one of the vendors I met
there and departments here and this board decided not to support that.
I am working hard to try to bring that technology, because as we've talked about with our county employees today,
those costs are continuing to rise, and that presents a challenge to the county's financials and I see ai as one of the solutions to that,
and I'm trying to do what I can as a single board member to advance those solutions.
but ultimately I can't do that without support from the rest of the board.
>> supervisor degree. >> thank you. >> thank you, chairman. I just want to make one clarification.
you said the board wasn't supportive of that and I just want to clarify, for me, it wasn't that I wasn't
supportive of some of the things that you're talking about. What I'm supportive of is letting,
in this case, we were talking about health and human services. I'm supportive of our directors running their departments.
I'm not going to micromanage them. Also, we have one of the best ctos,
chief technology officers in the entire state of california in tom schreiber.
if tom schreiber and chris get together and say, "hey, this is a direction we want to go, even if it's your idea."
I'd be like, "hey, that's great." but I just want to clarify, I wasn't against some of the things you're talking about.
I'm just against micro managing departments and telling them how they have to run their show. Thank you, chairman.
>> okay. Thank you supervisor crye. Again, I felt the same way.
as you know, speaking of ai, I had a constituent reach out to me from shingletown, and he's very into cutting edge of the ai,
and he offered his services for free, that he would gladly help us, and he made some suggestions.
I also have a friend of mine, a close personal friend that just launched an ai program last friday,
I think the friday before last. It's something that we definitely need to look into.
again, I would just personally, I think I would have sent tom schreiber
to the conference rather than a single supervisor, but that wasn't my decision at the time.
>> well, and I actually did invite it as well as members of our ca's office to attend,
and they were unable to, so just to respond to that. >> okay. >> and I have met with them,
and we've talked about some of the potential options. I'm looking to collaborate with staff.
I'm not looking to direct them. I'm looking to the board to provide direction where it seems applicable.
that has been my consistent approach throughout. >> okay. Supervisor harmon,
do you have any input? Everything okay? >> public comment. >> okay. Do we have public comment?
>> we do, chair, but before we move on, I just want to make sure that in your amendment as stated in your motion,
that you want to change the rcrc appointment to have the member be yourself,
supervisor kelstrom, and then the alternate be supervisor crye. There are two associated appointments with that rcrc that
include the golden state connect authority and the golden state finance authority.
I just look to you if you want to make the change for those two as well.
>> yes. >> does the maker of the second agree with that?
>> those meetings coincide with each other [overlapping] >> yes. >> at one time.
>> okay. [overlapping] >> before public comment, I'd like to make a substitute motion
that includes the change that you all just recommended, as well as a change to allow myself to
be the primary for the mental health board and supervisor crye to be the alternate.
>> there's a motion on the table. I do not hear a second so dies for lack of second.
back to the original motion. Do we need a roll call vote for that or?
>> public comment. >> we can take public comment first and then I'll do a roll call vote. First up, don duckett, followed by gardner,
then dolores lucero, followed by steve khan. If I called your name, please get in queue.
since we have under 10 speakers, it'll be 3 minutes each.
>> can I tell you guys, I appreciate that you guys stay and gal stay and watch more of the meeting. I really do.
>> good morning. Specifically, regarding
the appointment to the mental health drug and alcohol advisory board, I can't speak to shark or any of the other committees,
but I as a public member, had attended many of those meetings before supervisor plummer came on and after.
I've also read the minutes of every meeting for the ones that I was unable to attend.
the advisory board is just that. They're an advisory board, and I worked for the mental health department.
I remember before those meetings, our executives would be sweating bullets because work comes out of those meetings.
supervisor plummer has as a board member, advised staff,
and has effectuated change in the metrics and the data and the way that
successes and failures and all of the things around
mental health and drug and alcohol treatment are presented to the public to be more meaningful for the public so that we're fully understanding.
my observation of that board prior to supervisor plummer being on it,
was it really wasn't doing anything. It was just taking reports from staff,
and opening and closing the meeting and taking a little public comment.
I've actually seen changes that have been effectuated that were started by supervisor plummer,
and I think that the fact that they voted him to be vice chair,
I think is a vote of confidence on that board that he's put some structure into that.
I'd hate to see that fall by the wayside. That's just my $0.02 on that. Thank you.
>> thank you. >> gardner, come on up. Followed by dolores lucero,
steve khan, then susan weiss. If I called your name, please get in queue. >> I want to thank matt for pulling this item for discussion.
I think it's pretty self evident what's going on here. Basically, crye wrote the schedule for assignments
and told chris what to do with them and that's what we got.
it's a typical ploy, a typical game, if you will, of retribution.
you see, one of the biggest threats to mr. Crye is matt plummer,
and to some degree, mr. Long. I can see how mr. Crye would want it to
remove the threats because matt has done a few things that mr. Crye has not done.
matt has reached across the aisle. He's tried to get a diversity of opinion.
he's tried to engage in positive ways.
he is recognized by the commissions that mr. Crye wants to remove him from as doing solid work.
actually, getting promotions within that committee.
removing matt from boards that involve mental health or
physical health because he doesn't align with well,
I was going to say chair crye, because I think that's kind of what we got, to be honest with you.
position is punitive.
it's divisive. It continues with the old game of I'm going to
say extremist politics that this county has been burdened with for far too long.
five thousand bucks to go to a meeting in idaho.
how much did we pay chair crye to go pray with mr. Pillow?
well, I happened to know or deliver a letter to trump,
which he never did. I happened to know, or to help dave rickert tour the smithsonian.
taxpayer money, you should be concerned about it,
and I know you think it's funny. But taxpayers aren't laughing.
taxpayers demand that we get full representation
not partisan representation with
the long example of divisiveness and punitive nonsense,
removing people from boards because he because they don't align with mr. Crye.
>> next up, dolores lucero followed by steve khan susan weiss,
and then there was a blank form, but I believe this is bey stetson. Go ahead, dolores.
>> we all know what you're doing here, chris. We know that.
I think it's pretty pathetic that you actually want to do
this to follow through to remove mr. Plummer from that position.
you want to be just like kevin? Should I say maybe you are like kevin already.
the reason you're going to do whatever kevin,
even though he sits there, you're going to go ahead and listen to him because
you already have an agenda between you three. Everything's a done deal.
I'm sorry that you have to go through that. Mr. Plummer, even though there's some things I don't agree with you,
but I know you will be the better person to be in the committee because
we know your ethics and how you what you believe,
chris, you're not going to do what's right. You're going to do whatever go against mr. Allen and plummer.
don't be surprised that when they do this election,
you guys will never be appointed to be chair. That's their plan.
you better be prepared. That's their goal. I know you cannot stand allen and mr. Plummer.
I know you talked bad about them in the past. But for you to remove him and punish him,
and just because you don't like him, that's being biased and prejudice against him and violating his constitution,
because when he was elected by the people, we elected him to represent our district.
now you want to dictate, you're his boss, when we, the people,
are his boss, not you or corky, the dummy one there,
or mr. Crye the cry baby. No, it's not you.
you're not the boss. We are. I'm not going to be coming here constantly,
just complaining about everything you guys are doing and been doing and violating our constitutional rights.
you're also violating their constitutional rights for them to represent us.
you are taking our district,
mr. Plummer from him representing us. Therefore, you're violating our rights.
I'm going to tell you right now, my goal this year,
I'm going to do more than I've done in the past, and you're going to see what it's going to take.
what you've done, you're going to pay the consequences, because I ain't going to be coming here and
just complaining and bitching about everything you've done. I'm going to make sure that criminal charges are be brought upon
you guys because there's criminal crimes that you committed,
and I'm going to see to that because I'm not going to allow you to continue to
destroy our county and destroy people's life and live your life because you don't agree with plummer.
>> next up, steve khan, followed by susan weiss.
the blank form and then david halligan.
>> board, I had hoped that chair kelstrom would step up and take control of the board,
but I think with the decisions on and what he just stated,
it's clear to me that that crye is still running the show and that,
kelstrom is just this front man. It makes no sense at all, putting crye in charge of
the mental health drug and alcohol advisory board for a couple of reasons.
one is, he single handedly tried to undermine the most advancement we could
make in mental health care this county has seen since the reagan administration and may have still.
I don't know. Perhaps his letter of opposition still has an impact.
to be grinning at something like that, crye clearly shows your level of maturity.
>> is the guys waving goodbye? >> you're interrupting me, by the way.
which you have no real concern for decorum.
anyway, supervisor plummer has shown clearly that
he's an extremely hard worker and has made advances in
so many areas in this county to remove him from those positions is counterproductive to the county.
it certainly those decisions have nothing to do with trying to help our community,
but can only as I see, be catering to crye,
because there's no one that works harder at improving situations than supervisor plummer.
he's done an excellent job of it. It's just a shame.
I hate to see us end up falling back in
all these areas that have been worked on so severely.
I know there's nothing I can say here that's going to affect it, and I think it's a sorry state.
it does show what chris kelstrom is all about,
and I hope everybody keeps that in mind when it's time for the election. [applause]
>> next up, susan weiss, followed by becky stetson, then david halligan, followed by benjamin wayne.
>> I was shocked when I read on the agenda what was happening today.
did you three crye, kelstrom, and harmon go down to the barbershop in cottonwood and make this decision in a back room,
like you do so many, because this clearly wasn't a transparent decision,
nor was it discussed at a board meeting. It's all between the three of you. And you know what?
chris kelstrom, if you heard from a person that was complaining about matt's performance,
did you ever talk to him about this outside of the meeting? Was it ever discussed this problem outside of
the meeting or just make the decision unilaterally on what you thought?
one person complaining about something does not change what matt has done for this county.
when was this ever discussed with the board or with you backstage?
if someone is managing the staff, then it needs to be brought up by our whatever, ceo.
it shouldn't be handled right here. It should be handled somewhere privately,
two of you, you can talk. This is ridiculous. How was this decision made?
where was it made? Why was it made?
>> you have answers for any of that? I don't expect you to answer right now, but I want the public to really look at what matt plummer has done for this county.
he's brought wisdom and structure and strategic plans.
he knows how to operate a board.
I am just appalled that the board and the community can't understand what matt has done for this board.
all you have to do is listen to the weekly reports and the monthly reports from the board,
and listen to his report compared to the others.
this is shocking and disgusting.
if shasta county can't realize quality in the people that they elect,
then we're in a very pathetic situation here and we're never going to climb our way out of this.
[applause] >> next up, becky stetson, followed by david halligan,
then benjamin wayne. [applause] >> democrats. Pt.
>> well, you know I'm going to agree with her. I look like her. I am truly mystified.
you have one problem with his behavior. Don't you guys just, like, say,
I know you're new on this thing, and you're not allowed to do that. Don't do it again. What? You got to realize the optics on this are disgusting.
you look at that list, and oh, look at that. Gone, gone.
cry, cry. Gone gone. Cry cry. You guys got to be aware of your audience for god's sake.
this is a representative form of government. You may not agree with me,
but you represent me. All of you represent all of us, despite our politics.
we have a place on those boards. We have a hard worker who's willing to do the job,
and you two are like, well he screwed up that one thing.
did you talk to him? What was the discussion? How do you guys plan things?
you every single time, during all meetings, your head is down,
you're smirking for god's sake, grow up. [laughter] you're an adult.
what did your mother teach you? Crap sake.
you have had your head down the entire time I've been here, and I've been here all morning.
it's rude. This looks like a cry fiefdom.
you guys are like arranging the pieces, and it all goes back to him. Why is that? You be boss now.
look at what you're doing, and look at how it looks.
it's the craziest thing I've ever seen. Are we going to create? Who gets the list of committees?
can somebody answer me that? Where do you get all these committees? I'll ask you.
>> don't interrupt her. >> well, I don't know how the list of committees comes to.
>> boards website. >> thank you. But, you divvy them up evenly, I assume,
and people say, no, I can't do that one, and people say, I can't do this one. I'd like to do that one. You do it.
then you do this. Did you even look at the optics of this for everybody?
shame on you and really shame on you, buddy.
you are not a good board member for the simple reason that you don't raise your head and respect the people who are talking,
and I don't care what side of the aisle they come from.
>> next up, david halligan, followed by benjamin wane.
>> happy new year board. >> happy near, david.
>> thank you. No examples today when matt questioned you,
mr. Kelstrom, with specifics on staff. Didn't hear any examples.
mr. Kelstrom, removing someone from a committee assignment after only one year is ill advised as it takes
significant time to develop the expertise and relationships necessary for effective service.
let's look at some of chair crye's irrational assignments changes for 2026.
mr. Plummer, his 25 appointments. He was the functional health and human services and shark representative.
was plummer, now mr. Crye, csac policy committee health and human services.
was mr. Plummer, now mr. Crye? Mental health and alcohol and drug advisory board.
was mr. Plummer, now mr. Crye. Mr. Plummer has done more for this county with mental health, alcohol,
and drug abuse, more than the other four of you up here combined this past year.
california state association of counties. Matt was the alternate.
now it's mr. Harmon. Mr. Long. He was assigned as the alternate in the rural county representation of california, rcrc.
now it's been changed, where chris has taken the position. Not mr. Long who should have moved up.
but now mr. Crye takes that second position. Mr. Kelstrom, appointment should be 2-3 years as it allows for
a natural growth cycle benefiting both the person serving in the organization.
the learning curve, year 1. One year terms are too short for members to get up to speed.
you're learning about the organizational members, nuances history and how the committee operates.
maximum impact, year 2. You're now full on boarded and engaged.
this is typically when you make your most meaningful contributions, take leadership roles and drive strategic projects.
then year 3, mentoring and transition. In your final year, you serve as a veteran presence,
helping to mentor new members and ensuring a smooth knowledge transfer.
mr. Kelstrom, year today, you're putting people on different boards,
citizen groups to two, three, and four year, not one, why was kevin given two years in a row as the chair,
for his experiences, for his first year, for his knowledge. But no, not mr. Plummer.
I was truly hoping, yes, hoping for a unified start in 2026 with this board.
but no, mr. Kelstrom, you're starting off with a bigger divide, a larger wedge between this team.
a new chair for 2026. No, I don't think so, mr. Kelstrom. What you've displayed today in your appointments is that you were
the puppet with the puppet master stromboli, the villain from pinocchio,
sitting on your right side. You, mr. Kelstrom, you've already let the strings get in your way.
[applause] >> next up, benjamin none. >> we are once
again discussing removing people who know what they are doing from their committees.
supervisor matt plummer and allen long being removed from major committee assignments after only one year,
while crye remains the lead member on many of those same bodies. Some things never change.
it's classic crye. Unfortunately, this board doesn't have the fortitude to lead by example,
so they choose to lead by force. Just to reiterate, supervisor plummer is being
removed from key health and human services roles, including the county functional area for
health and human services and src representation, the ssac health services policy committee and
the mental health alcohol and drug advisory board, each replaced by cri.
these rules require continuity, trust, and institutional knowledge. Removing an engaged supervisor after one year undermines that work and furthermore,
it disenfranchises those who voted for them. Supervisor allen long is being removed from major regional assignments,
including rcrc, the golden state connect authority, and the golden state finance authority.
reminder, this follows a mid year attempt last year again by crye to remove supervisor long from rcrc,
making it clear this is not a neutral tation, but a repeated effort.
now I want to talk about staff recommendations. We hear a lot about staff recommendations and that these changes are staff driven,
but I worked here, and I know how it works, especially for at will employees.
I know personally what happens when you don't happen to follow the will of this board.
anyone who knows me knows there are consequences, and that reality matters here.
go ahead and ignore me, but my request is simple. Own these decisions at the board level.
if there's a performance issue, state it on the record. If this is a power reallocation, say it plainly.
don't place staff in the position of carrying political decisions. [applause]
>> chair, that was our last speaker. I do just want to make one announcement. Before I had mentioned the associated appointments with rcrc.
the other one I neglected to mention was the rcrc environmental services joint powers authority,
which is also an associated appointment with rcrc.
for clarity, if you are looking to be the member for rcrc, I would recommend that as part of your amended motion,
and I will ask you to restate it, that you include that you would be the member. The alternate would not be supervisor y as that is
typically filled by members of the department of public works,
which is troy bartley and charlene beard.
>> I will amend my motion. I don't think you didn't get your speaker card in on time.
I'm sorry. You didn't get your speak card in on time. That was our last speaker.
I will amend my motion. Did you say something. >> well, I was just going to add I've listened to everything here.
I was on the fence about supervisor plummer's motion.
I don't know, procedurally, how we do this, but I think he's an incredibly valuable asset to our community.
I appreciate your ability to make assignments as chair,
and I value that a lot, and that's why I stayed a little quiet. But I'm really torn on this issue and listening to the public,
and it just dawned on me that I have to stand up for matt in this case.
your motion was to the mental health advisory board,
but you didn't say anything about shark? I would love to stay on shark as well, but,
I was hoping at least for one of these that I'd be able to remain.
>> what was your motion? >> that basically all the other assignments as is,
including the amendment that supervisor kelstrom put forward, and then that I would be
the primary member for mental health alcohol and drug advisory board, and supervisor crye would be the alternate.
>> if you want to make that motion again as a substitute motion, I will second it.
>> I will make that substitute motion. >> I will second. [applause]
>> chair, would you like me to call for a real call vote? >> we'll go for a real call vote. I want to make it clear again.
like I said, you requested 17 different positions,
and I gave you 15 of those 17. I stated my reasons why I did have staff talk to me that
you were directing staff as one supervisor rather than going to ceo and going through the proper channel.
that was why I removed o on that board. We can take a real call vote.
>> starting with supervisor and this is the second. >> correct.
>> just for clarification, I want to make sure that the maker of the motion in the second are both okay with all of the amendments,
even the ones that I've outlined for rcrc. >> kat to my right.
>> supervisor plummer? >> yes. >> supervisor crye? >> no.
>> supervisor kelstrom? >> no. >> supervisor harmon? >> no. >> supervisor long?
>> yes. >> predictable.
>> now I will restate my motion. The way the chairman's picks are as is,
with the exception of the rcrc pick I want to be the member. Supervisor crye be the alternate,
and that goes across the board with the golden state connect authority,
the finance authority and environmental services joint powers association. We'll make those changes on those two.
>> with the exception of the alternate for the esg jpa, which is last one you just said,
the alternate would be the members of public works? >> correct. >> I'm going to say some before we take our vote because the previous two years,
mary rickert was the mahab dab and shark. But I did all the policy committee stuff for hhsa worked closely with csac.
then when I was chair, when matt first came on, that was an interest,
and was fine to relinquish that. But stepping back into these roles isn't
foreign as I did this work for the first two years.
I just want to make sure that people understand. When supervisor kelstrom asked I'd be willing to step back in just no problem.
he's the chair, and that's his prerogative to make those appointments.
great job there from the peanut gallery. Good job.
>> chair, who would you like me to start with? >> let's start to my left.
>> you want to take more. >> I just have a quick thing to say.
>> no problem. No problem. I respect your position as chair.
rcrc, and we've talked about this.
that's really important to me.
the continuity thing and some of those things and the expertise, and the relationships I've started to develop.
that is important to me, but we've talked about this, and so I'm not going to fight that,
but I will continue to be involved with rcrc because I do want to get eventually into a position
where I have some influence with the state because I think it's really important for us to
to legislatively and for purposes of funding and those things to develop those relationships,
and I believe it takes a little bit of time. I'm disappointed with that.
I will not contest that. But you heard my position with mattz.
I just think that he is such a value to our community in this area for his interest in health and human services,
so the mental health issues. That's where I stood on all that, and I'm prepared to vote.
>> supervisor long.
>> here we go. This is the motion that supervisor kelstrom made?
>> correct. >> yes. >> supervisor harmon?
>> we're taking a roll call vote for the original motion on the table by supervisor kelstrom?
>> with the chair depicts with the exception of rccb and swap. >> correct.
>> yes. >> yes. >> supervisor kelstrom? >> yes.
>> supervisor crye? >> yes. >> and supervisor plummer. >> no.
>> ss41. Okay. Moving on to c7. I really have no problem with c7 with the exception of 4b.
I will make a motion to approve with the exception of 4b.
>> and that's something that I'm sorry.
>> I'm waiting for a second. >> I just I just want to clarify,
is ceo dave rickert going to, he's the one that pulled this correctly?
>> I pulled it. >> you pulled it. Okay. I'll second. For discussion.
>> are you to speak? Do you want to? >> yeah, I was just going to ask if ceo rickert because I
didn't know what that conversation was when he had talked about pulling it.
I just was curious if that was. >> supervisor plummer.
>> I'll let's ceo speak first. >> okay. >> mic's are messing up.
>> ceo rickert. >> thank you, chairman kelstrom.
first of all, I'd like to thank chairman kelstrom, members of the board, regarding item 4b with c7,
the appointment of mr. Henninger. My office respectfully requests that the board vote not to include that appointment.
this recommendation is made thoughtfully, with the board's discretion fully in mind.
with the understanding that the final decision rests with the board, I want to emphasize that this recommendation is
made with the interest of ensuring the board's appointments are best support the objectives and needs of
the shasta county mental health alcohol and advisory board. I will defer any questions to the board's consideration.
>> thank you, ceo rickert, supervisor plummer.
>> yes, I've interacted with mr. Henninger quite
a bit throughout both my time on that board and prior to that, and certainly he is one to push in terms of wanting to see what,
I use the term that, he used a lot of accountability. Sometimes I would say that approach doesn't always come across in a way
that is super friendly or super,
I would say, collaborative.
at the same time, I think that what he's aiming for, which is that that board fulfill its mandated duties as outlined in its by
laws to represent the community and ensure that great mental health services and behavioral health services are being delivered,
that that is something that continues to be his driving motivation.
I think particularly without being on the board myself,
I want to ensure that folks who are on that board have that focus on outcomes and have a focus there.
I would support his reappointment to them. >> supervisor long, you had been in queue, no where.
>> thank you. Yes, I agree.
I've met with mr. Henninger many times over the past year and a half,
and I find him to be well educated and competent,
and I would support his return.
>> okay. So we have a motion on the table and the second by supervisor crye.
should we take a real call vote on this one also? >> yeah, we do have public comment. We have two speakers. >> okay.
>> first up, duro sissero, followed by leslie.
>> this item. I understand that mr. Rickert the ceo pulled this item out of the agenda.
since when does he have authority to request for that? >> I pulled it. >> you did, but didn't he request it.
so even though you pulled it, but he requested. Since when does he have authority for that?
are you giving him special treatment now to be able to do that now?
is that part of his being a ceo? I don't think so. I do believe that you violated some laws
here by allowing him to tell you what needs to be pulled out of the agenda?
ceo, that's not his position or his job to do.
>> okay, next speaker, leslie, and chair, this is our last speaker.
>> pretty sure it's exactly his job to make sure this county runs correctly and advise you
when your staff and your county workers have a concern about something you might not be aware of.
thank you, ceo rickert for looking at the fine print and making the board aware.
I am a little shocked to find out that we only have an objection with one of these members being appointed.
I don't know anything about the chiropractor doctor that you guys pulled it because of.
but I would say it's probably in your best interest to support staff and if staff has reasons,
and if you have questions, why staff has reasons, maybe hold it over, till you hear from staff why or make that decision
based on the fact that staff has concern, or concerns. My concern on who we're appointing,
and let me be clear, I want to see this board fully filled because I want to see
the good work that I have a dear friend who was very passionate about this board,
that we recently lost. I know it was very important to him that this board moves forward,
and this board does well, so I will be there to support them in any way that I can,
and I would like to see it move forward. That being said, I have a severe problem, and he was here earlier,
I don't know if he still is with appointing somebody who allegedly,
I don't know if it isn't, whatever, because they kept it pretty quiet even though we asked about it as media,
appointing somebody who has a dui to a mental health and drug advisory board.
I think that's a problem. If it's an alleged dui,
it's a pleaded dui, whatever it is, I think having somebody,
and I've made similar complaints and similar arguments when you tried to
appoint somebody else who had seven duis on six different instances,
allegedly, I've made the same claim. I don't think somebody who's in that mental state should be appointed to a board,
especially one about mental health and drug advisory. That being said, that leaves two openings,
and I think that matt does have a special place for this board in his heart.
I do know that my friend that I lost really respected matt's position on that board.
if matt as an individual, not as a board member,
was to go on and fill one of those two spaces as a member of the community,
as a business owner, as somebody who you're work in savannah,
and your work with, what governor newsom brought you up here. Again, I'm going to disagree with both of
those things that you were up here to help push. Your work and that type of stuff does qualify you to be on a board like this.
even though I disagree with those things, I think that you have a willingness to work on it,
and if it's in your capacity as a person, I'd be for.
>> thank you. Okay, so the motion is to accept c7 as is with the exception of 4b,
and the second was by supervisor crye. >> you want me to take a roll call.
>> sorry, could I interject? >> absolutely. >> yeah, I'd like to make a substitute motion
that we approve it as with the full support. Just one comment on the is that in the bylaws,
it requires you to have people on the board who have lived experience with these issues.
that, well, not obviously requiring a dui, for example,
but having people who are in recovery, and so that is a key piece of that just for the broader context.
but I'll make a substitute motion that we approve as is with the full set of appointees.
>> I'll second that motion. >> just out of curiosity.
>> supervisor crye. >> the substitute motion,
isn't that the same thing? Anyway, it just feels like it.
>> same as what? >> well, what I'm saying is we're going to take a vote. It's either yay or nay, and then the outcome would obviously be.
but if you want to make a substitute motion, I'm not sure. I'm sorry. I want to say this.
I look at the list of names that we have in terms of not just christy coleman,
but bailey cougar, cindy, I mean, it goes on and on.
if you guys felt strongly enough to move it in that direction,
and with the work that that department has done and how far it's come in the last eight, nine months,
and I'll even say how far it's even come in the three years since coming out of covid when supervisor kelstrom and I took office.
I mean, hhsa is completely turning around, and still has areas of improvement like every department.
I mean, any organization that has 1,000 employees and a 300 and whatever $30 million budget
is going to have issues and it's going to take time. But I'm appreciative of christi your department and ceo rickert.
if that's your guys' recommendation, I'm going to go with that because I think it's you guys have earned my trust in that way.
>> okay. Substitute motion was going to be approved as is.
starting to my right, we'll take a roll call vote. >> supervisor plummer? >> yes.
>> supervisor crye? >> no. >> supervisor kelstrom? >> no. >> supervisor harmon?
>> no. >> and supervisor long? >> yes. >> all right. We'll go back to the original motion,
which is except as is with the exception of 4b. You start on the same spot.
>> supervisor plummer? >> no. >> supervisor crye? >> yes.
>> supervisor kelstrom? >> yes. >> supervisor harmon? >> yes. >> and supervisor long? >> no.
>> as is 3-2. Okay. Moving on to r3,
approve the 2026 board of supervisors meeting calendar.
is there a public speakers? >> one moment, chair.
we don't have any requests to speak on this item. >> okay. Supervisor crye.
>> yeah, I'll kick it off. I'm going to support the calendar that you've put forth.
I will say, I really feel strongly about the past two years,
we've tried to meet at least three times a month every week, sometimes.
I think organizations, this large need a more frequent pulse than twice a month.
when you have the budget and the amount of employees and the issues that we have,
I think the five of us collectively should be getting together more than,
you know, 18 hours, 16 hours a month collectively together to discuss these issues.
but I'm going to support it because as chair, you set that,
I would ask that at some point, maybe in the year, we do try and add a night meeting.
that's something that I was really strongly about in my two years was bringing some night meetings,
although I don't think the topics were always the ones I maybe would have wanted,
but I just want to know I'm going to support this calendar as you've put forth.
>> and supervisor crye, there is two night meetings. There is one on march 24th and one on october 27th there.
>> my apologies, chair, I think you might have an outdated version as proposed, there are no night meetings.
>> okay. Well, then I'll go ahead and discuss that because when I was running, I actually,
at one point, wanted to have all of our meetings on a wednesday night,
like the cities do on tuesday nights. I thought it would be better the public could get there and there'd be more engagement.
but then once we have had those, it is extremely difficult on staff.
we have several members of staff in here right now. It's difficult, patrick is there with
his laptop as jared working while they're in this meeting, and to hold these meetings until 11:00 at night or midnight.
it's very difficult on staff. My opinion changed once I got up here because I realized
that it's not just the supervisors talking with the public, which is what I wanted more of,
but it also hinders staff greatly. I'm not opposed to the night meetings.
I think it might benefit us to have one or two, like this original calendar that I was given.
but again, I know it's difficult on staff, so here's the other thought.
so supervisor long.
>> thank you, chair. There's a pause in the mics today.
ceo rickert, I'd just like to ask you a question and you and I've talked about this,
but I think the public needs to understand this point. In june on this calendar and I support the calendar,
and I support all the efforts went into creating this. But there are seven different meetings.
three of those are budget hearings, and we'll have a meeting every week in the month of june.
can you explain to everyone what you told me about the need for year end activity and some of those things.
>> thank you, supervisor long. One of the challenges in june, obviously,
we have the budget hearings that take an inordinate amount of time, but I think it's very important we go through the budget line by line,
department by department and have those department heads come in front of not only the board of supervisors,
but the public and be able to explain their budget and be able to defend the budget that they're requesting.
I think that's critical. These are conversations I've had at length with the supervisor crye,
and I agree that that is a vital component of public service.
the other meetings in june, we have an inordinate amount of activity based on our year-end with
our contracts and a host of other issues that have to happen for the year-end closing.
those meetings, although it'd be great not to have that many meetings in june,
those are necessary to facilitate the exercise and efficiency of county government in shasta county.
>> thank you. >> anything else, supervisor long?
are you okay with it? Did you make any changes, supervisor plummer? No changes.
>> supervisor kelstrom, in terms of the night meeting, is this something that you want to just adopt
the calendar as is and then maybe come back? >> I'll leave that up to the board.
I do like night meetings, although it's extremely difficult on staff.
the other thing that surprised me a little bit is when we did have our night meetings, I fully expected to have
quite a few other people there that normally couldn't make a meeting, and we really never really seen that.
maybe the very first night meeting we had. I remember one gentleman showed up that worked,
but other than that, we didn't really get a whole bunch of a group of different people.
>> I'll make a motion. We accept the calendar as this. >> seconded. >> I'll second that.
>> I say, motion by supervisor crye. Seconded by supervisor plummer. He beats you to it corkey. All those in favor?
>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> any opposed? There's no public comment on?
>> no, chair. >> moving on to r4.
discuss the proposed amendment to administrative policy 1-101,
operation and conduct of business before the board of supervisors regarding agenda item placement at the request of
individual board members and consider providing direction to staff.
who would like to start this out? Supervisor plummer.
>> if you would, chair. The reason this is coming before the board is there was a motion at a previous meeting to bring this item
back for discussion made by supervisor plummer so if we want to kick it off with supervisor plummer.
>> sure, yes, happy to. At the time when I brought this up a few meetings ago and this was before even the chair vote.
the idea was basically that all of us were elected equally and so we should be able to
bring something forward for the full board consideration versus having to go through the chair and have a discussion there,
which can slow things down, can get things blocked that might be approved by a board majority, and also,
that creates some challenges with the brown act, because if then the chair and
the person putting it forth have a discussion just to see if it will get on the agenda,
then that limits that board member's ability to talk to any of the other supervisors.
I think it would be great as with
presentations today where any board member can request a presentation.
they just can't request action item that we just make it equal across the board,
that any board member who wants to put an action item on the agenda is able to do that.
>> in my opinion the fact that this is
on the agenda as r4 means that you already have that ability to do that.
you already have that ability to bring forward an item, to put it on the agenda for us to discuss it,
to put it over there. There's been a couple of times in the past, the one time after we had voted to get rid of dominion voting machines,
it was put back on the agenda, even though that was done. Again, I'll be real blunt,
bringing back the whole raise issue that was dead and done and gone in two years ago.
you just opened up an old wound, and there had been no talk or no desire or
no need for us to look at raises again. We fixed that.
it was a problem for 23 years. It should have been fixed along the line. We fixed it one time, we tied it to upic so that in good times we might get 2 or 3%,
and bad times we might get 0%, it's tied to one of our biggest bargaining units,
and that was a done deal, and it was over and done with, and now it's right back front and center again.
I prefer things the way they are right now. Again, I think if you come to me and you want something on the agenda,
probably nine times out of 10, I'm going to agree with you, and we'll put it on there.
>> in terms of the raises, I brought that to the board to make a motion,
and all five of us voted to bring that back. That was a full board discussion and that is
the part of the process that we have to go through now. If we're not sure that we're going to get
the chair support or if the chair doesn't support it, then we have to go to that next step of the process.
I'm saying, let's just cut that out and just say, any one of us can bring it forward and not have
a single person vetting what the other ones want to bring forward. On the raise issue as you all did,
if you disagree with me, then we can do that in the public setting versus that decision
being made in private between the board chair and another board member, where it doesn't even get the light of the public.
I think that debate and discussion should happen in the context of the public and then the board can vote,
however it wants to vote, as it will do. >> supervisor long.
>> lag time. Thank you, chair. I'll weigh in on this.
my thoughts are that I don't want to burden the board with unnecessary items,
which could cause our meetings to greatly lengthen, but I also totally appreciate the ability and the need for
individual supervisors to bring things forward and to have the ability to get things on the agenda.
I guess what I'm saying out of that is that can be a conversation between
the chair and the individual board member and if we have a problem,
I'm not afraid to revisit this down the road. We've got a brand new chair,
and I think he's going to not be
too restrictive on what makes it to our agenda if it's important to individual board members.
it's a wait and see for me. At this time, I think prudence would
be the need for a conversation as to whether something should go on the agenda or not.
if we find out that it's being abused and individual board members cannot get things forward,
then we can address this a couple of months from now so that would be my take on it right now.
I think the conversation with this chair will be reasonable.
I think we're going to have to wait and see.
give it a few months, and we can always bring this back and then address it.
my take is if we don't have a problem, then there's no need for a solution at this point.
>> thank you, supervisor long. Appreciate that. Again, my feelings on it right now if it's not broke, don't fix it,
but we see things on the agenda all the time that this sponsored by supervisor crye or this sponsored by supervisor plummer.
that means that you wanted something on the agenda, it got put on the agenda and on top of it, you're getting credit for it.
I think things are fine the way they are and with this current board right here,
I can't really foresee having too much trouble or somebody undermining or anything
else I think but for future boards down the road I don't want to put them in that position. Supervisor crye.
>> I can give a little context to this as well is because years ago,
I believe, I don't know if it was 10 years ago, but I remember I think I was asking supervisor baugh about this,
and it was really a supervisor would bring something up that would get voted down for one every meeting, and it would just be on.
but what really also it does is it creates a lot of extra work for staff having to
prepare an item that then they have to put on the agenda,
and it's got to go through county council, and there's a lot of steps that we're avoiding by not doing that.
lastly, just like I did, and many of us have done in our board reports, if you want something on the agenda,
you just bring it up in your board report, you get the board to vote on it, just like we'll have the medical school update on the 20th.
we voted 5-0. That's coming back, so it's on the agenda, and we just got to follow the policy that's already in place.
>> thank you, supervisor crye. Supervisor long, excuse me.
>> one last little take on my thought, my perspective on this.
my goal, and it's been since I started in this position is to streamline operations of
the board and to deal with things within our jurisdiction and
things that we can actually control to better conditions for all of us in this community.
I am afraid that if we just give the absolute right to
put something on my thing is we have the right to bring forward because we're independently elected supervisors.
however, I think a discussion as to what is appropriate is in itself appropriate.
the conversations I like to have or would like to have are,
are these within our jurisdiction? Can we make a difference? Is this going to make our board twice as long for an unnecessary reason?
I would like to see our boards strictly business and strictly efficient.
like I said, I won't reiterate what I already said, but that was the last take that was my thought processed. Thank you.
>> thank you, supervisor long. Let's go ahead and take a vote.
I'll make a motion that we just leave things as they are until.
>> we don't need to.
>> if you have no intention to direct staff to change it, you don't need to vote.
>> do we have public comment? >> we do, chair. We have eight speakers. >> let's get all of them up.
>> first up, don duckett followed by susan weiss, c. Gardner, then dolor sicero.
if I called your name, please get in queue.
>> I'm going to throw a curve ball at you and say that I agree with supervisor kelstrom, and crye,
and long, that if all five of you are able to add things to the agenda,
what we will then have is chaos and really long meetings.
by virtue of the fact that this action item right here is on the agenda,
demonstrates each of your abilities to bring an issue before the board and to have it in the light of day,
as you said, supervisor plummer. What I would suggest is if in the future,
the chair blocks a certain action item from being put on the agenda,
a supervisor can then use his or her time during
their meeting reports to bring that issue to the light and say that this item was blocked.
I'd like to see what the rest of the board thinks. That way you're compliant with the brown act but let's not have chaos.
let's follow the structure. I know it's unfortunate that sometimes
we have a board majority that doesn't agree with the majority of the public,
but that's the way the chips fall. I think that things should stay the way they are. Thank you.
>> thank you. >> my apologies, chair, just one moment.
next up, susan. Is susan here? Not seeing susan. Christian, come on up.
>> on the face, this resolution seems like a no brainer.
each one of you should have the ability to
bring something to the board that you feel is important. However, I do agree with my supervisor, mr. Long,
that we've got to figure out a way to streamline these meetings a bit because we've had
literally hundreds of thousands of dollars discussed in this board room about conversations,
about election lies, fraud, about kim trails, geez,
on and on, hours and hours about succeeding from california.
onward and upward, all of
this stuff completely out of the jurisdiction of this board period.
really, can you vote to
we're going to close the reading airport because of all the kim trails.
why are we spending probably about $6-7,000 of the board's time?
all the staff that have to sit here listening to that [inaudible], which is nonsense.
the last few years,
this board has sunk into chaos.
in fact, it's internationally known,
not just nationally or statewide. It's internationally known.
if we can figure out how to get something on
the board and if a supervisor is passionate about an issue, it does make sense to bring it up during a supervisor's report.
if there's a reason not to, I would hope that another supervisor might go, you know what?
maybe we shouldn't be discussing kim trails for an hour and a half.
for god sake's. Maybe we shouldn't be discussing why we need to get rid of covid vaccine.
we got john who's guarding against
the jewish needles who are giving everybody the vaccine.
but on the face,
I believe each one of you has the same right,
although the chair has some given authority to be able to present an argument against putting something on the agenda.
>> next up, dolor sicero, followed by steve khan, benjamin nowin, then kim moore.
>> I think I'm very disappointed in regarding how this is just going to start again.
a new year, same old shit.
my representative is plumber. He was elected by the district 4.
he was elected by the people for him to be the voice of the people,
and for the people to be able to have any concerns, to be able to go to plumber and bring any issues to him if there's
any issues or anything that needs to be brought to the board and put on the agenda.
you're actually limiting him from his rights to represent the voters like me.
therefore, you're violating my rights, my voice, by violating his rights to represent me.
I'm going to use the law to actually file a complaint against you guys,
because you actually violating his rights, my rights, because you're actually saying, no,
if you could just bring it to me, he was voted the same way as everybody.
equal, fairness, and you're taking his rights to actually not represent his district.
on top of that, you think it's okay to treat him like he's an employee of you,
and you're his boss to tell him, you can't represent your district.
you wait for your turn. That's if you get appointed as a chair or vice chair.
we know you're not going to do that. You're going to make sure that they don't get in there to do that.
you are violating his rights, my rights, the voters rights,
so we have a claim to able to file a complaint because you're taking his voice,
which is my voice, my rights. I'm telling you right now.
you keep your shit, continue to violate our rights. You're not going to come out looking good in the end,
and you're not going to be elected. Because you're going to have so many things you're going to have to
deal with criminal civil rights violations. I ain't going to go well for you,
chris, because I'll tell you right now. You know I have so many e mails in the past from you.
I will use everything I have against you, just like we did with laurie freebige.
we have 1,000 e mails. She has a restraining order against her for three years.
don't go try and to play that game with us now. >> steve khan, followed by benjamin nowin.
kim moore, then leslie. If I called your name, please get in queue.
>> board, community members that are still here.
I can see both sides of this issue, and I've changed my view on it, I think, while listening.
if all supervisors were rational, logical people,
I can see where all of them should have the ability to put something on the agenda.
unfortunately, that's not the case.
I guess it's going to be up to the citizens, the community members, and the board members to draw attention when they want
something put on the agenda when it's not done. I think I'll take that stance currently and address
it more intensely if that is not the case.
I hope that you all have the ability to bring something and put something on the agenda,
and I hope that occurs. If it doesn't, then we'll get more serious about it. But I also see where it can be abused with putting things like
vapor trails and other things on the agenda frivolously and taking up a bunch of staff time.
at this point, I'll say, we should watch it closely and if it's not done properly,
then the community members need to get involved and straighten out the chair. Thank you.
>> next up, benjamin nowin, followed by kim moore, then leslie. Kim, come on up.
>> greetings, again, board members. One thing doctor laura hobbs brought it up earlier,
but it wasn't the appropriate time to talk about it, it is how much is getting clumped into the consent calendar.
there were some important issues that I would have liked to have been able to speak on the consent calendar.
I had to use my public time and then you all took a minute of that.
we're not even at 12:00 yet. I don't think we need to be getting robbed of our time, so I'm just going to say,
if you guys really want to represent us, get these things on the calendar in order in a manner in which
that we have the opportunity to [overlapping] >> it's got to be r4. Tied into r4.
>> how you guys set your calendar, discuss conduct of business before the board of supervisors.
operation and conduct of business. This is conduct of business.
when you're putting things like the behavioral health board in a consent item,
a speaker like myself has to decide, are we going to try to get what we have going on up onto the public [overlapping].
>> chairman this is related to 1-101 only? >> we have to talk specifically policy 1-101,
which is whether a single supervisor can put something on the agenda. >> brother. Sorry.
>> that's all right. Thank you. >> next up, leslie. Chair, this will be our last speaker.
>> well, matt, you're my supervisor and you brought this up at a meeting.
then you went and you put out an e mail to the community, and everybody that follows you,
that in my opinion, was a very divisively worded statement.
saying that you have been shut down multiple times, you're not getting to represent the people.
I did what I should do as your constituent, and I reached out to you for examples.
what I got back was a list of things that I know for a fact because I'm at these meetings,
I read every one of these agendas, and when I'm not here, I'm watching online.
I know for a fact, some of the examples you've given me you have not been shut down on,
and then there are other ones that you did not provide any detail or
any example on how you were shut down or whatever by who?
just like kevin said, you can put it into a motion during the thing.
it is my time. Keep your derangement to yourself. >> quit yelling out from the crowd. That's your first warning.
>> anyway, I don't need to use this whole time. I just want to say,
you guys have every avenue to put things on the agenda. It has not been abused.
>> that's it. I have been removed, please.
you get one warning. I notify the behavior,
I get you get one warning and you're gone. You had your warning, you need to leave the meeting.
>> I'll yield the rest of my time so we can take a recess for a child.
>> we'll go to recess while we do this. I know.
coming back from recess. I believe we were discussing r4.
also, so the public knows, we have an appointment at noon with a caller and for closed session.
after this item, we will probably be recessing to closed session.
our form. Supervisor plummer, are you brought this forward, so are you good with it?
>> I just wanted to make two quick points in closing.
I won't be making a motion on this, but just to push back
on some of the thinking there in terms of everyone has an equal chance right now.
the challenge is two fold in terms of, yes,
any supervisor can bring it forward and then have a debate or raise it motion in the context of their supervisor report.
the challenge is two things. One is a timeline thing, and the second is that when that is brought up,
there can't be any discussion. It's really just say your statement,
and then if it's something that's new or different or not something that the rest of the supervisors have been engaged with,
then they're making their decision on whether to hear it on the basis of essentially one line.
that's one of the challenges. The second one is a timing thing is that if you bring something to a chair or you propose something,
and then you wait a week or two to hear if it's approved by the chair and then if it's not,
then you look for the next meeting, and then you make a motion in that meeting,
which you have to have two weeks ahead in order to be on the next agenda,
which this already pass, for the next meeting, so you're waiting then a month.
you could lose three, four meetings in between.
that was my reasoning on it. I think in terms of the last thing I'll say,
and then, I'm good to move on is, while I might not agree with other supervisors at times,
I believe each supervisor should have the right,
even if I disagree with it to bring it forward, and I trust them to bring for things that they think are important,
whether or not I think they are important or not. That would be my stance. I know,
some people are saying, we'll, be abused. Well, that's their right to abuse that if they want,
and then the voters can, hold them accountable for that if they choose. That's my last thought.
>> I mean, I think under the current rules that we have now, the only time that it would be drug out four or five weeks is if you were to say,
in this instance, myself, if you were to bring something to me, and I said, no, I don't want that on the agenda.
then you'd have to bring it to your board report, and that would cause some delays. But I think on the next agenda,
there's something that you wanted to brought forward, and it was mentioned to me and I said, go ahead and put it on the agenda.
I say that we just leave it as it is until there's a problem,
if there's a problem, we'll bring it back. Absolutely. Superson.
>> thank you, chair. I just wanted to add one additional thing
based on some public comment about the law and the lack of representation for a supervisor if they're not able to.
we follow rosenberg's rule of order, and under rosenberg, it says that the chair can make the decision to agenda as an item.
actually, the ceo can agenda as an item as well, or you can get a board vote a majority vote.
those are the three ways to get things agendized. If we were to get into that,
we are following the law and the representation.
if we were to do that, we would have to actually suspend rosenberg.
for all the other reasons I already said, I think this chair will not block any of
us getting things that are that are important to us from our jurisdiction.
>> when you say this chair, did you ever feel blocked last year, allen? >> no, I'm just talking.
>> I just wanted to make sure. >> no. That's not a dig.
>> perfect. Thank you. >> with this chair, I believe we are not going to have a problem here.
I'm not prepared to suspend rosenberg, which we do follow, even though it's somewhat loosely,
but there are different mechanisms to get something on and if we have a problem,
we'll address it a couple of months down the road. That's all I have to say. >> thank you supervisor long. I appreciate that. Supervisor [overlapping]
>> I just want to make sure I. >> there's no action taken on this.
we're just going to leave it a so that there's no need to do a vote. We are going to go into closed session.
it's estimated to be an hour. I will say we will not be back before 12: 30.
>> chair? >> yes. >> we do have public comment on one closed session item.
we don't have any requests to speak for item r8 or r10, but for r9, we do have two speakers,
gardner and dolores lucero. Please come on up.
>> regarding r9, specifically,
the listing that I was wondering about is it doesn't give the case name.
if the case has been filed and there's a record of it down at the court,
you should be able to release that case name. It's important to have those case names because we need to
understand what you guys are talking about. It'd be also, I think,
interesting that after you came out, besides the report,
action was taken, action was not taken on a particular item under litigation or possible litigation.
it'd be really interesting to know who voted what on that.
I think that people need to know. I don't know if that's a conflict of interest problem or not.
but I have a feeling that there are times when issues are brought
about litigation before the board, that it's divided.
some people are going one way and some people are going another way. I don't know. We won't know until that's reported out.
but so I don't know who we're even talking about.
I do know that laura hobbs is suing once again,
down in third district. Is this about that? Or I do know that ex supervisor jones,
one of hobbs' compadres, is also suing. What for?
57 million? 50. Wow. I'm not too sure if that's what's being reported on here or not.
nevertheless, I think the public needs to know what the board decides to defend against.
I think the public should be told if we ask what council's going to be representing the supervisors?
the only way I can get that information is going to the court house.
if that's what it takes, we'll do that. Please think about if there are conflicts of interest in reporting out,
[background] we should be told that. No, we can't talk about the case.
but if the case is already filed and there's a case number assigned to it,
I do believe you can. That's my question on that.
>> next up, dloors lucero, and chair, this will be our last speaker.
>> we know one potential case is patrick jones.
that case is actually was vacated. I went in to the website.
there's two dates on their settlement conference or to actually move forward.
it's been vacated. Therefore, they probably said, there's nothing here.
you need to go back and start all over. If that's what the case is and is planning to come to the board,
you have to recuse yourself, chris, and kevin and corky.
therefore, there wouldn't be no votes to even approve this or to put it on the agenda item just so you'll be aware.
if you put it on there, I'm telling you you will be the first one,
I'm going to let you know that you will be committing the biggest crime because you grew up with patrick jones since he was 7-years-old.
therefore, it will be a conflict of interest for you to sit or even be behind closed doors in closed session regarding this case.
because patrick jones, when he claims to say that the da district attorney actually misused the funds,
and she did things in her [overlapping] she was at works. It is mr. Attorney,
it is a potential case and that's what that is the case, the potential case.
are you trying to override my freedom of speech? >> potential case doesn't say.
it doesn't say what is it.
therefore, I am assuming. >> it says anticipated litigation.
his already in litigation. This is not anticipated.
>> therefore it is the possibility.
>> mr. Chairman, we have to cut this off. It's not on the agenda.
>> you are going to try to violate constitution freedom of speech. I dare you.
>> the patrick jones case is not what we're discussing in closed session.
>> you should put in here what potential case is about.
because he just bias me my constitution freedom of speech,
telling you to stop me from speaking. I dare you can't let him do that because you will find yourself
in the lawsuit and I'm cling to file a lawsuit. This is just going to be one of us.
but I'm telling you, I'm sick of you guys for violating our constitution right.
right now, it was okay for what today to speak about patrick jones
saying $56 million and I'm speaking of the same thing.
how dare. See? This is discrimination. Being biased who can speak and who can say what?
>> this is not about patrick jones. >> I did say that.
mr. Garner said patrick jones.
>> chair, this was our last speaker. >> with that, we will recess in the closed session.
we will not be back before 12:30. >> just for members of the public,
we do clear the chambers during recess. I could ask you to please leave until we reconvene.
>> waiting on you, kevin. Coming back from closed session,
larmer, do we have any reportable action? Counsel larmour.
>> no reportable action. >> we'll move on to r5.
discuss the board of supervisors and elected department heads, cost of living increases and consider providing direction to staff.
this is another item that you had on here, supervisor plummer. Did you want to start?
>> actually, I don't think this is my item. I think supervisor c in relation to the previous conversation,
wanted to have further discussion around elected inclusive of the board of supervisors.
>> do we comment on this item? >> chair, just to clarify, a motion was made and seconded by supervisor plummer and cry to direct staff to
bring back an item on a future agenda to discuss this, so that's why it's on here.
>> do we have public comments? >> just one moment. Let me take a look. Yes, we have seven speakers chair.
>> you guys all right, getting public comment now. >> do we want to have a discussion before?
>> you go ahead. >> sorry. That was the speaker used to the new buttons.
>> no one's in queue. Let's go ahead and take to public comment. >> first up, gardner, followed by dolor sicero,
steve k, then laura hobbs. If I called your name, please get in queue.
>> this r5, once again, should be a no brainer.
I say that because even elected department heads like yourselves,
or curtis should be entitled to a cost of living increase.
but it also should be tied to the workers of this county get paid.
you guys are no more important than the guy that fixes the pothole on my street.
all valuable employees, shasta county.
r5, really, I think, it'd be a really good idea to
tie your salary increases or curtis's or any department head,
and we've got a lot of people that run the county that do an awful good job
to tie that to a sustainable living wage,
and it would be very important that one group of people aren't seen as more important, more valuable,
thus deserving more money, than the guys and the women who actually keep this county going,
who do the hard work, who don't get reimbursement,
who often, some of them have to work two different jobs,
who are losing healthcare.
this county needs to develop a reputation of paying people well,
and doing a little bit more than handing out the wonderful gifts that you hand out every supervisor's meeting.
because we're facing some real tough times.
when you have county workers who are on food stamps, which,
by the way, or are having to get obama care.
which got cut? You guys are going to have to figure out how to direct
money to the people that run and actually run and do the work with the county besides yourselves.
>> chair, I do want to make a correction. I apologize. I was looking at the wrong motion.
supervisor plummer is 100% correct. A motion was made and seconded at the december 16th meeting by supervisor crye and
supervisor long to bring this item back for options to move elected officials into one block for discussion.
next up, delores, followed by steve khan, laura hops, the jenny.
>> I want to know when you're going to start doing the right thing chris.
your item 5 here, r 5 elected department head of departments or whatever.
who is those head departments? Is that include the ceo, attorney?
is that going to include them to get the increase of living costs?
is that where it's all going to go to or it's just going to be some employees of the county?
are there going to be included, or is that a separate thing?
because it doesn't say, really. It just says elected departments.
they're in the department. But what department? You don't basically clarify it.
you know how it is to be in a tight budget.
you yourself said you were going broke at one time.
you know what it is to be in a tight budget and live off a certain amount of money.
when you take and you give raises to others,
like those guys who don't deserve the money, like those employees who've been in working for a long time
here for a long time and those are the ones you depend on,
those are the ones who deserve to be given the raise.
but not people who you actually just want to keep on giving money to give them,
say, thank you for doing what I ask you to do a kickbacks.
because we the people, it's our money, but you're making the stupid decision sometimes you have been in the past,
and you continue to do the same thing. You're going to just actually follow kevin crye footsteps.
what's going to change from you being on that seat?
from what I understand, your decisions that you made,
even behind closed doors and you made them in text,
you don't make good decisions. How are you going to make decisions for the county and for the people?
I don't get it. Why do you have to be kevin crye puppet and then you got corky over here,
who doesn't even know what he's voting on? You have to treat him like a little kid and explain to
him what you're voting on because that's what he is. Like a little kid, he doesn't know what he's doing. I'm being honest.
that's being straightforward. Not being trying to be mean. That's honest.
you can't blame somebody who wants to be honest. I'm being honest.
it's embarrassing to have him as vice chair. >> next up, steve khan,
followed by laura hobbs, jenny, then noda short. I see, steve. Laura, come on up.
>> good afternoon, board. On r4.
this was initially brought up right before christmas.
it was in the consent calendar item, I believe it was c16 and c17.
>> we are on r5 now. >> yes. It's r5 now, but previously it was consent calendar r17.
>> c17. >> c17. Thank you. Basically, I'm opposed to this because what's happening in the city right
now is the city government gave too much money to the employees,
and especially to the ceos, the executive folks.
now, one barry tibbins retired when his salary was nearly half a million dollars,
and he's going to get that for years and years in his retirement.
we have a serious problem now, the city's not able to cover basic functions,
and they're looking at what they can cut to balance their budget.
I'm concerned that this very same thing can happen in the county's budget if we do not maintain
executive salaries at a reasonable level that's comparable to the medium income of the residents here in shasta county.
maybe a little bit higher, but not much; 100,000 is plenty good.
we don't need to be talking about 200,000 300,000 $400,000 salaries.
these are way out of proportion to shasta county, the people who live here and work here.
honestly, for taxpayers to be paying that kind of salary, it's a slap in the face. That's not free money.
that's money that comes from the taxpayers, it comes from our property taxes.
I really urge you not to increase executive salaries.
even if you go ahead and do it now in rubber stamp, which I argue against doing that.
even if it doesn't affect you in your upcoming election, if it doesn't affect you in the next year,
it will affect this county in the long term. It might be a year down the road, two years,
three years down the road, but it's going to be a bad decision for this county overall.
please do not support this. Thank you.
>> next up is jenny, but I'm not seeing jenny, so followed by noda short,
and then chair this will be our last speaker. >> good morning, chair kelstrom and members of the board, noda short.
I would like to respectfully share some notes that I had on the topic,
specifically tying elected department heads to the board of supervisors.
I had some thoughts on that that I wanted to share. In my opinion, it's more appropriate to group all department heads together
elected and appointed because when you're discussing colas, the duties, responsibilities, and time commitments correspond
directly to what the functions are of those offices. For example, all department heads lead to manage an entire department on a daily basis,
including training staff, preparing performance evaluations, hiring, addressing disciplinary issues,
providing leadership and working 40-50 hours or more as is needed to keep that department running.
I'm not sure that people are aware, but currently, elected department heads are already at a disadvantage
from appointed department heads for a few reasons. Department heads who have come up through the ranks,
elected department heads who come up through the ranks do not receive an additional 5% compensation for longevity.
that's something that appointed department heads do get. Elected department heads receive the equivalent pay for
40 hours of admin leave where appointeds receive 80 hours. Elected department heads receive no extra stipends.
appointed department heads can receive stipends for education, certificates, dual roles, and other compaction issues.
elected department heads incur additional costs due to election every four years,
and appointed department heads obviously don't have that. Elected department heads do not receive vacation or sick leave accruals that may
later be converted to retirement service credit,
where appointed department heads have that. Elected department heads have personal liability and
culpability for all the actions of their department. I want to be clear. I'm not advocating for anything more for any elected department head.
I think they're adequately compensated. I'm not advocating for any more compensation for them.
we're currently tied to the unrepresented management group in terms of colas, annual colas,
which I think is appropriate for what we do, and it will keep us in line because I think if you tie us with other groups,
it's going to make that disadvantage. The inequity is going to be even greater.
the other thing is, as I look at, like, elected salaries. We're in the top.
if you look at all of the department heads, there are four of the six electeds that are in the bottom five of salaries.
the two, like, the sheriff and the da are more towards the top, but all the rest of the electeds are already at the bottom and the bottom 5.
I just want to share that information for your consideration as you're making decisions about who you tie elected department heads to. Thank you.
>> thank you, molda. No more public speakers?
kevin, I'm sorry.
>> molda, could I bring you back up?
>> the way I see r5 is that the prior board,
not our board, but the board prior, voted to tie board of supervisor raises to whatever upec got,
so that we would never fall behind, again, like it happened for many years. We would never get ahead. We're not treated any better,
any worse, just staying current with whatever that flow is for upec.
I think the question of bringing this back was, do we tie ourselves to
other elected department heads who fall on unrepresented management?
do we tie to that benchmark, or do we tie to the upec benchmark
for purposes of keeping the board of supervisors just on par,
not getting ahead, not falling behind. The pass board tied us to upec directly.
we're following whatever they get. I wanted to clarify,
is your recommendation that it should be better tied with board of supervisors and elected officials.
or should the board of supervisors be better tied to unrepresented management,
or are they better tied to upec like it currently exists?
my only thought on that was, and I've thought a lot about this,
when you tie to upec like the former board tied us to,
then it's a full on negotiation process. It's not like some of
the unrepresented management or the department heads that just they get whatever they get.
tying a board of supervisor salary cola
to a full on negotiation process that weighs a little in favor of me.
but I'm just curious. I couldn't quite understand which group
you're recommending that we tie to or how that be. >> I'm not making a recommendation as to the board of supervisors colas at all.
what I'm recommending is that the elected department heads don't get pulled in with whatever
you're considering for the vote for supervisors and that you leave the elected department heads where they are,
and that's a different consideration. >> in summary, that would be then that you are of the opinion that
we should be tied as the prior board did to upec through negotiation.
>> I'm not making any recommendation on that. I do see there's a lot of different sides to that,
which is outside of what I do, but the fact that the board's voting on their own rights.
there's a lot of different things out there. I'm not weighing in on a board of supervisors cla at all.
>> I think the purpose of bringing this back for discussion was to figure out whether
board of supervisors are tied to unrepresented management elected head officials,
that group, or do we stay with the upec group which the prior board set up to make sure that it's on parity.
>> I'm not again, not making a recommendation on the board of supervisors.
there's been a lot of discussions. Some of them are to put it in the charter,
the board of supervisors get 1%. There's been other things out there. That's a discussion for you guys to have as far
as what we should do with the board of supervisors and that cola. But I'm not weighing in on what I think is the best for that group.
>> thank you. >> thank you, supervisors long. Supervisor crye.
>> thank you, chair. Allen or supervisor long, you're exactly right. That was the reason why I talked about bringing it back,
because I didn't disagree with supervisor plummer's thought about,
the initial beginning of that about not voting on the raise and stuff like that, tying it to upec.
there could be some conflict there. Maybe you don't give upec a raise or you do because it's tied to the board.
it's more about optics, really. Really, this discussion item is really just and I
had we all received an e mail, I believe. Did you send it to everybody or just me?
>> you and sam. >> I appreciated that. I've had a lot of conversations.
the one thing that's really tough about electeds, is electeds have the benefit of their elected. It's four years.
they're their own boss. You know, they can come and go as they want. We have some electeds that, and I'll just say it.
norda is the first car here and oftentimes the last car to leave. Joe larmour isn't far behind in getting here
in the morning and you could see because her car's orange, so it sticks out.
she works extremely hard. Not all electeds work the same.
I really wanted the conversation more about how can we just put this to bed?
I thought we put this to bed two years ago. Here we are again. I think it's very relevant
because it shouldn't happen in 20 years where it hasn't been raised,
or there's been no cost of living, or else it's going to be what has happened in rub bluff or tama county,
where there just hasn't been anything, and it's like $1,200. From a discussion standpoint,
one of the things I thought would be maybe if you did take the bottom four,
I don't want to say bottom four, but that's how miss show categorized them,
which would be, I believe the treasurer, the rov, the assessor recorder and the auditor.
those four, maybe they're grouping, and then public safety is different. I don't know. But again, it's just we have to tie ours to
something and I don't think we should be voting on it. I also don't think going to a charter in
that direction is necessarily the way to do that,
either, because people do serve up here and they do have cost of living adjustments that should be made.
I don't think the board or any elected official should take any raise if every single person doesn't get that.
if it's a zero base year, then nobody gets a cost of living increase.
>> I totally agree. I think it's problematic when the board votes on
their own raises because that's a conflict. What happened, and this is why I was so torn on the subject
because what happened with 22 years, 23 years of making decisions not to keep them relevant currently to modern standard.
that caused a really bad reaction and what happened from that point on,
the prayer board, they tied it to upec, so that you would never get ahead of upec,
you would never fall behind upec. You would get whatever upec gets.
I had a problem with that in the sense that we negotiate and we decide what upec gets.
why wouldn't we give them 10%? We get 10% of ourselves. But I think that's not the way it goes,
and we're going to negotiate in good faith, and the voters ultimately will hold us accountable for however we vote,
as far as holding upec to wherever I'm just using them as an example.
but I think we have to be tied to some index so that we don't fall behind again.
I think this discussion is, which group do we want to tie ourselves to
and we're just along for the ride, however that looks. Actually, I think I'm in favor of just leaving it with tied to whatever you upec gets,
just because that involves a full negotiation process, which I think there's a tremendous benefit
in that because there's a lot of give and take, and it's not something that just happens.
>> I'll tell you, and that was led by patrick jones and patrick jones,
to be one of the last things he did is
to who's extremely fiscally conservative wanted to write what he saw as a 20 plus year wrong.
I don't necessarily feel really strongly one way or the other.
the reason I wanted to bring it back is I wanted to have the discussion here.
I'm not overly. >> well, I think what we're going to see is,
and I know there's been discussion here from the public, and I've been listening to that.
what is coming forward will be no more, no less than upec for going in for the january.
>> had it been tied to upac 25 years ago, we would have not been. >> [overlapping] we wouldn't have this discussion. We wouldn't have this problem. That's where
I think that we don't deserve more than anybody else. We don't deserve less than anybody else.
we should keep it for all the reasons I've already talked about.
but that having been said, I think the prior board had to make very hard decisions on this matter,
and they tied it into upec. I didn't quite understand it at the time that it was happening.
but now, in reflection, I've come to see that there is a benefit to
the board never getting to ever decide their own raises again.
that will be decided by whatever upec gets,
and we'll never get ahead or behind. I'm in favor of just leaving this alone and not tying us to a new group,
which would be unrepresented. We have to be tied to some group.
I'm in favor of just leaving it alone. >> thank you, supervisor long, ceo [inaudible] u and q.
>> sorry for the delay. The system seems a little bit slow today. Normally, I don't weigh on issues,
but I do have a unique background and experience as a 22 year county white elected official,
and I just want to essentially echo the comments made by noda short.
we have a very professional core of elected department heads and
having a cola established so we don't get into a situation where we fall behind.
I'm not saying the board is doing that. I just want to make the public aware and others
aware that there's a value to making sure we maintain at least a minimum standard of payment for the services provided and
recognize the professionalism and the level of work we're getting out of these elected department heads.
it's very important to remember that. That's my comment. Thank you. >> thank you, ceo. Supervisor harmon.
>> he just took care of that. >> is there any more discussion, more board discussion.
did you want to make a motion on for supervisor long?
>> I would make a motion that we leave everything as
is currently in place with regard to board of supervisor raises,
being tied to whatever upec gets and
leaving elected department head and board of supervisors alone, not altering that.
>> mr. Chairman, if you have no new direction to staff,
you don't need to make a motion or take a vote.
>> are we all right with moving on to r6? R6, adopt a salary resolution effective january 11, 2026,
which amends the shasta county salary schedule to implement cost of living increases for the board of
supervisors in accordance with the shasta county personnel rules. Miss fugitt.
>> thank you, chair and counsel. Members of the board, monic fugitt, director of support services,
coming on the tail of the other items we've heard today. As you're aware, the board voted to
approve the cost of living increases for the upec group. As was noted, the board of supervisors is tied to the upec group.
this salary resolution would just implement the same cost of living increases that those groups receive.
the board could decide to approve or decline to approve the salary resolution at this time,
so I'm happy to take any questions. >> any questions for the board?
do we have public comment on this item? >> yes, chair, give me just one moment.
first, gardner, followed by dolores lucero, then steve khan.
if I called your name, please get in queue.
next up, dolores lucero, come on down.
steve khan, come on up.
>> good afternoon. I thought chair you said that this wouldn't be resumed until 1:30.
I'll review it and see, but that's why I missed my comment time and it's not 1:30 yet.
but anyway, I'm sorry, the shrug was.
>> I said it was 12:30. >> that's correct.
>> I'll review it. Anyway, this regards raises to the board,
and there's no way in the world they should be paid what they already are at the 90,000.
I know you incorporated raises automatically into it and all that, and there's justification for that being made.
but I would just urge the public to listen
to what the different supervisors are stating they did in between meetings,
and then decide whether they really feel that that is worth
$90,000 a year along with increases every year.
I'm just urging the public to get involved because it's ridiculous.
>> next up, laura hobbs followed by antonia, then christopher enriquez.
laura come on up. >> I thought she wanted to go first.
you guys just recently got your salaries bumped to 88,000 or whatnot.
that was just last year, cost of living increase. If anything, it might have gone down since trump took office,
so I would recommend that you do not vote for cost of living increase for the board of supervisors at this time. Thank you.
>> next up, antonia, followed by christopher enriquez.
>> good afternoon, board. We do not need to be verbally abusive or threatening to be mailing you.
it all falls back on that person, and blackmailing threatening is corruption.
I just want to express my why I disapprove a raise for the board.
it should be approved by the citizens because it's our money
that will fund these pay raises. Thank you.
>> next up, christopher enriquez, and chair this will be our last speaker.
>> good afternoon, board. I just want to state
that I don't agree with the amount you're actually being paid.
but at the same time, I think your decision in r5 to go along with tying
your cost of living raises with the upec is actually a good decision.
it allows you to receive cost of living increases without setting that limit yourselves,
either 3%, 4%, and then the union not getting the same thing.
that's just my stand. Thank you.
>> that was the last speaker. Do we need anything r6? I'm sorry. Supervisor bomber.
>> yes, just briefly, I'm not going to support this to be consistent
with the issues I raised at the last meeting, which is that I think ultimately the people should decide
the supervisor pay and increases and that there is a conflict of interest.
also, I just want to note that, even though we are tied by ordinance to upec general bargaining,
that doesn't prevent the supervisors in any way from changing that or giving themselves any additional raise at this time.
I do want to note that.
>> supervisor, crye. >> thank you, chair.
>> matt, what's the alternative? Is it a political stunt?
because if you have an alternative, I want to hear it because I don't disagree with you.
but it looks great to be the lone dissenting vote for one.
hey, you know what? I've listened to you blander on. >> that's your first warning.
>> my thing is, bring a solution, because I want to support it. I talked to the sheriff a little bit about it,
and I talked to noda extensively about it, and it's very different.
they have departments, often, the auditor, I'm guessing the assessor.
laurie scott's been here since the year I was born, literally 1976, so I don't know who comes after that.
but a lot of times those department heads do come up through the ranks,
not necessarily the sheriff, not necessarily always the da. But when it comes to the board of supervisors, I don't disagree,
but I'm not going to have you vote for one and have the rest of us as if we're just a bunch of money grubbing, whatever.
we're trying to protect, I think the office and making sure that this isn't dealt with.
chris and I, especially, probably chris thought this wasn't going to be an issue because this was killed two years ago, and I didn't like it then.
if you have a solution, bring a solution and I'll support it. Who do we tie it to? Well, I think coin flip?
>> no, I thought I brought a solution in the last meeting,
and ultimately, that wasn't supported. >> because that's solely political.
if you're talking about that [overlapping] >> you're inferring [overlapping] >> if it's going to go to the voters though,
check this out, because I just saw this poll yesterday. Alaska's got a republican governor, senator.
everything's republican, and yet 76% of that state says they do not like the direction of the state.
yet it's like republican, republican, republican, but yet, if you talk about,
there's never going to be any support for a cost of living increase for an elected official for any of them, and I don't blame that.
>> well, in the proposal that would have been in the amendment, there was a cost of living built into that of 1%.
the idea wasn't that we would never get a raise again, it would be that it was a small and moderate raise.
I was open to debate about whether that 1% is correct or 1.5 or two,
I think we could have a good conversation about that. >> let's have it now, because I want to put this to bed.
seriously, if it's 1%, but I'm saying it doesn't have to be a county charter.
it doesn't have to be this symbolic. >> it's not symbolic, and this is the difference between the other elected officials.
we decide the colas for the other elected officials. They're not deciding it themselves.
we currently decide our own pay, and that's what I'm trying to change. Is that we don't decide our own pay.
it's not symbolic, it's on the principle, as we talked about last time. That's why I'm saying the only way,
my understanding, unless you have other ways of doing this, to make it such that we don't decide our own pay
is to put it forth through a charter amendment so that the voters get to decide. If it's not the voters,
who else can decide what our pay is? >> what we'll do is we will,
I don't know what term I want to use, but we'll just hose the five district representatives in this county in perpetuity,
like has happened in tehama. That's exactly what will happen. The easy political thing to be to be, yeah, put it to the voters,
and the voters will never vote for it again, and then it'll be like tama county in 30 years.
my thought is, that's why I said if we tied it to the other electeds,
maybe we say, look, all the electeds get 1% a year or whatever that looks like. I get impaction, and I get noda
doesn't want her assistant auditor controller making more than her. Then I gave her the argument.
they said, well, you're an elected official, don't go into work for a week if you don't want. It's up to you. You get four years to do whatever you want.
there are some pros and cons to being an elected official, but then that comes down to
obviously the integrity and character of a person holds in office. That's why noda is here.
it's 30 am. >> supervisor plummer, this option has been used one time in the last 25 years.
it's not like this is a weekly thing, we're planning on doing next year, the year after that.
we fixed it. After 25 years of it not being fixed, we fixed it, we took the hit. We got it fix.
we tied it to upe so future boards don't have to worry about this 25 years from now when the 85,000 is not a livable wage in 2050.
but so there is no talk about voting for another raise. I understand.
I wouldn't be opposed to that, but again, I don't want to mess somebody that's running for office 30 years from now,
go on, I can't afford to take that job. >> well, two things. One, and I think this goes back to our earlier conversation
around board members having the chance to bring it forward.
to me, I don't think we should make rules that we are like,
well, if somebody does take advantage of that, they could, but if there's a way to do a better rule,
which in my opinion, in both cases, I think we could have gone to a better rule, even though we don't necessarily have existing abuses right now.
I think the same thing here. On principle, I don't think we should be able to decide or pay.
we can build in the cola into the charter amendment, and we could have discussion about what that right number is.
I put 1%, which I explained why, in the last one, and I'm happy to repeat that but I think the principle is the same of,
let's set it up so that we think it's the right way to do it, not in a way where we're like, well,
we don't really agree with the way it's done, but we don't think any of the five of us will abuse it.
the last thing I'll say is that, all of us ran for supervisor before these raises were passed,
and so all of us made the decision based on that pay,
which is dating back 20-years-old. The same thing in tama county, when I talked to them,
they ran, and there's a lot of variation in terms of age,
I talked about this last time. I see that as a theoretical concern,
but it hasn't impacted the group of the five of us and whoever we ran against,
and it hasn't impacted the tama county supervisors as well,
who I would regard as high quality and dedicated to their work.
I think that is a theoretical concern, but one we can build a cola into the charter amendment and two,
we're not actually seeing that play out that it's dissuading people from different socioeconomic brackets from running.
>> well, I don't necessarily disagree with you,
but basically, my feelings on this thing is we fixed it two years ago. It's fixed.
it's really not an issue if it were to become an issue in the future, if ten years from now,
if this board was completely turned around, and all of a sudden they're voting themselves raise after raise after raise,
after raise, there'd be enough outrage in the public. We have shown the ability in this county that you can recall a sitting supervisor,
so we've done that before, and I think that would be the avenue to go down. As far as I'm concerned, this has been fixed.
this was fixed two years ago. There's no need to continue to try to fix it. I think it is fixed, and we don't have a problem right now.
the way it is, and until we do have a problem, I'd say, went to address it then.
>> can I ask you one question? >> absolutely. >> I'm sorry. Supervisor plummer,
so your charter amendment would be you're just saying a 1% every year, is that correct?
>> correct. >> that doesn't have to be a charter amendment, is that correct, joe?
that's where I feel like it's political posture. If you say 1%,
dude, if you want to make a motion to say, we get 1% a year, and it's revisited in 20 years, like 1%, fine.
>> well, the primary goal is to get out of the hands of the supervisors. I don't know any other way to do that
because if we were to pass an ordinance today that said, we're going to lock in 1% for the next 20 years,
we could, in six months, go back and change that. That's the challenge. Unless there's another vehicle that I'm not aware of,
there's no way for us to actually take it out of our hands,
and that's what I'm trying to achieve. >> but it's the tough work of we're making decisions for other people that will sit up here in 20 years.
when you go upstairs in the third floor and you look in the hallway and half those supervisors from the 80s or have passed on,
you look at that and you realize it's like, hey, we are going to make decisions that are going to affect people that we may never meet or know.
my thing is, I don't think that doing it
that way is going to serve the people that sit up here well. It's just not.
it's going to be a fix that's going to feel good for right now,
but it's not going to help people in the future because it'll never increase, it'll never change, and we know that.
it wasn't a popular vote. Granted, I voted against it,
but I don't blame supervisor kelstrom jones or garmin for supporting it.
if you want to make a substitute motion of a 1%, I'd be on board for a 1%.
>> now, us changing what the cola is does not achieve what I'm trying to achieve,
which is to take it out of the hands of supervisors. I was ready to just go along with it.
by which I mean, vote no and have this move on because I know that
the board majority felt a different way coming out of the last december meeting, so I'm fine with that.
>> board majority, you talked about [overlapping] >> I'm talking about four, there was more, yeah
>> can I throw a number in here? >> absolutely. >> I just looked up on my phone,
what $1 was worth in 2002 to $1 in 2025, and it's 1.78.
that would translate, if it had just kept up with colas,
over these 23 years, it would be $94,000 a year, which is close.
it should be higher than what it is currently given standard cost of living raises,
which is tied to inflation. I think also, it was determined by our support services director, monica fugitt,
that she did all the same thing you would do with every other employee group to figure out based on salary comparisons where it should be.
I think it's by a couple of different measures,
had those colas gone into effect in 2002,
that would be about the equivalent, or maybe the board's salary would be even higher than it currently is.
I just think it's gotten to where it is right now,
and I think we need to protect the position for all the reasons I've stated and the integrity of the position,
and that has to be benchmarked to something. I don't like the idea of the board voting themselves raises.
that was not my board. They took care of the problem,
but they put into place a measure which does not allow
the board supervisors to ever either fall
behind or to ever get ahead of other labor groups.
we can talk about a 1% all day long,
but that's an arbitrary number in my opinion, and it's going to cause disparity along the way.
I just want no future board to ever face this problem again, so that's it.
>> counsel, larmour, if we don't change anything, do we need a motion?
do we need to make a motion to go through this or if we just leave it status quo as it is?
>> now, you're asking here to approve a resolution,
you either need to approve it or decline? >> tying it to upec. >> no. That's not. The only thing that you're doing here is
either approving this resolution with the cost of living increase or not,
not what unit it's tied to or not tied to? >> this cost of living increase
is for more people than just the board of supervisors, is that correct?
>> it's based on the unit you're tied to, so you get what the unit that you're tied to gets.
>> chris, so my understanding is this item is only to increase the board of supervisors pay
by a cumulative 4% starting on the next pay period, january 11th.
>> but I think an important clarification for that is to understand the dynamics, so,
upec went out of contract end of last year, they've been out of contract this entire year.
they were told that there would never be any retroactive pay,
so the period between january and december, there is no recovery of that.
the county saved money on that. But if they came to a contract agreement,
which they're doing or they've done, by the end of year 2025,
they got the 2% that could have gone into effect, should have gone into effect in january.
however, it was stayed because they were out of contract and not coming to an agreement.
it was stayed, so they're getting the 2% for that, and then january of '26,
this month, they're eligible for another 2%. To say that the board is getting a 4%,
it's not completely clear how that's worked, because we are tied to upec,
and upec has got a 2% for all of '25,
and they've got a 2% that's coming in january of 2026. That is 2+2 = 4,
that's not a 4% raise. The board is tied directly to upec, and therefore,
the board is just along for the ride, and they're getting the same package that upec general got.
>> well, I will entertain a motion.
>> I will make a motion that we approve [overlapping] >> r6.
>> r6, let me see if I can find that again.
to amend the shasta county salary schedule to implement cost of
living increases for the board of supervisors in accordance with shasta county personnel rules 39.21.
>> just included in your motion just for clarification, to also adopt the salary resolution, effective january 11?
>> I would amend to adopt the salary resolution, also.
>> I'll second that motion. >> you want to talk about that or?
I'm sorry, I just I was whispering to him,
telling him I don't like this. I don't think this is right, and so in the air of transparency,
I just wanted to ask him.
>> whether or not it would pass, ultimately, that would be the public's decision.
I think my read on the public is that they want to be the ones to have to say,
and so I think this would give them that. >> you've supported the sales tax, which lost.
god, I think you're brilliant. >> supervisor crye. >> I'm sorry.
>> I think I've made the points I'm going to make on this,
so I don't think I need further discussion, so I'm prepared to vote.
>> shall we take a roll call starting from my left? >> sure. Supervisor long.
>> yes. >> supervisor harmon. >> yes. >> supervisor kelstrom.
>> yes. >> supervisor crye. >> abstain. >> supervisor plummer.
>> no. >> passes 3-1 with one abstention. Thank you.
moving on to r7. County clerk of elections. We're going to take the following actions.
receive a presentation concerning county clerk elections office plans for public outreach,
voter education, and observation. Activities. Adopt a resolution approving participation in community events and
the purchase of nominal items for voter education and outreach activities.
adjust the clerk elections fees for electronic elections, reports voter file, presently $68,
and the electronic elections reports vote by mail. Data, presently $0.50 per 1000 names,
approximately $56 for full data. Be set at $5 for calendar year 2026 to promote citizen oversight of the election process,
and number 4, consider providing direction to staff. Mr. Kurtz.
>> thank you, gentlemen. Good to see you. Just hang on.
>> or just a minute. >> there it goes. There it goes. >> there you go. >> essentially, it all comes together with what I've been doing
to bring the public in because for so long, the public been pushed aside,
put behind spiked walls, and treated poorly, really.
I've got more than one season to try and get these things together, and it is working in our last election.
even people that are disruptive here were not disruptive at the election.
everything was smooth. We had nothing. We didn't have to hire security.
the things I'm trying to do to keep the public involved and to give them
the maximum amount of oversight over elections is working and is actually saving money.
it's not really a cost. The reduction of the voter file.
essentially, we're going to be collecting that anyway. There is a I don't know if we're paying attention to what
doj is doing with the whole voter roll issue. So far, they're suing alameda,
la, san lucis, orange county, kern riverside, fresno, and santa clara is probably going to do it
after their dibl machines just crashed and burned in the last election. They're probably going to have the same problem.
but what we're going to do is to bring all those files that we're talking about into
a folder every week so that we have an absolute basis of what the voter file looks like.
along with whatever reports or whatever changes we want,
because we don't actually get to change anything, the secretary of state does it. But we'll tell them what it is, and we'll have that.
then if it isn't done, it isn't shasta county's problem. It's the secretary of state's problem because we've done the work,
we have the documentation. What that also gives us is the ability to
provide these files to the citizens so they can actually watch the department,
which is what we want them to do. Public outreach is part of that.
the public outreach previous to me was I considered a little odd.
they went to pride festival every year,
but they never went to christmas, and they never went to 4th of july. How does an election office not go 4th july?
my request was to go to christmas. I was told we couldn't, so I had to do it by myself.
but it actually produces more impact with
the public and the ability to get them to come in and to sign up to be poll watchers,
sign up to be volunteers, when you engage the public. Our big expense that,
I'm here to ask you for are actually the little flags that we give out to people,
including school kids, when we do these shows for them, and their 11 cents a piece.
>> my understanding is you've bought those in the past. The ones that you're holding there you've already bought.
>> we did. >> I'm not sure why we need an amendment because you had the ability to buy them before.
I was told you have the ability to buy them in the future. Like I talked to you on the phone,
I would have rather had this say small flags rather than nominal items.
that leaves the door open, and, you know, that wasn't changing here.
then, again, I was told that you've already got the ability to buy those little flags. What is this resolution in here?
>> we had to request the flags because they are items that are not normally handed out.
we had to request them for our initial, I think it was for fourth of july.
>> you were granted that request? >> then I requested them a second time to do christmas parade and ongoing,
and I was told we couldn't have them. This resolution is essentially to tie
together that I can go to the events that we want to go to, which are all of them.
there's a new bill just passed ab 14 11, which says that,
we need to do maximum outreach and report to secretary of state and go through this whole process.
but that also makes it a mandate, which means we might be able to throw these costs back on the state.
they can buy these elevenths and flags. We want to approve the resolution to go to the community events,
and to buy nominal items for voter outreach.
basically, the importance with the voter files,
because not everybody grabs them. But all it takes for us, since we'll already have it in folders,
is it takes six seconds to copy the file over to a flash drive.
the flash drive costs $1.09. >> but that's assuming if somebody's sitting there at the computer in that database,
right at the time when you walk up and perfectly say, here, well, you felt put this on the heart or the thumb drive.
I know I've gone into the office. I went in there and got my passport, and I had gone in a couple of other things.
one time I was in there, I might have been the passport issue, I don't remember, but, the person at the counter wasn't the person I needed to see.
the person I need to see was in a meeting. When they got out of the meeting, I went back down there,
and then that person had to go, look for a file, and they had to go do this.
you make it sound very simple. Oh, we just hand him a thumb drive, and they take 66 and here you go.
but there's more to it than that. If I were to walk down there right now today,
whoever I'd be talking to at the front counter, I don't know who's there, but if I talked to them and said,
I'd like a thumb drive of the voter information. Maybe you would have to get it,
maybe somebod ele would have to get it. I mean, not everybody in that office can just copy over to a thumb drive, I'm assuming.
>> we'll have them prepared for people if they actually come in and get there.
>> go ahead. Continue as president. >> we'll take care of that. We have a budget that is
already $1.4 million for people to sit there. They're just sitting there.
to charge people more to actually move, like seem successive.
what we're trying to do is we're trying to give maximum oversight to the public so they can actually see what's going on.
the standard is in the state and all around the place is basically hide everything,
make it expensive, make it hard to get to, make it hard to evaluate.
just last year, they didn't even have the vote cast record in a form you could actually evaluate as an excel file.
it was came out as a pdf, the redaction, so it was impossible to moot use.
we're trying to go the opposite direction because now when we throw elections in shasta county,
they will be right, and they will be accurate, and there will be no playing with the numbers.
we have no fear of showing what we're doing to everyone. Any other questions?
>> no. Is that in your presentation? >> let me give a cost. Cost analysis.
we lose about $100. That's all we ever make on the voter files.
we will lose that, but as part of that, we have gained back.
because we need to look for an offset for those fees. My offset is essentially that thousand we get
is offset by the fact that we give everything to the public and everybody can see everything,
which saves us about $5,000 per election for the security we used to have to have there.
because you had to have $5,000 for the security. Then we're actually for the events before the events,
the ones we were allowed to go to, were paid for by the office.
we actually paid salaries. I'm just going to run them myself or with volunteers.
that will save an additional $20,000 per year. It'll actually save quite a bit of money to do it this way as opposed to,
you go lose 1,000 and gain 25. Good deal all around.
>> thank you for the presentation. I appreciate that. Like I say, we talked and I have no problem
buying authorizing the purchase of small american flags to pass out of these events. I have no problem with that.
but I've been told that that's already the case. You already have that option to be able to do that. I'm not sure.
again, I do not like nominal items. I will pass this portion of it,
or I will vote for this portion of it in favor if that is changed to small american flags.
>> it's good. >> perfect. But the electronics fees, the cost.
clint, I told you and you didn't answer my phone call when I called you back on friday and left your voicemail,
but I told you then, if you expect us to override
noda short and what her findings are and how much that thing costs,
you're going to have to give us something we can sink our teeth into. I told you, you're going to have to do a presentation and you can't just say, oh,
it only takes two seconds, and the thumb drives are a buck in one oh nine.
here we just make it five bucks. It'll be fair. You're going to have to, again.
I'll be your test subject, if you want. I'll walk down there as soon as this meeting's over and go ask for
a thumb drive cause I'm going to need one here very shortly anyways, and see how long it takes,
how many it goes through. >> I would take it like two minutes. I know exactly where they are. Buddy new ones.
>> if you're there. [overlapping]
>> they're in a little bucket ss clean and dirty. >> what would happen if I walked down there right now to get them to get one.
[laughter] would it be there? >> who would be there. >> somebody will be able to pull that data out?
because again, you're going to have to give us a
lot more than that for me to say nod short.
again, it wouldn't be the first time that we had a fee that was too high. Noda is an absolute fiscal hawk,
and she's going to find those, and she has found many of those. But you're going to have to give us way more research and data
and metrics in order for me to go from $68-$5.
as somebody that's going to need one here in the very near future, $68 or $56 or whatever it is,
it doesn't seem to be outrageous to me. I think that's what I paid four years ago.
it was about $50 four years ago. >> it may not be outrageous, but it does push down on people as to whether they can see the election.
that's not what we're trying to do. We're trying to make it as open as possible. >> how many requests of these for these do you get say,
this last month. How many did you get? >> twenty. >> twenty requests? How many do you expect to get this month?
>> if we lower the price? >> no. If the price stays the same. >> I have no idea.
>> supervisor long.
>> thank you. Thank you for your presentation.
we all know with public funds, there has to be in fact,
we've got admin policy 2-201 in shasta county,
that we have to demonstrate the public purpose for anything.
if you were to buy flags, how would you fit that under public purpose?
>> well, the public purpose is that with the flags, you were actually building civic.
I don't know what you want to call it. Civic engagement. Without the flags, you can set your tent there and you're
not going to get a single person to come by and talk to you. With the flags, you actually have something to get the public and to draw them in.
we go from let's say 4th of july. We go from zero people coming by because they can see
the vote thing and they can see if they're glacing at you, but there's nothing they want. You start handing flags to people.
we had 600 people come in. We got a bunch of people volunteering to do things.
we got a couple of people registered to vote. Those people would not have been there otherwise.
>> let's extend that a little bit to you were talking about a float being in parades.
we've got to be very careful that we don't endorse electioneering.
you're running for a campaign, the elections coming up, and if you were to be on this float,
how would you tie that into public purpose in the sense that if you're sitting on that and waving,
that looks a lot like optically it's campaigning.
we have to be very careful with that because the law is very specific as to what
constitutes electioneering and what constitutes public purpose for public funds.
if it was deemed to be electioneering,
and I'm not saying anything about you. I'm not passing judgment, but I'm just saying the optics,
it would be it would be illegal because you can't use
public funds for any purpose for an election.
> you can't say vote four, essentially. >> correct. I look at the flags and being at
a booth is that going to attract more people?
I don't see the complete nexus there between a public purpose and being on a float.
you just wave in to the public. That doesn't do anything for public purpose that I could prove.
I think the optics would be dangerous given the fact that
you're running for election in so I have a problem with that.
then another question that came up that based on your presentation was,
you said that your employee your staff is just standing around,
so it won't be any extra staff time because they would
just be able to do all these voter roll disseminations,
and you would prepare them weekly. Have you figured out the actual cost to do that on a weekly basis?
what has been the process up to this point? How often have they been produced other than just on demand?
>> well, the request is always delayed. It's always slow. They take as long as they could to get it to anybody.
we want to be prepared. We want to have the m set there. We want to have them, so they just pick them up and hand them over.
>> I put $5 on there because you didn't want it for free. I think free is a better idea,
because I think collecting $5 and writing up the receipt for it costs more than the $5 because it takes more time to take the $5 than to use the $5.
I think, free would be better. But the public purpose is so the public has access to everything.
we want them to be able to take those roles, to look them over,
to analyze them, and to know that at least our office is hiding nothing.
>> correct. I understand that. But nothing comes for free.
the fact that your staff time, they're standing around, well,
then you have too many staff. Honestly. We reduce staff to whatever is needed to get the mission accomplished,
and if you have people just standing around. By definition if you are appropriately staffed,
then those folks will have to take time away from their other duties,
whatever their election function duties are to then go to produce this product,
and so it will cost the county whatever we could put a number to that.
I'm a little bit leery of the argument that people to stand around,
and so their time is free. Now, we're paying them full salaries and benefits,
and their time is not free or we're overstaffed.
I think it's something where again,
we have to get back to the public purpose for this.
I think that's because I don't want to tread into anything that's illegal if it's interpreted to be anything other than public purpose.
I think it's a concept, but we have seen this time and time again.
you brought one thing to us, which was passport photos, $35,
and you wanted to basically have the general public subsidize that by reducing that to,
I think it was five bucks or something like that. >> twenty two. >> twenty two from.
>> thirty five. >> thirty five to 22.
it comes down to a fairness issue with me, anyway,
and it has to do with who pays for what?
the example of a passport photo if somebody wants to come get their passport photo, and they choose not to go to a different venue.
then they pay whatever the cost for the county, we're not making money, we're not losing money.
we have to do that with everything. The idea of the voter role thumb drives.
>> people know they can do that, and the county has assessed a cost to that to have that function done,
and it's well within their rights to access that information. When I was running the campaign,
I had to go down to the rov and pay for certain items,
and I paid them and moved on with it because that was my choice, my cost of doing business.
I just think there's some issues with all of this.
>> well, instead of maybe shape 2 structures,
we should double charge the candidates and give it free to the people that are researching elections.
>> counsel larmour, you are in queue. You're done? >> supervisor crye.
>> well, I was curious in this presentation,
if you were still looking at the passport thing, and if you're still looking to eliminate that service since the private sector does it,
and that's not something that necessarily rov's office needs to do. Are you still considering that?
>> I can barely hear you. >> sorry. I said are you still considering getting rid of
doing the passport component because the private sector can do that, and that could just be another task that the government doesn't need to oversee or do?
>> if we're charging twice as much, we might as well just get rid of it. >> I think if you get rid of it, that's great.
it just streamlines government, and it's one less thing government needs to have its hands in,
so that's good to hear. The one thing is I know, when we talk about the flags,
I'd be curious if sheriff johnson was here and he had flags with a thin blue line that he wanted to give out,
how this board would feel about that and supported. It's your budget. I'm going to support the flag thing.
I do agree with supervisor kelstrom. I get what you mean when you say that flippantly,
it's going to take six seconds. If this hadn't been
such a crucible of how I've really felt strongly about county fees and
knowing the work that we've done in the last almost three years with ms. Short's office and then auditing,
I would say, I might be a little bit more cavalier about the decision, but I do want to see some type of time study come back and say,
hey, this is what it truly is, because there's a big discrepancy. If she says it's 68, and you say it's five,
well, maybe it's eight. I will rush that forward and make that as inexpensive to the public as possible.
at the same time, I think for people that really care about elections and stuff like that, whether they're going to pay 60 bucks,
50 bucks, that's a small price to pay for the transparency that you,
in that role, have now given that office. It is night and day different in terms of accessibility of that information.
if we can make it cheaper, or it can be done more streamlined, great, but there does have to be a cost recovery.
I'm going to be with supervisor kelstrom on that, but this is something you can bring back at any time.
anytime you want to bring that back, I would support that. >> supervisor plummer, and then after that,
we'll take public comment. Do we have public comment? I'm sure we do. >> yes. >> supervisor plummer.
>> I just wanted to ask for clarification. I see in the staff report that it says
county council does not approve the resolution as to form. Could you elaborate on that?
>> there are multiple issues within the resolution draft that I saw.
I think there were multiple drafts after that, and I also know that I worked on a draft with noda.
ultimately, there are a number of issues. The first one comes to item number 2,
which is adopt a resolution which provides for approving participation.
mr. Curtis is an elected official, and ultimately, the board doesn't have any control over whether he does or doesn't attend an event.
ultimately, the denial of entry into
the parade had to do with costs and liability of entering a parade with a vehicle.
ultimately, the board doesn't have any authority to either grant
or not grant him to attend those events. There were other issues with the resolution as it related
to asking for approval in the wrong ways.
ultimately, there was a draft which included
some legislation that wasn't completely appropriate for use in the resolution.
in the draft that I worked on with auditor controller,
we were trying to streamline his request, which was to actually request the board to grant him
authority that's currently granted to the ceo for expenditures under 2-201,
which was spoken of by supervisor long.
as it's currently drafted,
I can't support it on legal standing.
>> thank you, supervisor plummer. Supervisor long, are you okay with going to public comment and then coming back and visiting this?
>> is there any way I can just talk about it? >> sure. Go ahead.
>> just so I don't forget. [laughter] maybe this would be a question for erin,
probably, or noda, either one.
my understanding is that along the lines of what county counsel larmour just
indicated that this board cannot make something a public function or not make a public function,
or we cannot authorize something that we don't have that position, that authority to do.
my question is, is there some an audit process at the end of the year where these requests,
even if the board voted to approve this right now, the function would be approved or they would be reviewed later,
and it would be determined whether it was a legal purpose for that money or not?
>> good afternoon, chair kelstrom, members of the board. Erin bertain, deputy county executive officer.
aside from the issues that county counsel larmour has with the resolution,
if the board were to waive 2-201 and in the way
that counsel larmour had discussed and give that authority to the registrar of voters,
he would still be held to the public purpose. Should he spend money in a way that doesn't have a public purpose,
he can't tie it to the business of the elections office, and that were to go through the auditor's office.
it would be as each transaction went through, he would be personally liable for those costs.
she would not approve anything that would be illegal, and it would be illegal to spend
public funds on anything that didn't have a public purpose. >> what is the definition of a public purpose in a generic sense?
how does noda figure out this fits the definition of public purpose or it does not?
>> generally, noda can speak to how she would personally do it. It would have to be in line with the public purpose for the department.
I think the flags are a good example, and we've talked about that a couple of times that he's already purchased them flags.
what came with that request, and it went to the auditor's office, it's not normal and customary.
it came to the cao's office, and we asked what they would be used for.
we were provided with a list of events that he planned on attending, and that he would be handing out those flags along with voter information,
information about voting or volunteering, all of which is the purpose of the elections department.
in accordance with 2-201, we approved that because there was a public purpose.
if he were to come in with an item,
say he wanted to provide stuff,
say in the jrf, he was going to buy them food, that's a public purpose for the probation department
and that we feed the kids that are in there because they're in our care and custody, but it wouldn't be a function of the elections department.
it wouldn't be approved purchase for him, but it would be for the probation department,
so it's two fold. How are we serving the public in alignment with his purpose for his department?
>> thank you. >> thank you, supervisor long. Ms. Bridgett,
is there some public comments?
>> chair, at the time, we have 10 speakers. First up is don duckett,
followed by gardner, then bev, then dolores lucero. If I called your name, please get in queue.
>> good afternoon. I'm generally opposed to subsidizing the fees,
especially under the claim that it would increase trust in elections because we're living in a upside down world here in shasta county.
four years ago, if you were to pull the citizens of this county about their top 5 issues and concerns,
trust and elections wouldn't even make the top 5. [background]
>> let's not speak out from the crowd. That's your first warning. >> it's not the election process itself,
but the actions of this board have changed that sentiment of the public.
public confidence began to erode only after the board repeatedly interfered with elections administration and ultimately
appointed a self-proclaimed computer hacker with no professional election experience to be our registrar of voters.
many of the individuals who previously promoted
election denial narratives are now working inside the department.
that is not how trust is built. When the inmates are perceived to be running the asylum,
lowering fees does nothing to restore confidence. This board has already squandered hundreds of thousands of
taxpayer's dollars, meddling in elections,
conducting unnecessary reviews, chasing conspiracy theories,
and undermining the very systems you now claim need public reassurance.
[noise] trust is not created by subsidizing data requests.
this june, when joanna wins by a landslide, this county will begin the process of taking itself back.
she will inherit a system that has been damaged and destabilized, and she will have the difficult task of putting humpty dumpty back together again.
it won't be easy, but it is possible. Thank you. [applause]
>> gardner, followed by bev, dolores lucero, then steve khan. If I called your name, please get in queue.
>> I'm sorry if I can get a point of order. Is it 10 or under where you get three?
>> it's 10 or over is two minutes, and then nine or under is three.
>> just checking. We need some money for flags,
here. What a joke.
this stunt, and that's what this is, a political stunt,
campaigning, electioneering stunt.
well, I couldn't go, I was told. Who told you you couldn't go to the christmas parade?
was it a legal liability issue? Maybe that, but was it because a leftist prior rov,
who's actually a communist, didn't want rov to go to a christmas parade?
heaven, prevent. This is a stunt, it's a joke, it's pathetic.
this guy has no credibility asking for money. You got to have some credibility.
he admitted that he's giving our voter rolls and lots of other information to trump's doj,
but will not follow up on a cpra explaining that.
he's got discretionary money. If he wants to buy some more flags,
he can get on amazon where he gets all of stuff.
fine, but this is a campaigning stunt.
to come before this board, even after county council has said, this is illegal,
what you're asking for, we can't really even entertain that.
it just goes to show he has disregard for law, for order, for the citizens and the taxpayers of shasta county.
this is an electioneering stunt. >> next up, bev, followed by dolores lucero,
steve khan, then david halligan. If I called your name, please get in queue.
>> we need to support clint in his efforts to have elections without fraud and unite the county.
he needs that exposure, we need to regain that trust.
the voter rolls reports should be affordable.
people need to see things for themselves, and not go by hearsay of these lies that they're told.
in 2024 election, both primaries and general,
I would look at the people that were invalid in the 2020 elections.
sometimes they were on the list, and then later on, those same people,
when I have to pay another $60 to get the voter rolls again,
they're back on the list. Then I even have it where they're not on the list at the time the election is closed,
but weeks later, they're back on the voter rolls, and they voted in the primary and the general.
there's people that were voting on the 2020 election, and now the history shows that no, they didn't vote.
that's not just happening, that is being manipulated.
sorry. [laughter]
the voting history was changed. Until we get valid elections,
we need to do everything possible to support clint. Why not set up a day where you can go in there and request it,
and here's your file. We know anything involving the government costs more and takes longer.
it's exaggerated. It doesn't take very long for someone to just put it in,
take it out, but do the whole bunch at the same time. You're walking over to the computer once you're getting the results. Thank you.
>> next up, dolores lucero, followed by steve khan, david halligan, then laura hobbs.
if I call your name, please get in queue.
>> I want to ask one question before I start. Are you the chair?
do we come to you for any questions if we need to have a question answered?
the reason I'm asking you is because I asked her name, stephanie.
I asked her if I could reinstate for me to speak in
an item because I got confused because both of them are almost the same.
mr. Larmour actually made the decision for me not to speak.
since when is he in charge of your decision?
>> I got to keep you on hour. >> well, I just wanted to point that out and put that on
record that he's making decisions for you now. For clint curtis to come up here and ask for money, it's embarrassing.
I am so disgusted with this man who actually three republicans of you guys appointed him to the election department.
then for him, he is actually considering doing an election airing because that's what it is.
the bottom line, he wants to get everybody to look at him like he's the guy who came and made the changes.
he came in and made changes. He's already committed a couple of felonies,
and we know he's a liar. He's going to continue to destroy our election department.
>> [noise] I actually, like I said, in the past, I did file a complaint against him.
if he wants to try to file a complaint against me, I'm okay with that.
but I'm telling you right now, he's committed multiple felonies because he has all the people who gather the signatures,
working in the same department like laura hobbs who actually filed a lawsuit, and it's pending.
you can't work in the same place that you file a lawsuit. It's prohibit.
it's criminal. It's a conflict of interest. You can't have that. He's doing he's breaking every laws.
>> next up, steve khan, followed by david halligan, laura hobbs, then jim burnett.
>> good afternoon, board, staff, who's left?
you can't adopt this resolution against the advice of our county attorney.
it amazes me that even though our appointed rov is apparently an attorney,
and apparently got advice that,
resolution was not correct. Still couldn't correct it to a point that it could be adopted.
the other problem is that it's also indicative of
appointing somebody as rov that doesn't have experience in,
massive experience in the elections. There's many things that are specific
and that I think take years of experience in order to do well. The other concern I had was that county funds
would be used in order to help him with his reelection desires.
I think chair kelstrom, did, limit things a little bit.
supervisor long also mentioned, we should be very cautious in those regards.
I trust you guys will keep an eye on that, and I'm very disappointed in his appointment as rov.
>> david halligan, followed by laura hobbs, jim burnett, then jenny.
>> r7. Take the following actions. Receive a presentation concerning county clerk election office plans for
public outreach and voter education. What did you hear there?
I didn't hear much at all. Mr. Curtis quotes on the r7 report,
cleanse the reputation of an office that sees the public as a nuisance.
stop playing the blame game, mr. Curtis. Focus on the present and what you can do to improve.
yes, improve all functions of your election department. The flag is the swag.
I get it, mr. Curtis. You quote. Without the flag, the presence of a booth or a table is really worthless.
the old adage, you got to have a hook clint? Supervisors. Mr. Curtis and his team should focus on the items for
the 2026 elections and not promoting your campaign. Mr. Curtis, you should focus on hiring, training,
coaching for the 2026 midterms, updating voter files, aligning existing voter data with the newly approved maps to
ensure every voter receives the correct ballot for their specific district,
and polling place changes. Voter education. Mr. Curtis, under the california education code,
rovs and educational institutions must conduct high school voter education weeks during
the last two full weeks of april to promote civic engagement among don't stop here, mr. Curtis.
you and your team should hit every high school in shasta county between now and may 31st.
did any of you up here really heard anything about high school and outreach?
keep benefits of high school voter registration. [noise] creating lifelong voters,
research shows that registered early and voting is the first eligible election
significantly increases the likelihood of becoming a consistent lifelong voter? Thank you.
>> next up, laura hobbs, followed by jim burnett, jenny, then tim saunders.
if I called your name, please get thank. >> good afternoon, board. Fees that are not directly proportional to services rendered are a tax, plain and simple.
mr. Curtis has stated that it only takes a minute to create a voter role. Why would you argue with him on that?
why are you nickeling and daming clint curtis? This has been going on for months now.
it's blatant micromanaging, which is a direct contrast to how you treated the former rov, kathy allen.
our former rov and election workers have been attending pride parades, for goodness sake.
nobody on this board spoke up against it then. This is hypocrisy in my mind,
and I want to speak to how important this data is. For the 2024 election,
we had 2,783 more ballots counted than voters who voted.
the only reason that we knew that was because we to get collectively purchase the voter roles.
this is not something that I can afford in my personal budget. I have to collect money from citizens so that we can
pay for these voter roles and actually look at the data. We should be able to see this.
we should have more people looking at this data so that we can come to these conclusions and have transparent elections.
right now, the fees are way too high,
and we need to have these voter roles on a regular basis because as bev gray described,
there's what they call vote churning, and this is where people pop on and off the voter role.
[noise] this is how they conduct the fraud. There is fraud, and what's happening now is they're hiding it.
the fee structure did increase. When I first started getting voter rolls, they were $40.
then they went up to $68. The fee needs to go back down.
we need full and complete transparency, and please support clint curtis in everything that he's doing
to make that happen because this is what the community wants, and this is how we restore trust in our elections. Thank you.
>> hey, laura. >> burnett. >> did you pay the $40 when it was $40?
>> when I was running, I had to pay $40 out of my pocket, but then over time for since we analyze elections,
we would collectively we would put money together, so I would get. >> you paid the $40?
>> we paid it. Absolutely. Thank you. >> next up, jim burnett,
followed by jenny, then tim saunders. >> good afternoon. I support the request that clint curtis has made,
mainly because he is, if anything, he wants a lot more openness and transparency.
plus, he wants to involve a lot more people in our elections. Elections should not be delegated to one person or one department,
but it should be a community effort like it used to be. That's exactly what he's trying to do.
I don't really understand the reticence to do that. Now, if people are concerned like chris is about electioneering,
supervisor long has mentioned, we need to make sure that those are very bright lines that
separate community outreach with electioneering.
that can be done. It's not beyond our means to do that.
please go ahead and give him what he needs in order for the community outreach.
I like the idea of of reaching out to high schools,
like david just said, nick gardner's been on this for months. Now, we ought to involve high school students in
the election process and get them involved for this lifelong development.
because again, most of us have been content to delegate elections to a department where we don't know who the people are,
and we don't have much transparency. One of clint's strongest points is transparency.
every process of the election system ought to be scrutinized and available freely available for people to look at.
all of this plays into his request.
I think we can ratchet down the fees for the voter roles because
people should be aware of a thing called voter rules and how important they are.
it's another thing we've just delegated to some bureaucracy,
and we need to drop out drop as much bureaucracy as we can. Thank you.
>> next up, jenny, followed by tim saunders.
>> I am not best. Thank you,
board for allowing me to speak today, as elections are a very important issue to me, and freedom of speech is not always the case for my family in this room.
I'm sorry, I do believe that everything this charlatan of a man is doing is electioneering,
whether it's passing out flags that he bought for what $1,000,
which I do believe did our county council already rule that electioneering is illegal in this area when laura hobbs ran?
the county cannot pay for campaigning, or is patrick jones's lawsuit for no reason?
like, what is he suing for if the county's allowed to pay for that? I, for one, want my taxpayer dollars used to actually improve elections,
not just smear campaigns on the past rovs. Past elections he wasn't even living here for. How does he know?
improve public relations, streamline your processes, make your process more clear to both staff and observers.
I still don't know where signatures were verified, and it was not observable. There.
>> next up, tim saunders, and chair, this is our last speaker.
>> good afternoon, members of the board, tim saunders, district 1.
I'm up here mainly because you guys have been going after this issue for several meetings now,
and it's really getting embarrassing. You're all adults, decide what's going to happen, streamline the process.
if nel that thinks it's 68, and the people, for example,
think it ought to be free, come to some agreement and get it done, please.
then, secondly, it was completely clear that earlier elections have been a sham,
and they need to be more diligently observed by the people.
I know you guys are tired of hearing this from me and other patriots,
but get your head out of the sand and do your own research if you don't believe it.
I mean, the doj is going after more electioneering and problems in georgia today,
and they'll be here eventually. Do we want to look good when they show up or not?
anyway, have a nice day. Thank you. [applause]
>> thank you. That brings us back to board discussion. Well, first of all, I would say rov curtis,
I do love what you've done there. I love the openness. I love the screens.
I love being able to see the viewing area, I think is spectacular.
you the securing of the ballots, I think is actually crucial and very important.
I want to give you kudos for a lot of the good things you have done.
now, a couple of things that you stated that, past rov offices didn't do any outreach.
I take a little bit of exception to that because, I personally went to west valley high school with
joanna and talked to two or three different classes of students while we were there,
and I mean, she did a whole presentation and whole and signed up new voters while we were there, by the way, too.
then also, I mc a diversity event in through the sc center with amorite singh down in anderson.
our county elections had a little booth there, and two gals were there, and they're handing out information and trying to get voters and everything.
the more you can do, the better it is. Fantastic. I'm only for that.
but, I do suggest dave did have a very good idea.
I don't know how much interaction you've had with high schools, but, a lot of those seniors are turning 18 or I've just turned 18,
and that's a very good place to get new voters. I don't know if you do any outreach with them.
>> do high schools and grade schools. >> grade schools a little young.
>> arda young. >> I guess, eventually, they'll get there.
looking on this, I guess maybe I'll let plummer and crye go,
but looking on this, we received their presentation. I don't think we need to adopt a resolution approving participation in community events.
you're already allowed to participate in community events. Of course, the nominal items,
you say they're flags, you're already allowed to buy flags to hand out at those boots and in those things.
I don't think we really need to do that. Again, the fee, I'm going to have to have some hard serious data before I
override and noda short and tell her that no,
her math is probably wrong because you say it only takes two seconds.
noda, would you like to comment on that? >> no. But I will.
just to let you know, have that is not one of the fees that we have audited yet, but it was submitted by his staff and determine that that was the cost currently.
I would encourage any department head, if you find efficiencies, recalculate those fees immediately and bring those back to the board.
I think we're obligated to do that. If they are effective and finding cheaper ways to do this,
I think we should bring those back in the interim and not wait 300%. >> you haven't done that fee study recently.
this is based on old data from. >> they submitted a worksheet last year.
they did update the fee last year, but it's not one of the five that we select. >> that you have it.
>> they do have mathematical calculations that support it that are on file that they're required to have on file,
but it's not one of the ones that we've. >> if you were going to do this fee study.
I don't know, my examples I was using, again, if somebody's sitting at the computer in that database and the and thumb drive,
it only takes a couple of seconds to pop it over there. But that's not how it works. When you walk into that office, you got to,
talk to the first person and ask for whatever forms, whatever it is, then you got to talk to the right person,
then they got to go to the computer, and I mean, you know, you may be in there 10, 15 minutes from the time you walk in to the time you're walking out with a thumb drive,
and you may have interacted with four or five different people. When you do these fee studies,
you take all that into account, correct? >> it would be a fully loaded rate, so it would include administrative overhead, is it?
>> I do think that we can probably lower it, clint, but you got to give us hard data.
you can't just say, it only takes a couple of seconds, and here's the thumb drives on amazon.
I got to have more than that to drop that fee. I'm all for dropping the fee, but we got to have an actual just number.
supervisor crye. >> [inaudible] I did have one other comment.
we did have a second version of that resolution floating around, which we brought today to correct a lot of the language that was incorrect.
obviously, the board of supervisors is not going to authorize him to participate in events,
but instead it changed the language so that it would allow him to waive 221 section d,
which is currently delegated to the cao.
there is a version floating around. >> you answered actually.
you brought up what my question was going to be. I was curious about when it jumped 40-68 because it sounds like
constituents or ms. Hobbs had been paying 40 and was totally fine paying that.
I was curious how it jumped to 2068, but it sounds like that probably predated your time,
mr. Curtis, I'm guessing. Might have been mr. >> it came with this last version in 2025.
I don't know how long it was. Before that fee was updated, we haven't looked into that.
>> from 40-68 back to five, there's got to be some number in there and like I said,
there's probably efficiencies in there. Maybe ai can get involved, I don't know. >> I would just recalculate the fee given the new process and bring it back.
>> anyway, that's it. >> anybody else? Any more discussion.
again, thank you for the presentation. Reading this now, the way I feel,
I don't know if I mean, there's again, you have the right to participate in community events.
you have the ability to buy small flags. They call them nominal items here,
but we're going to call them small flags because that's what they are. That also lets out anything else.
nominal items opens the door for who knows what. Until we can prove the cost on that data gathering on those thumb drives,
I'm not ready to change the price on those. I don't really think we need to in my opinion,
I don't need to pass any part of this resolution. >> chair with that, just as county counsel has directed before,
since there is action on the agen. Da, we would need to make a motion to either take action or not take action.
>> we receive the presentation. That's part. Well, then I'll entertain a motion.
>> I'll make a motion that we take no action on this item.
>> second by supervisor crye. First by supervisor long.
all those in favor. Aye. Say, aye. >> aye. >> any dissent? Passes five vote.
thank you. Rov curtis.
>> I believe that was the last item. Do we have anything else?
if not, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.