North State Breakdown Agenda Preview January 28th 2025
This is an agenda preview for the Tuesday, January 28th Shasta County Board of Supervisors meeting. Key topics include a baseless presentation on climate engineering, the decision on a Mosquito and Vector Control District appointee, and the reappointment of a controversial Elections Commission member. Stay informed and engaged by attending in person or emailing the board at shastacountybos@shastacounty.gov.
Transcipt:
Welcome to the North State Breakdown Agenda Preview with Benjamin Nowain.
Today, we're looking at the January 28, 2025, Shasta County Board agenda.
This will be the third meeting of the year with Supervisors Corkey Harmon, District 3, Matt Plummer, District 4, and Allen Long, District 2 as part of the new board makeup.
Let’s break down what’s on the agenda this week.
R1 – County Updates and Legislative Platform
The County Executive Officer will update the Board on the current county issues and present potential legislative actions. Supervisors will also report on their recent activities and countywide matters.
R2 – Climate Engineering Presentation
Chair Kevin Crye is sponsoring a presentation by Dane Wigington on climate engineering and its alleged environmental impacts.
This presentation has been met with significant controversy. Wiginton, who previously addressed the Board back in 2014, is known for promoting theories about geoengineering that many experts and scientific organizations have debunked.
I plan to produce a dedicated episode of the North State Breakdown this week, providing an in-depth exploration of this topic and addressing the claims made by Wiginton as well as the implications for the community.
His documentary, The Dimming, alleges large-scale environmental manipulation through covert government programs, a claim widely criticized for lacking credible evidence.
This item will likely spark heated debate and public input. While some residents may see this as an opportunity to explore environmental concerns, others fear it could amplify unverified claims and distract from evidence-based environmental initiatives.
The Board's decision to host the presentation raises questions about the balance between free speech and the responsibility to prioritize factual, scientifically supported information and public discourse.
R3 – Shasta Mosquito and Vector Control District Appointment
The Board will consider three applicants—Philip Cramer, Richard Gallardo, and Ted Lidie—for a seat on the Mosquito and Vector Control District Board.
This item has already been postponed once, allegedly to gather more applicants.
As discussed in my previous Agenda Preview, Richard Gallardo’s candidacy has been particularly contentious due to allegations of violence, threats, and slander in the past, raising serious questions about his suitability for public office.
Ted Lidie, another candidate, is a firearms instructor with no clear experience in mosquito or vector control.
Lidie's potential appointment is interesting, given his recent attendance at a private meeting hosted by Chair Cry. The meeting, which Cry claimed, was held in the capacity as a private citizen.
This meeting focused on public safety issues, but excluded the general public.
“As a reminder, you can always go to my website, and tomorrow I do have that, I’m not going to call it a town hall, because I have a private meeting and what I’ve learned in this process when it comes to insurance and what you can do as an elected official and as a private individual and how you can basically do these things. If it’s county-sponsored, it has to be county-sponsored. If it’s me as a private individual, I just have to do it that way. So, if you want to register for my meeting tomorrow night, go to votekevincrye.com. You could register for it. You’ll get an e-mail confirmation, and it’s going to be very limited, 50 to 75 people, and it’s a small room, but we’re going to be talking about everything criminal justice and the various entities that planned it.”
As a side note, this meeting may have potentially violated the Brown Act despite Cry’s disclaimer. The Brown Act requires open access to discussions about public matters.
Now back to R3.
Philip Cramer, by contrast, brings years of experience in public service, making the decision to delay his potential appointment and solicit additional applicants highly questionable. The delay was potentially orchestrated to pave the way for less qualified candidates, such as Lidie, who may align with the current board majority’s ideologies.
This trend of favoring political loyalty over qualifications continues to spark significant public concern about the integrity and priorities of this board.
R4 – Shasta County Elections Commission Appointment
Patty Plumb is up for reappointment to the Elections Commission for a four-year term.
Plum has been a vocal figure in the election denialism movement within Shasta County, advocating unproven claims about voter fraud and inaccuracies in voter rolls.
She has also been seen actively protesting outside the elections office during recent elections, holding signs questioning the legitimacy of the electoral process.
These actions have raised concerns about her objectivity and suitability to serve in the Elections Commission.
Adding to the controversy, Plumb is a known member of the New California Movement, a group advocating for the secession of parts of California to form a new state.
It would seem that her allegiance to this movement could conflict with her responsibilities to the state and its existing electoral integrity.
Plum was originally appointed by former Supervisor Patrick Jones, whose term ended in December of 2024. It remains unclear who is currently championing her reappointment, but it is suspected that Supervisor Corkey Harmon, a newcomer to the board, may have taken this action as one of his first significant moves.
Plum’s reappointment would continue to fuel concerns about the commission’s focus and direction.
R5 – Election Commission's Actions Report
The Board will review the accomplishments and expenditures of the Shasta County Elections Commission, which has reportedly spent over $50,000 investigating baseless election fraud claims.
Over the past year, the commission’s efforts have largely focused on pursuing unproven allegations about inaccuracies in voter rolls and potential election fraud.
This has drawn criticism for being an inefficient use of the county’s resources at a time when financial accountability is critical.
Supervisor Plummer’s sponsorship of the item suggests a growing interest in evaluating the commission’s productivity and fiscal impact.
This discussion may provide a clear report card on what the commission has achieved relative to its cost.
With the county facing broader financial challenges, the board will likely consider whether the elections commission should be potentially disbanded or whether a reorganization is necessary to better serve the community.
R6 – Ad Hoc Committee on Homelessness
The Board will appoint one supervisor to the Ad Hoc At-Home Steering Committee, which collaborates with local cities to address homelessness.
The committee plays a crucial role in coordinating resources like Proposition 1 funds or the recent opioid litigation funds, creating a roadmap to how these funds will be used towards addressing homelessness and mental health issues across Shasta County.
The At-Home Steering Committee brings together leaders from the County of Shasta, the City of Redding, the City of Anderson, and Shasta Lake to coordinate efforts and allocate funding efficiently.
These meetings often go into detailed discussions about allocations and uses of resources, and they’re vital for shaping policies aimed at reducing homelessness and improving mental health services.
It will be significant to see who else is appointed. The new representative’s decisions and participation could directly influence the county’s approach to these critical issues moving forward.
Public Comment Period
The public is engaged to voice their concerns on any item within the Board’s jurisdiction or topics not listed on the agenda.
The period represents one of the most direct opportunities that residents have to communicate with their elected officials.
Unless a specific change to the speaking time is made by Chair Cry, as he has done in recent months, speakers are typically given three minutes to address the board, and while supervisors cannot act on non-agenda items, they can refer issues to the staff for follow-up.
Consent Calendar Highlights
- C-1: Resolution to remain under uniform construction accounting procedures, allowing the Department of Public Works to manage small projects up to $75,000.
- C-2: Approval of board chair assignments and liaison roles for 2025, which will define how supervisors interact with various committees and agencies.
- C-3: Appointment of Ray Van Diest to the Shasta County Public Library’s Citizen Advisory Committee.
- C-5 through C-8: Approval of agreements for mental health services, including amendments to the right education services, and a renewal agreement with Kingsview for wellness and recovery services.
- C-11 and C-12: Introduction of ordinances establishing no parking zones on 44 Drive and Old Oregon Trail.
Closed Session
The Board will discuss ongoing legal matters in closed session outside of the public view. If any reportable actions result from these sessions, they will be disclosed at the end of the meeting.
Here are some of the cases mentioned:
R-7:
- County of Shasta et al. vs. California Energy Commission.
- California Land Stewardship LLC vs. County of Shasta and its Board of Supervisors.
- Locke et al. vs. Sternberg et al.
R-8
- WellPath Holdings bankruptcy: This item was a late entry to the agenda and involves a bankruptcy case from WellPath Holdings, a company that provides health care services to correctional facilities and treatment centers. WellPath filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in November of 2024, and this case may impact the county’s contracts or obligations related to inmate health care services.
As I always like to say, it’s vital to remain engaged and to hold local leaders accountable. The meeting is at 1450 Court Street at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, January 28th.
Meeting in local governance is one of the most effective ways to ensure your voice is heard and your concerns are addressed.
You can email the board with your questions, comments, or concerns at ShastaCountyBOS@ShastaCounty.gov. Attending the meeting in person allows you to speak directly during public comment or observe the decision-making process firsthand.
Shasta County's future is shaped by the community’s involvement. Whether you choose to send an email, speak at a meeting, or simply stay informed, your participation makes a difference.
Let’s work together to promote transparency and accountability in our local government.
And that’s the Agenda Preview.