North State Breakdown - Agenda Preview for September 24, 2024

In this episode of North State Breakdown, we cover the agenda for the upcoming Shasta County Board of Supervisors meeting on September 24, 2024. We’ll discuss the Certificate of Recognition for a local hero, Valerie Ibarra, updates on Supervisors-Elect training, and the opposition to Assembly Bill 2642. We also explore the controversial Opioid Litigation Committee and why Supervisors-Elect won’t be on it, plus a look into tourism and branding initiatives and potential conflicts of interest, and the Public Records Act system and discuss the concerns surrounding the closed session appointments.

Link to the full agenda packet is here

https://shastacounty.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=3866&compileOutputType=1

Transcript:

Welcome back to the North State Breakdown with Benjamin Nowain. Today, I’m breaking down the agenda for the upcoming Shasta County Board of Supervisors meeting on Tuesday, September 24th, 2024. Let’s look at some key items you need to know about.

R1: Certificate of Recognition for Valerie Ibarra

First on the agenda is R1, a certificate of recognition for Valerie Ibarra, an Agency Staff Services Analyst. Valerie will be honored for her heroic actions on September 3rd, 2024, when she saved a colleague who was choking. The Shasta County under-sheriff even wrote a letter commending Valerie's heroism. Her actions likely saved a life that day, and the entire county is better for having people like her serving our community. Valerie’s quick thinking highlights the importance of those who step up in moments of crisis.

R2: Legislative Updates and Board Member Reports

R2 will cover legislative updates, board member reports, and a few significant items:

Conference Attendance Requests

1. Supervisor-elect Alan Long and Matt Plummer have submitted written requests to attend the California State Associations of Counties (CSAC) Annual Conference. This training is critical in helping them transition into their new roles by giving them a thorough understanding of county operations and governance. It's vital that the board approves this to ensure they are well-prepared to serve.

   
   

2. Opposition to Assembly Bill 2642

   Another item involves opposition to Assembly Bill 2642, signed by Board Chair Kevin Cry. AB 2642 is a bill that updates anti-intimidation laws, particularly regarding open carry of firearms at polling places. The bill, introduced by Assembly Members Berman and Gibson, aims to prevent voter intimidation. However, Kevin Cry, Patrick Jones, and Chris Kelstrom argue that it infringes on Second Amendment rights. This opposition seems more about making a political statement rather than addressing any real concerns in Shasta County, but it's likely to be passed, given the board members' track record.

   
   

R3: 2023 Shasta County Crop and Livestock Report

R3 includes a presentation from the Agricultural Commissioner on the 2023 Shasta County Crop and Livestock Report. This report provides an annual snapshot of the county’s agricultural output, which is a vital sector of our local community.

R4: Formation of Opioid Litigation Settlement Committee

R4 focuses on forming an ad hoc committee to recommend how to allocate settlement funds from opioid litigation. There was a discussion about including supervisors-elect on this committee, but it was ultimately decided against due to potential Brown Act conflicts. The Brown Act mandates transparency in meetings, and appointing citizens who have not yet taken their seats on the board could have led to compliance issues.

Additionally, Supervisor Mary Rickert, who has long been a strong advocate for mental health and substance abuse programs, was overlooked for this committee. It appears this decision was politically motivated, driven by Kevin Cry and Patrick Jones, and seems designed to harm Mary Rickert’s campaign against her opponent. The committee's decision will be crucial in shaping how the county uses these funds to address the ongoing opioid crisis.

R5: Tourism Promotion and Potential Conflicts of Interest

R5 centers on an update from the auditor-controller regarding requests for proposals on tourism, destination marketing, branding, and promotion services. The county is looking to spend significant funds on boosting tourism, which raises concerns, especially considering that recent plans for a jail were shelved due to a lack of funding. How does the county plan to boost tourism when it can't address basic safety concerns, such as the need for adequate jail space?

Additionally, there is a potential conflict of interest here. Nigel Skeet, who has ties to Kevin Cry through Valor Talent, is the founding director of the Shasta County Chamber and is reportedly in the running to be awarded funding from the county. This relationship raises questions about cronyism and transparency in county spending. It could be seen as an attempt to funnel funds to a friend and business associate, which would violate 5 CFR 2635.702, referring to the use of public office for private gain.

R6: Board Authority to Conduct Audits

R6 involves the board’s authority to conduct audits of county departments, a particularly important issue given recent concerns about financial mismanagement in Shasta County. The issue came to light after Rahsaan Dean, the former CFO of Health and Human Services, was fired after just two months on the job. Dean had reportedly uncovered financial irregularities within HHS that raised red flags, although the exact nature of these discrepancies remains unclear.

The proposal here is for the board to discuss using its authority to potentially conduct a forensic audit of county departments. The key question is, who will conduct the audit? It’s crucial that the auditor be independent from county officials and free from any ties to the departments they’re investigating. There are concerns that the board majority—Cry, Jones, and Kelstrom—might attempt to control the audit by hiring an auditor aligned with their interests, which could potentially skew the findings.

A truly unbiased audit is necessary to ensure transparency, accountability, and the integrity of county finances. If irregularities exist, the public deserves to know, and corrective actions need to be taken to prevent further mismanagement.

Public Records Act (PRA) Management System

The board will also hear a presentation on the new Public Records Act (PRA) request management system. While this system centralizes and digitizes public record requests, there are concerns about how it could impact journalists and researchers. Making requests and responses immediately public could tip off officials and undermine ongoing investigations before all the facts are gathered. While transparency is important, it needs to be balanced against protecting the integrity of investigative work.

Consent Calendar Highlights

The consent calendar includes several non-controversial items. Here are a few worth mentioning:

C1: Williamson Act Resolution

This is a resolution to suspend future annual considerations of provisions related to the Williamson Act, which offers tax incentives to preserve agricultural land. Each year, the board has had to revisit whether to implement or reject certain provisions of this act. The resolution up for approval would end the need for annual reapproval, following the board's decision in July 2024 to stop implementation for the 2025 tax roll. Essentially, this simplifies the process by only revisiting the act if the board chooses to bring it back, instead of automatically considering it each year.

C9: Authority for Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA) to Manage Job Postings

This item designates authority to the HHSA to manage job postings and recruitment software, specifically for platforms like governmentjobs.com, NeoGov, and Planit Scheduler. These platforms are used by Shasta County to post job listings and manage recruitment for various county positions. By granting this authority, HHSA will have more control over how these services are used to fill essential roles, ensuring the county can efficiently hire the staff it needs to operate smoothly.

C11: Amendments to the Shasta County Action Board (CAB) Bylaws

This amendment will streamline how low-income sector representatives are chosen and how members can be replaced for good cause. The definition of “good cause” has been clarified to include reasons such as repeated absences, refusal to participate in CAB responsibilities, or engaging in activities deemed disruptive or that present conflicts of interest. These changes were recommended by the California Department of Community Services and Development to improve board functionality.

C15: Transfer of Unclaimed Funds

C15 involves a resolution to transfer $29,688.61 in unclaimed funds from the Treasury to the Shasta County General Fund. Under Government Code Sections 5050-5056, unclaimed funds that have been held for over a year can be moved to the General Fund if no one comes forward to claim them. The county has made efforts to notify potential owners of these funds, and after a set period, these unclaimed monies become eligible for transfer, which can then be used for county purposes.

Closed Session

The board will discuss and potentially take action on several significant items during the closed session, a private, non-public meeting. Ongoing cases include John Patrick Kropholler v. County of Shasta and Dungen v. County of Shasta, as well as a dispute with the California Energy Commission and the California Land Stewardship Council LLC.

Of particular concern, however, are the appointments for the Public Defender and the Director of Resource Management. The appointment of interim Director of Resource Management Wyatt Paxton has raised red flags, especially given his ties to former Supervisor Reverge Anselmo and his involvement with the Red Raiden Blueprint. This appointment is seen by many as an example of cronyism.

Another troubling issue is that Paxton was the subject of a grand jury report in Trinity County, where he was found to have created a hostile work environment. This is relevant given recent allegations made by former Deputy CEO Mary Williams about the treatment of employees in Shasta County. Was the board aware of this grand jury report? If so, why would they hire someone with a history of creating a negative work environment?

There is also concern that the Public Defender appointment could follow a similar path. The board majority, led by Kevin Cry, Patrick Jones, and Chris Kelstrom, has a history of appointing individuals with close political or personal ties, which undermines the integrity of the process. The Public Defender is a crucial role that must be filled by someone independent, capable, and willing to stand up to the board when necessary. The concern here is that this appointment might be another move to consolidate power within the county's legal apparatus, raising serious questions about fairness and justice for Shasta County residents.

Participate and Stay Informed

The meetings are streamed online, and you can always email the Board of Supervisors with your comments or concerns. Your voice matters, and public participation is key to holding our local leaders accountable. If you can, attend the meeting at 9 a.m. at 1450 Court Street or tune in online.

And that’s the agenda preview.