Jan 06, 2026 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting

>> 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.

>> 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, BROOK, AND WELL DESERVED.

[00:15:06]

MOVING ON TO R2,

[R2 Receive an update from the County Executive Officer on County issues and consider action on specific legislation related to Shasta County’s legislative platform and receive Supervisors’ reports on countywide issues.]

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,

[00:20:01]

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?

[00:25:01]

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?

>> ANY OPPOSED? THAT'S 5-0.

>> 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

[00:30:01]

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.

[PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - OPEN TIME]

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

[00:35:05]

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.

>> NEXT UP, DAVID STARK, FOLLOWED BY DON DUCKETT, HEATHER MCFALL, THEN BRETTON HARA.

>> 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.

[00:40:01]

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.

>> MA'AM, YOUR TIME IS UP. NEXT UP, BRENTON.

>> BRENTON.

>> [INAUDIBLE].

>> 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.

[00:45:03]

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.

>> 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.

[00:50:02]

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.

[00:55:01]

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.

>> 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.

[01:00:06]

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.

>> 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.

>> 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.

[01:05:06]

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.

>> HELLO, SUPERVISORS. MY NAME IS DANNY SPAULDING.

>> KIM, THAT'S.

>> DANNY, GO AHEAD.

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.

[01:10:14]

>> 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?

>> 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,

[CONSENT CALENDAR]

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.

>> 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.

[C3 Approve the 2026 Chair's appointments and liaison assignments.]

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.

[01:15:04]

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.

[01:20:03]

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, 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.

>> DOES THE MAKER OF THE SECOND AGREE WITH THAT?

>> THOSE MEETINGS COINCIDE WITH EACH OTHER [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

>> AT ONE TIME.

>> OKAY. [OVERLAPPING]

[01:25:05]

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.

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.

>> GARDNER, COME ON UP. FOLLOWED BY DOLORES LUCERO, STEVE KHAN, THEN SUSAN WEISS.

>> 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?

[01:30:03]

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.

[01:35:02]

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.

>> 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.

>> 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.

[01:40:01]

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.

>> NEXT UP, BENJAMIN NONE.

>> WE ARE ONCE

[01:45:04]

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.

>> 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.

>> 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,

[01:50:01]

EVEN THE ONES THAT I'VE OUTLINED FOR RCRC.

>> KAT TO MY RIGHT.

>> SUPERVISOR PLUMMER?

>> 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?

>> 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?

>> 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.

>> AND SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

>> SS41. OKAY. MOVING ON TO C7.

[C7 Take the following actions regarding the Shasta County Mental Health, Alcohol and Drug Advisory Board (MHADAB): (1) Appoint: (a) Laura Tulledo-Jones; (b) Nolan Weber; and (c) Makayla Price each to serve a three-year term to December 31, 2028; (2) appoint Doug Nunes to serve the remainder of a three-year term to December 31, 2027; (3) appoint: (a) Doug McMullin; and (b) Christina McCabe each to serve the remainder of a three-year term to December 31, 2026; (4) reappoint: (a) Kalyn Jones; (b) Ronald Henninger; and (c) Jo-Ann Medina each to serve a three-year term to December 31, 2028.]

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.

[01:55:03]

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.

[02:00:03]

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?

>> AND SUPERVISOR LONG?

>> 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?

>> AND SUPERVISOR LONG?

>> AS IS 3-2. OKAY. MOVING ON TO R3,

[R3 Approve the 2026 Board of Supervisors' meeting calendar.]

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.

[02:05:01]

>> 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.

>> 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.

[02:10:02]

>> I SAY, MOTION BY SUPERVISOR CRYE.

SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

HE BEATS YOU TO IT CORKEY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?

>> ANY OPPOSED? THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT ON?

>> NO, CHAIR.

>> MOVING ON TO R4.

[R4 Discuss a 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.]

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

[02:15:01]

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.

>> 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,

[02:20:01]

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.

>> 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.

[02:25:02]

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.

>> 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,

[02:30:02]

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.

[02:35:04]

>> 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?

>> 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,

[02:40:02]

[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.

[CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT]

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.

[R5 Discuss Board of Supervisors and Elected Department Heads cost of living increases and consider providing direction to staff.]

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.

[02:45:03]

>> 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.

>> 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,

[02:50:05]

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

[02:55:01]

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

[03:00:02]

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, 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.

[03:05:05]

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,

[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.]

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.

NEXT UP, DOLORES LUCERO, COME ON DOWN.

STEVE KHAN, COME ON UP.

[03:10:01]

>> 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.

[03:15:03]

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.

[03:20:01]

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?

>> 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,

[03:25:01]

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.

[03:30:03]

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.

>> SUPERVISOR HARMON.

>> SUPERVISOR KELSTROM.

>> SUPERVISOR CRYE.

>> ABSTAIN.

>> SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.