Mar 03, 2026 Board of Supervisors Special Meeting

[00:00:03]

ARE WE READY, MISS ANGEL? YES, CHAIR. GOOD AFTERNOON.

TODAY IS A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SHASTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. IT IS TUESDAY,

[CALL TO ORDER]

WE HAVE ALL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT, ALONG WITH CEO DAVE RICKERT COUNTY COUNCIL JOE LARMER AND FROM THE CLERK OF THE BOARD, MARCY, WINSTED, MIRANDA ANGEL.

AND IN THE FOYER, KRISTEN SMITH.

WE ENCOURAGE THOSE WISHING TO PARTICIPATE IN PUBLIC COMMENT TO FILL OUT A SPEAKER REQUEST CARD AND SUBMIT IT TO THE CLERK IN THE FOYER.

AS A FRIENDLY REMINDER, PUBLIC COMMENT IS LIMITED TO ONLY THE ITEM LISTED ON TODAY'S AGENDA, AND SPEAKER REQUEST CARDS MUST BE MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CLERK BEFORE PUBLIC COMMENT BEGINS.

WITH THAT, I WILL TURN THINGS OVER TO MISS ANGEL.

THANK YOU. THROUGH THE CHAIR, I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND EVERYONE IN ATTENDANCE TODAY OF THE BOARDROOM RULES OF ORDER AS OUTLINED IN ADMIN POLICY ONE DASH 101, WHICH CAN BE FOUND ONLINE THROUGH THE CLERK OF THE BOARD WEBSITE. THIS POLICY INCLUDES SIGNAGE RESTRICTIONS, ATTENDEE SEATING, AND OVERALL CONDUCT TO ENSURE BUSINESS IS DONE IN AN ORDERLY FASHION, AND THAT ALL HAVE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE AND PARTICIPATE UNLESS ADDRESSING THE BOARD. ALL THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE SHALL REMAIN SEATED IN THE CHAIRS PROVIDED.

STANDING ALONG THE BACK WALL OF THE BOARDROOM IS ACCEPTABLE, SO LONG AS NO PERSON BLOCKS THE INGRESS OR EGRESS.

MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA WHO WANT TO OBSERVE, RECORD OR OTHERWISE DOCUMENT A BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING ARE REQUESTED TO SET UP EQUIPMENT FROM THE DESIGNATED AREA ALONG THE SOUTH WINDOWS. SHASTA COUNTY REMAINS COMMITTED TO CONDUCTING BUSINESS IN A PROFESSIONAL AND ACCESSIBLE ENVIRONMENT, AND WE KINDLY ASK THAT ALL ATTENDEES ADHERE TO THESE RULES. WITH THAT CHAIR, I'LL TURN THINGS BACK OVER TO YOU. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MISS ANGEL.

AND WITH THAT, IF WOULD PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY SUPERVISOR CRYE.

PLEASE JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS.

ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. THANK YOU. SUPERVISOR.

CRYE. ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON.

WE HAVE ONE ITEM TODAY AND IT'S IN CLOSED SESSION.

[R1 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION (Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)): Name of Case: Jane Doe v. County of Shasta et al., Shasta County Superior Court Case No. 209919]

EXISTING LITIGATION. MISS ANGEL, DO WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT? DO WE HAVE 17 SPEAKERS? 17 SPEAKERS? OKAY. WE CAN CALL THEM UP NOW.

ALL RIGHT. WE'LL START WITH BEV, FOLLOWED BY CAROL, ANTONIA, DAWN AND THEN BRAD.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN THE QUEUE.

BE RESPECTFUL. GOOD AFTERNOON. OKAY. MY FIRST PAGE.

I'M SPEAKING FOR MYSELF AND NO OTHER GROUP OR ORGANIZATION.

YOU ALL WERE SUPPOSEDLY ELECTED TO REPRESENT US.

WE THE PEOPLE. LAWS CAN BE INTERPRETED IN DIFFERENT WAYS.

OUR COUNTY COUNCIL GIVES YOU ONLY THE INTERPRETATION THAT IS ON HIS AGENDA OR IS HIS OPINION. THIS SEEMS TO BE A PATTERN THROUGHOUT THE STATE.

PUTTING SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT IS THE ONLY WAY THAT WE CAN GET OUR INVALID LAWS CHANGED.

OKAY YOU'RE TAKING THAT RIGHT AWAY FROM US.

COUNTY COUNCIL NEEDS TO GIVE YOU BOTH SIDES OF AN ISSUE SO YOU CAN BE INFORMED AND IS NOT WHY YOU ARE. HE NEEDS TO INFORM YOU OF BOTH VIEWS.

OKAY. SO YOU CAN MAKE A LEGITIMATE VOTE ON WHAT IS GOING ON.

IT APPEARS TO BE DIFFERENT.

OKAY. IF YOU KNOW, IF YOU ARE JUST ONLY GOING TO LISTEN TO HIM, THEN WHY DO WE HAVE YOU SITTING HERE? BECAUSE HE'S IN CONTROL OF EVERYTHING.

AND THAT IS NOT RIGHT.

YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, JOANNA, AND WHEN SHE WAS IN WORKING THERE, THEY DID AN ALPHA DRAW, WHICH WAS TOTALLY ILLEGAL FOR A LOCAL ELECTION TO HAVE AN ALPHA DRAW DONE BY THE COUNTY.

OKAY. YET YOU PAID TO REPRESENT HER.

YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO REPRESENT SOMEONE WHEN THEY BREAK THE LAW.

YOU ARE UP TO REPRESENT SOMEBODY WHEN THEY ARE WORKING FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE.

OKAY. THESE DECISIONS THAT YOU GUYS ARE MAKING IS GOING TO COME BACK ON YOU GUYS.

OUR COUNTY COUNCIL WILL BE FREE AND CLEAR AND WON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING.

MR. CURTIS WAS NOT RUNNING.

OKAY. THANK YOU. AND LET'S REMEMBER WE NEED TO KEEP OUR COMMENTS TO THE ONE ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS NAME OF THE CASE, JANE DOE VERSUS SHASTA COUNTY.

THAT IS OKAY. THAT'S RIGHT.

I'M JUST REMINDING. I'M REMINDING EVERYBODY ELSE. THANK YOU. NEXT UP IS CAROL, FOLLOWED BY ANTONIA, DON, BRAD AND LAURA HOBBS.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN THE QUEUE. IT'S A LONG WALK UP

[00:05:05]

AND WHEN I HEARD ABOUT THIS LAWSUIT, AND THEN WE SAW THIS AT THE HEARING LAST WEEK, IT WAS JUST LIKE, WHAT IS GOING ON? ONE 10,110 VOTERS SIGNED THOSE SIGNATURES SO THAT THIS WOULD BE ON THE BALLOT.

AND THEN ONE PERSON, ONE ANONYMOUS PERSON HAS THE RIGHT.

SURE, THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO FILE A LAWSUIT, BUT THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT THERE WAS NO DEFENSE. NOBODY STOOD UP.

CLINT CURTIS, OUR ROV, WAS NOT EVEN GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED. SO IT WAS JUST LIKE, SO WE DON'T SAY ANYTHING AT ALL.

IT WAS A FOUR ONE VOTE, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THAT WAS TO REMAIN NEUTRAL. AND WHAT I THINK IS THAT WE NEED TO LET THE VOTERS DECIDE, LET THIS GO TO AN ELECTION.

THAT WAS THE WHOLE PURPOSE.

THE VOTERS WANTED VOTER ID, THEY WANTED OTHER REFORMS. AND NOW IT'S LIKE WE HAVE A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND IT'S GOING TO COST THIS IS GOING TO GET ON THE BALLOT SOMEHOW SOME WAY, BUT NOW IT'S GOING TO COST.

IF IT'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER SPECIAL ELECTION, IT'S GOING TO COST THE COUNTY $1 MILLION TO DO THAT.

BEFORE IT WAS GOING TO BE LIKE THE SAME BALLOT, SAME ENVELOPE. EVERYBODY'S GOING TO VOTE AT THE SAME TIME, JUNE 2ND. THAT'S OFF THE TABLE.

SO ANYWAY, I'M JUST ASKING YOU TO JUST THINK ABOUT WHAT'S BEEN DONE, WHAT YOU'RE DOING, AND THE STEPS FORWARD TO MAKE IT RIGHT FOR THE VOTER, THE VOTERS OF SHASTA COUNTY.

THANKS FOR LISTENING. ANTONIA, FOLLOWED BY DON, BRAD, LAURA HOBBS, THEN CHRISTIAN.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN THE QUEUE. THE VOTE TO TAKE NO ACTION ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE SUIT.

JANE DOE VERSUS THE BOARD.

AND CLINT CURTIS IS UN-AMERICAN AND COWARDLY.

LAMAR HAS SAID IN THE VERY BEGINNING THAT THE INITIATIVE, THAT THE INITIATIVE HAS ZERO CHANCE TO BE ON THE BALLOT.

LAMAR DID NOT ALLOW CLINT CURTIS TO SPEAK FOR HIMSELF IN COURT.

LAMAR THINKS HE HAS THE RIGHT TO GOVERN OUR COUNTY.

THAT IS CALLED TYRANNY.

YOU BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HAVE ALLOWED HIM TO TAKE CONTROL OF MAKING DECISIONS FOR OUR COUNTY. LAMAR IS THERE TO HELP YOU FIGURE OUT WAYS TO HELP AND PROTECT THE CITIZENS OF SHASTA COUNTY. HE IS ONLY GIVING YOU ONE SIDE.

HE IS NOT GIVING YOU HONEST ADVICE.

HE HAS NOT TOLD YOU YOU CAN.

WHAT YOU CAN DO WHEN THERE'S A CHARTER COUNTY.

GOT TO TIE THIS INTO JANE DOE VERSUS SHASTA COUNTY.

THAT'S RIGHT, THAT'S RIGHT.

OKAY. HE IS ONLY GIVING YOU ONCE.

OKAY. WHERE AM I? HE HAS NOT TOLD YOU.

OKAY. INSTEAD, HE HAS FILLED YOU WITH SO MUCH FEAR OF WHAT CAN HAPPEN TO YOU IF YOU SUPPORT THE SUIT. LAMAR IS FULL OF LIES AND DECEIT, AND HE NEEDS TO GO.

HE HE NEEDS TO BE FIRED FOR MISLEADING YOU.

JANE DOE VERSUS SHASTA COUNTY.

IT IS. THIS SUIT WILL COST THE COUNTY $1 MILLION.

IT IS GOING. IT IF IT GOES TO A SPECIAL ELECTION.

PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT ELECTION REFORM WILL BE DEPRIVED OF THEIR RIGHT TO CHANGE THE COUNTY CHARTER TO ENSURE HONEST ELECTIONS.

I AM TALKING ABOUT JANE DOE.

YOU JUST DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT.

NEXT UP IS DON, FOLLOWED BY BRAD.

LAURA HOBBS. CHRISTIAN.

THEN REMEMBER, IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN THE QUEUE. GOOD AFTERNOON.

ON THIS BEAUTIFUL DAY.

I'M ONE OF THOSE VOTERS THAT THINK YOU GUYS ARE DOING A WONDERFUL JOB.

I UNDERSTAND THAT, AND OFTENTIMES THINGS ARE DONE THAT I DON'T AGREE WITH.

BUT IF I SAY SOMETHING, IT'S NOT ON A PERSONAL BASIS.

MY QUESTION ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, AND I'M GLAD MR. CURTIS IS HERE TO ANSWER IT.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE LEGALITY OF THE PETITION.

I WAS APPROACHED TO SIGN IT, AND WHEN I ASKED AND OFFERED, I WASN'T GOING TO SIGN IT BECAUSE I DON'T AGREE WITH IT. BUT I OFFERED TO SHOW MY ID TO DO IT. AND THEY SAID, NO, IT'LL BE VERIFIED THROUGH THE CLERK'S OFFICE. AND YET THEY'RE SAYING IT'S NOT LEGAL TO VERIFY IT THROUGH THE CLERK'S OFFICE BECAUSE NOTHING ON FILE IS LEGAL.

SO EITHER THE SIGNATURES ARE GOOD WHEN THEY TAKE THEM IN OR THEY'RE NOT.

[00:10:03]

HOW CAN THEY VERIFY THEM THROUGH SIGNATURES THEY'RE SAYING ARE NOT LEGAL AND NOT VERIFY IT. JANE DOE. WE NEED TO TIE IT INTO JANE DOE VERSUS SHASTA COUNTY.

IT IS. IT IS TIED INTO THAT.

SHE'S SHE'S QUESTIONING THE LEGALITY OF THEIR DECISION ALSO.

THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU.

AND AGAIN KUDOS TO SUPERVISOR RICKERT AYE SISTER TOMBOY.

SHE SO EARNED THAT. THANK YOU.

UP NEXT IS BRAD, FOLLOWED BY LAURA HOBBS, CHRISTIAN RON PEMBER, THEN JIM BURNETT. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN THE QUEUE. A BIG THANK YOU TO JANE DOE. SHE REPRESENTS THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN SHASTA COUNTY WHO DO NOT WANT THIS VOTER SUPPRESSION MEASURE TO EVER SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY.

VOTER SUPPRESSION IS WHEN YOU MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT TO VOTE.

AND VOTER ID IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS.

IT'S A VOTER SUPPRESSION MEASURE.

AND ALL OF THE THINGS THAT ARE IN THIS MEASURE ARE ALL DESIGNED TO LIMIT VOTING.

SO FORGET ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ELIMINATING ABSENTEE BALLOTS.

90% OF US VOTE USING AN ABSENTEE BALLOT, MAKING THE 10% THAT VOTE IN PERSON TO SHOW AN ID IS JUST RIDICULOUS.

THAT'S DISCRIMINATORY.

THE MOST THE PEOPLE THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED WOULD BE PEOPLE LIKE JANE DOE.

JANE DOE IS A WOMAN, AND WOMEN ARE THE MOST LIKELY TO BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO VOTE BECAUSE THEY HAVE EITHER GOTTEN MARRIED OR DIVORCED.

AND THEIR ID DOES NOT MATCH, YOU KNOW, THEIR REGISTRATION.

SO THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND THANK YOU TO JUDGE HANNA FOR ISSUING THE RESTRAINING ORDER.

THAT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

THANK YOU, BOARD, FOR NOT PUTTING TAXPAYER MONEY OUT TO DEFEND THIS ILLEGAL MEASURE.

THE MISTAKE THAT YOU'VE MADE OVER THE LAST THREE AND A HALF YEARS IS GIVING THESE ELECTION DENIERS OXYGEN TO PURSUE ALL OF THESE ILLEGAL MEASURES.

VOTING LAWS ARE NOT MADE FROM THE COUNTY LEVEL UP.

THEY ARE MADE FROM THE STATE LEVEL DOWN.

SO FOR YOU TO EVEN ENTERTAIN OR, OR ENCOURAGE THESE PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, WASTING MONEY, MILLIONS SO FAR, YOU'LL NEVER MAKE THESE PEOPLE HAPPY. THEY WILL NEVER BE HAPPY.

THEY'RE STILL VERY, VERY BUTTHURT OVER TRUMP'S LOSS IN 2020.

NOBODY COMPLAINED ABOUT ELECTIONS BEFORE THAT.

SO THANK YOU, JANE DOE, FOR REPRESENTING ALL OF US BECAUSE WE ARE THE MAJORITY AND THIS MEASURE WILL NEVER GO ANYWHERE.

UP NEXT IS LAURA HOBBS, FOLLOWED BY CHRISTIAN RON PEMBER, JIM BURNETT, AND THEN MICHELLE.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN THE QUEUE. GOOD AFTERNOON.

GOOD AFTERNOON BOARD. THE TRIAL COURT TOOK THE DECISION AWAY FROM THE VOTERS, EVEN THOUGH ALLOWING THE INITIATIVES PROPOSED, HE WOULDN'T EVEN ALLOW THE INITIATIVES PROPONENTS TO SPEAK.

THAT'S NOT DUE PROCESS.

THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO DECIDE THIS AT THE BALLOT BOX.

AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING THE COURT TO STEP IN.

AND WE ARE APPEALING THIS DECISION IN ORDER TO IMMEDIATELY FIX IT.

HOWEVER, I WANTED TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THIS BOARD.

IT'S IT'S REALLY A TRAVESTY THAT WHAT HAPPENED LAST WEEK IN THE COURTROOM WHERE JANE DOE PRESENTED HER CASE.

AND THEN OUR COUNTY COUNCIL SAT THERE AND OFFERED ZERO DEFENSE.

NOTHING. THERE WERE THINGS IN JANE DOE'S LAWSUIT THAT COULD HAVE BEEN EASILY ARGUED THAT WERE FALSE, JUST FLAT OUT FALSE.

AND OUR COUNTY COUNCIL DID NOT EVEN ARGUE THE THINGS THAT WERE OUTRIGHT LIES IN THAT LAWSUIT, THAT THAT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN.

YOUR JOB IS TO DEFEND THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTY, TO DO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

AND WHAT YOU DID LAST WEEK IS, IS WRONG.

AND I SUSPECT AND WILL PROBABLY FIND THIS OUT LATER, IS THAT OUR COUNTY COUNSEL, JOSEPH LARMORE, COLLUDED WITH JANE DOE TO BRING THIS SUIT FORTH.

IT WAS IT WAS IT WAS AN AMBUSH FROM THE BEGINNING.

WE NEED TO GET RID OF JOSEPH LARMORE.

YOU NEED TO STOP LISTENING TO HIM.

YOU NEED TO GET OUTSIDE COUNSEL FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY ELECTION LAWYERS, WHO ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT THIS CONSTITUTION IN THIS COUNTRY AND CARE ABOUT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE AND OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED.

AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO JUST SIT BY AND WATCH IT HAPPEN.

THANK YOU. UP NEXT IS CHRISTIAN, FOLLOWED BY RON PEMBER, JIM BARNETT, MICHELLE COUNCIL.

ARE YOU MARRIED TO JANE DOE OR SOMETHING? WE DON'T KNOW. THIS IS CRAZY.

[00:15:02]

WE EXPECT TO KNOW WHO VOTED FOR WHAT AFTER THE END OF THE SESSION.

NOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW HOW THIS GOT BACK ON THE ON THE AGENDA, BUT I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ASSUME BECAUSE NOBODY SAID ANYTHING THAT MR..

CLINT, MR. CRYE AND MRS. HOBBS ARE DEMANDING THAT YOU.

THEY GET ANOTHER CRACK AT DEMANDING YOU DEFEND AGAINST JANE DOE.

AND WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? JANE DOE IS FIGHTING THIS INITIATIVE BECAUSE IT'S ILLEGAL.

I MEAN, GEEZ. SO I MEAN, HOBBS IS AN EMPLOYEE OF CLINT CURTIS.

OKAY. HERE'S OTHER FACTS WE KNOW ABOUT THIS CASE.

CURTIS CALLS YOU GUYS IDIOTS.

OKAY. CLINT, BECAUSE OF JANE DOE DEMANDS THAT YOU FIRE COUNSEL LARMER.

WOW. OKAY. CLINT DEMANDS THAT YOU DEFEND AGAINST HIS AND HOBBS INITIATIVE.

CLINT SAYS HE'LL SUE YOU IF YOU DON'T DEFEND.

CLINT SAYS NOBODY PUTS AN ILLEGAL INITIATIVE ON THE BALLOT.

SO SO SO WHAT? IF DEFENDING AN ILLEGAL LAW COSTS TAXPAYERS MONEY, WHAT'S MONEY? AND SO WHAT IF CLINT AND HOBBS INITIATIVE WILL END UP COSTING US MANY MORE MILLIONS SPENT? SO HERE'S THE DEAL.

I DON'T LIKE RED LIGHTS, SO I'M GOING TO BLOW THROUGH EVERY ONE OF THEM BECAUSE THOSE RED LIGHTS OBSTRUCT MY FREEDOM.

SO BY GOD, I'M GOING TO BLOW THROUGH THEM, GET TO A COURT WHERE THE WHERE I CAN GET THE LAW CHANGED IN COURT. THIS IS PATHETIC.

UP NEXT IS RON PEMBER, FOLLOWED BY JIM BURNETT.

MICHELLE. GARY OXLEY, THEN TIM SAUNDERS.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN THE QUEUE. MY NAME IS RON.

OKAY. HOW CAN A FICTITIOUS PERSON, JANE DOE A SINGLE PERSON, TAKE OUR RIGHTS AWAY FROM 10,000 PEOPLE WHO SIGNED THAT PETITION TO PUT THE MEASURE B ON THE BALLOT? SO WE CAN HAVE A FAIR AND BALANCED.

ELECTION. AND THEY JUST TAKE OUR RIGHTS AWAY.

I MEAN, THIS IS A FICTITIOUS PERSON.

SHE'S A FAIRY TALE PERSON, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

AND THERE'S 10,000 PEOPLE THAT SIGNED THAT PETITION WHO WANT TO PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT.

SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE MAY HAVE VOTED FOR YOU, ALL OF YOU SUPERVISORS, AND NOW YOU'RE NOT STANDING UP FOR THEM, FOR US.

AND SO YOU'RE TAKING OUR RIGHTS AWAY.

AND MEN AND WOMEN, I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE, AND I'M GOING TO SAY IT AGAIN, MEN AND WOMEN HAVE BEEN FIGHTING AND DYING FOR OUR RIGHTS SINCE THE FOUNDING FATHERS.

AND BY THE WAY, WHEN I WAS IN SOME OF MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS, THEY NEVER CAME HOME EITHER.

SO THEY PUT THEIR LIFE ON THE LINE, AND YOU MIGHT AS WELL GO OUT AND SPIT IN THEIR. SPIT IN OUR FACE AND GO OUT TO THE.

VETERANS CEMETERY AND URINATE ON THE GRAVES, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

THIS IS HOW I LOOK AT YOU GUYS.

YOU GUYS ARE PATHETIC FOR NOT STANDING UP FOR US.

SO HAVE A NICE DAY. UP NEXT IS JIM BURNETT, FOLLOWED BY MICHELLE.

GARY OXLEY, TIM SAUNDERS, THEN DOLORES LUCERO.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN THE QUEUE. GOOD AFTERNOON.

WHEN OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES CANNOT OR WILL NOT TAKE ACTION TO CORRECT BAD SITUATIONS, WE THE PEOPLE, ARE EMPOWERED TO DO SO BY THE INITIATIVE PROCESS. CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION READS IN PART, ALL POLITICAL POWER IS INHERENT IN THE PEOPLE, AND THAT'S ALSO ECHOES WHAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT SAYS ABOUT PETITIONING.

BUT ONE ANONYMOUS PERSON HAS STOPPED MEASURE B BY FILING A LAWSUIT WITHOUT ANY MERIT.

THE BOARD AND CLINT CURTIS WERE NAMED AS RESPONDENTS, SO MR. LARMORE WAS THEIR ATTORNEY, BUT HE WAS MANIFESTLY INEFFECTIVE.

I'LL BET MR. LARMORE THOUGHT THAT HIS STRATEGY TO TAKE NO POSITION, THAT IS TO NEITHER SUPPORT NOR DEFEND AGAINST.

THE JANE DOE LAWSUIT WOULD BE A CLEVER WAY TO STOP MEASURE B FROM PROCEEDING, AND HOPE THE PUBLIC WOULD NOT BE FOOLED BY HIS RUSE ENACTING TOTALLY NEUTRAL.

BUT WE KNOW BETTER, BECAUSE TAKING NO POSITION IN THIS CASE MEANS THE ANONYMOUS PLAINTIFF WINS THE RULING, ESSENTIALLY BY DEFAULT.

THE JUDGE GAVE MR. LAMORE AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO MAKE RELEVANT STATEMENTS, TO TAKE A POSITION WHO GOES INTO COURT WITHOUT ANY INTENTION OF SUPPORTING THEIR CLIENT. THAT SEEMS LIKE MALPRACTICE TO ME.

[00:20:01]

YOU BELIEVE HE CAN PROVIDE LEGAL COVER WHEN YOU DON'T WANT TO DEFEND THE PEOPLE'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PROPOSE LEGISLATION? THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THIS BOARD HAS INTERFERED WITH THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO PETITION, BUT THIS TIME IT'S MUCH WORSE BECAUSE NOW YOU'RE TRYING TO STOP THE 115,000 REGISTERED VOTERS IN SHASTA COUNTY FROM BEING ABLE TO VOTE ON THIS.

IT'S TIME FOR THIS BOARD TO STOP OBSTRUCTING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

THANK YOU. UP NEXT IS MICHELLE, FOLLOWED BY GARY OXLEY, THEN TIM SAUNDERS, DOLORES LUCERO, AND THEN LINDA GLASS.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN THE QUEUE. GOOD AFTERNOON.

I'VE BEEN VOTING SINCE I WAS 18, AND EVERY TIME I VOTED, I WAS ASKED FOR MY ID.

WHEN I CAME TO THIS COUNTY, IT WAS JOANNA HAD CHANGED A CONTRACT AND THE BOARD WASN'T AWARE OF IT, AND SOMEHOW THAT WAS OKAY.

AND THE SUMMARY THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE WASN'T DONE BY MR. LAMAR. AND WHEN LAURA HOBBS WENT INTO THE GOT TO TIE IT TO JANE DOE.

OKAY. IT IS TIED IN. WHEN SHE WENT IN TO GET THE TITLE AND SUMMARY FIRST, THEY COULDN'T FIND IT. AND THEN JOANNA'S RESPONSE WAS, WELL, GET AN ATTORNEY.

SHE WAS FORCED TO GET AN ATTORNEY TO GET A TITLE IN SUMMARY.

SO THE THINGS THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR, AND THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL BOOKS, BUT THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST RECENT.

IT DESCRIBES 14 DIFFERENT WAYS THAT THE ELECTIONS CAN BE CROOKED WITH THE ELECTRONIC VOTING. AND SEVERAL OF THEM WERE HAPPENED IN THIS COUNTY SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE.

SO YOU GOT TO BRING IT TO JANE DOE.

JANE DOE TO SAY IN COURT, I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT OUR RIGHTS IS SIGNIFICANT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. NEXT IS GARY OXLEY, FOLLOWED BY TIM SAUNDERS, DOLORES LUCERO, LINDA GLASS, THEN DAN, IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN THE QUEUE. AS A BUSINESS OWNER, I COULDN'T COME HERE VERY OFTEN EXCEPT FOR WHEN THERE'S REALLY IMPORTANT THINGS TO BE SAID. SO I'M CRITICIZED FOR NOT COMING HERE AS OFTEN AS I SHOULD.

I'M COMING TO HERE TO YOU TODAY BECAUSE I'M RETIRED AND I'M NOT WORKING ANYMORE.

BUT I'M COMING TO YOU TODAY, GENTLEMEN, BECAUSE TODAY YOU GUYS HAVE AN AWESOME RESPONSIBILITY. AND I'VE SPOKEN TO SOME OF YOU BEFORE AT THIS FROM THIS PODIUM.

AND THIS IS EVERYTHING ABOUT JANE DOE, CHAIRMAN.

YOU GENTLEMEN HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOMETHING RIGHT FOR THE PEOPLE.

IF YOU DON'T, THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF REPERCUSSIONS THAT COME YOUR WAY.

POLITICAL FIRST. CHRIS, YOU'RE UP FOR REELECTION AND I'M UP FOR ELECTION AT YOUR SEAT.

WHAT'S MORE IMPORTANT TO ME THAN YOU GETTING ELECTED OR ME GETTING ELECTED, IS THAT THAT MEASURE GETS PUT ON THE BALLOT.

THE VOTERS WANTED IT. IT NEEDS TO BE THERE.

GENTLEMEN, YOU HAVE A SHORT CALENDAR TO WORK ON.

IF THAT TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER IS NOT LIFTED BY THE SIXTH AT THE END OF THE SIXTH.

IT'S GOING TO COST THE COUNTY $1 MILLION.

HOW DO YOU GENTLEMEN EXPECT TO GET REELECTED? THAT'S THE DOWN AND DIRTY OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE TODAY, GENTLEMEN.

DO THE RIGHT THING. YOUR COUNCIL HAS MISGUIDED YOU.

HE DID IT ONCE, AND THEN HE DID IT TWICE.

THE SECOND TIME WAS. SHAME ON YOU FOR FOLLOWING HIS ADVICE.

THANK YOU. UP NEXT IS TIM SAUNDERS, FOLLOWED BY DOLORES LUCERO, LINDA GLASS, DAN, THEN CASEY.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN THE QUEUE. TIM SAUNDERS, DISTRICT ONE. JUST TO REMIND THE THREE PATRIOTS IN THE MIDDLE THAT WE ELECTED YOU GUYS, AND WE'RE EXPECTING YOU TO DO SOMETHING.

OKAY? THIS LAWSUIT WITH JANE DOE IS CLEARLY AN ABROGATION OF THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, AND YOU NEED TO CORRECT IT.

OKAY. SO FIND YOUR SPINES.

DO SOMETHING AND MAKE A CHANGE THAT REFLECTS WHAT'S BEST FOR THE PEOPLE, INSTEAD OF YOUR ATTORNEY THAT YOU SEEM TO WORK FOR INSTEAD OF THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. UP NEXT IS DOLORES LUCERO, FOLLOWED BY LINDA GLASS.

DAN CASEY, THEN KIM MOORE.

I'VE CALLED YOUR NAME. PLEASE GET IN THE QUEUE. JANE DOE.

CONGRATULATIONS. SHE DID A GREAT JOB AND IT'S TIME FOR PEOPLE TO STAND UP, EVEN THOUGH IT TAKES ONE PERSON TO DO IT.

[00:25:02]

BECAUSE IF YOU DEFEND THE LAWSUIT, YOU DEFEND THESE DUMB PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THE LAW. YOU WILL BE LIABLE TO ACTUALLY DEFEND CLINT CURTIS WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS BLACKMAILING YOU GUYS AND THREATENING YOU.

WELL, ELECTIONS ARE COMING.

SO WHAT, ARE YOU GOING TO BE BREAKING THE LAW? NO, WE SHOULDN'T BE BREAKING THE LAW.

AND WE SHOULDN'T MOVE FORWARD.

WE KNOW. LAURA HUB IS ALWAYS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS, MAKING FALSE ALLEGATIONS, ACCUSING OTHER PEOPLE COLLUDING BECAUSE THAT'S NOT TRUE. AND WHO'S INVOLVED WITH JANE DOE? AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW, YOU BETTER MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS.

BECAUSE I KNOW, IN FACT, THAT'S A LIE.

AND I'M TELLING YOU RIGHT NOW, YOU GUYS ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING.

AND I NORMALLY DON'T SAY THAT, BUT I'M TELLING YOU RIGHT NOW THAT YOU ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING, NOT DEFENDING CLINT CURTIS.

AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A SPECIAL ELECTION IF IT IF IT DECIDES TO GO FORWARD BECAUSE THERE IS AN ELECTION FOR THE CITY OF SHASTA LAKE IN THE BOARD OF OTHER BOARD COMMITTEES OR WHATEVER THEY ARE, THERE'S THERE'S AN ELECTION COMING UP IN AUGUST. SO HE'S A LIAR.

THERE'S NO IT'S NOT GOING TO CAUSE A SPECIAL ELECTION BECAUSE OTHER ELECTIONS ARE COMING UP. SO THANK YOU, JANE DOE.

AND I LOOK FORWARD TO COMING FORWARD DOWN THE ROAD FOR WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO YOU GUYS.

BECAUSE AND I'M TELLING YOU RIGHT NOW THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE WANT TO PASS A MEASURE THAT'S GOING TO MAKE EVERYBODY TO BREAK THE LAW, AND THEN THE STATE'S GOING TO COME IN AND ACTUALLY, IT'S NOT GOING TO EVEN GO FORWARD.

IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ACCEPTED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. I'LL TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, THERE'S GUARANTEE IT'S NOT GOING TO PASS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL.

THEY MESSED UP. UP NEXT IS LINDA GLASS, FOLLOWED BY DAN CASEY, THEN KIM MOORE. THIS CASE IS AN ATTEMPTED LYNCHING BY A COVERT TRADER NAMED JANE DOE.

WE ARE A CHARTER COUNTY.

WE CAN LEGALLY CUSTOMIZE OUR ELECTION METHODS.

THE SUPERVISORS REPRESENT AND 82,000 AND SHASTA COUNTY RESIDENTS 80%, OR 145,000, WANT VOTER ID.

THE BOARD COULD MAKE THAT LAW RIGHT NOW AND SHOULD HAVE DONE IT ALREADY, BUT SADLY HAVEN'T. SO OVER 10,000 RESIDENTS SIGNED A PETITION TO FINALLY PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT FOR THE VOTERS TO DECIDE.

IN THE LAST ELECTION, VOTERS WERE OUTNUMBERED BY NEARLY 3000 BOGUS BALLOTS. THIS IS A HUGE AMOUNT OF CHEATING TO PUT IN CANDIDATES AND DECIDE MEASURES.

THE VOTERS DIDN'T DECIDE ANYTHING.

THE PREVIOUS CLERK DECIDED FOR THE VOTERS.

LOOKS LIKE ONE J DOE. JANE DOE COLLUDED WITH THE BOARD AND THEIR COUNCIL TO PERVERT OUR CIVIL RIGHTS. CHEATING HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A LONG TIME.

PREVIOUS ELECTIONS ALSO HAD EXTRA BALLOTS.

WE DESPERATELY NEED VOTER ID AND UPDATED ELECTION METHODS.

THE BOARD MUST STOP VOTER FRAUD NOW.

BACK CLINT CURTIS AND MAKE ID MANDATORY.

THE BOARD MUST SUPPORT 145 000 RESIDENTS, NOT JUST ONE TRADER NAMED JANE DOE.

UP NEXT IS DAN, FOLLOWED BY CASEY, THEN KIM MOORE AND CHAIR.

THAT WILL BE OUR LAST SPEAKER. CHRIS, ANYTHING I SAY ABOUT LAMAR HAS TO DO WITH JANE DOE, BECAUSE LAMAR IS THE REASON WE HAVE THE JANE DOE CASE AND THAT YOU'RE OVER THERE FIGHTING IT. WELL, NO, THAT'S RIGHT, YOU'RE NOT FIGHTING IT.

NONE OF YOU WERE AT THE COURTHOUSE EXCEPT FOR LAMAR.

HE SAID NOTHING OTHER THAN TWICE HE SAID, I HAVE NO COMMENT OR NOTHING TO ADD.

THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO DEFENSE GIVEN, SO THE JUDGE HAD TO SIDE WITH ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT JANE DOE SAID, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE INCORRECT. THE PROPONENTS HAD AN ATTORNEY THERE.

HE WAS ON THE LINE AND THE JUDGE WOULDN'T HEAR HIM.

HE HAD FILED ALL THE PAPERWORK IN TIME, BUT THE JUDGE FELT LIKE HE NEEDED IT EARLIER.

THIS THING WAS RUSHED THROUGH. HE GOT IT BEFORE 5:00 THE NIGHT BEFORE AND WE WERE NOT REPRESENTED. ALL THIS COMES DOWN TO YOU FIVE.

YOU HAVE LOST THE PEOPLE'S TRUST.

WE ENTRUSTED YOU. WE TOOK 10,000 SIGNATURES.

ENTRUST THEM TO YOU. WE FOLLOWED THE WHOLE LAW.

WE DID EVERYTHING RIGHT.

WE HANDED IT TO YOU AND SAID, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT.

EVERYTHING ABOUT THAT IS LEGAL.

LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS BEING ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.

WE'RE CHANGING THE LAW.

IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL IF WE DID IT TODAY.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE CHANGING THE LAW SO THAT WE CAN DO IT AND HAVE FAIR ELECTIONS.

[00:30:04]

THE ELECTION PEOPLE 80% OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SAYING, WE'VE GOT TO HAVE VOTER ID.

THIS IS OUT OF CONTROL.

YOU HAD A CHANCE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

YOU DIDN'T. YOU LOST OUR TRUST BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T PROTECT OUR SIGNATURES.

YOU DIDN'T DEFEND IT. YOU HAD LAMAR SAY ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN DEFENSE.

YOU HAVE JUDGE HANNA NOT TAKING IN AN ATTORNEY WHO WAS THERE AND PRESENT AND ON TIME. YEAH, THERE'S GOING TO BE LAWSUITS. THE THE SPECIAL ELECTION THAT YOU HAVE NOW FORCED US TO HAVE, IF THIS RESTRAINING ORDER STAYS IN PLACE, IS GOING TO COST $1 MILLION, YES IT WILL.

ASK CURTIS, YOU GOT A SPECIAL ELECTION.

SHASTA THIS IS A COUNTY WIDE ELECTION.

YOU GUYS ARE SPENDING OUR MONEY FOOLISHLY.

UP NEXT IS CASEY, THEN KIM MORE.

HONORABLE CHAIR. AND MEMBERS OF THE SHASTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

THIS BOARD HAS HEARD HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS HAS HEARD HUNDREDS OF TESTIMONIALS AND EYEWITNESSES OF THE SHAMBLES OF OUR ELECTION SYSTEM LOCALLY STEALING THE VOTES OF OUR COUNTY RESIDENTS.

WHO YOU REPRESENT. YOU KNOW THAT IT'S TRUE.

I AM. I SPENT DOZENS AND DOZENS OF HOURS IN THOSE ELECTIONS, IN THE ELECTIONS OFFICE WITNESSING, WITNESSING IT.

SO YOU ALL KNOW. WHAT WE'RE UP AGAINST.

I'M ALSO ONE ONE OF OVER 1000 SHASTA COUNTY RESIDENTS WHO SIGNED THE PETITION TO PLACE MEASURE B ON THE BALLOT.

WE GATHERED THOSE SIGNATURES IN GOOD FAITH SO THAT PEOPLE COULD DECIDE.

YET NOW A SINGLE ANONYMOUS LAWSUIT HAS STOPPED THAT PROCESS AND THE COUNTY HAS CHOSEN NOT TO DEFEND IT.

HAS THESE THREE YEARS OF TESTIMONIES BEEN FOR NAUGHT? THIS SELECTIVE WILLINGNESS TO FIGHT TROUBLES ME.

THE BOARD HAS CHALLENGED THE STATE ON MANY ISSUES WHEN IT MATTERS TO YOU.

BUT WHEN IT COMES TO DEFENDING ELECTION INTEGRITY AND THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE ON OUR BALLOTS, THE EFFORT IS THERE, IS LACKING.

WHY ARE ELECTIONS APPARENTLY NOT WORTH THE FIGHT? FOR A LONG TIME, MANY RESIDENTS HAVE TOLD YOU DIRECTLY THAT COUNTY COUNCIL JOSEPH JOE LARMER HAS GIVEN BAD ADVICE THAT WORKS AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE.

THOSE WARNINGS HAVE BEEN REPEATEDLY, AGAIN AND AGAIN.

NOW, CLINT CURTIS, A MAN WHO KNOWS ELECTIONS INSIDE AND OUT, HAS PUBLICLY CALLED HIM OUT, LABELING HIS CONDUCT UNETHICAL AND ANNOUNCING PLANS TO FILE A BAR COMPLAINT.

HIS ACTIONS HAS CAUSED REAL HARM A LAWSUIT THAT TARGETS PETITIONERS AND BLOCKS THEIR MEASURE. UP NEXT IS KIM MORIN, CHAIR.

THAT IS OUR LAST SPEAKER, MR. LAMAR. MR. LONG, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO YOU WHEN THIS SCHEMING LITTLE JANE DOE SCAM IS FINALLY EXPOSED? WHEN EVERY BACKROOM DEAL, EVERY QUIET COORDINATION, EVERY DISHONEST MANEUVER COMES SCREAMING INTO THE LIGHT? JUDGE. DOES JUDGE HANNA.

ARE. DOES JUDGE HANNA KNOW ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL PARTICIPATION IN THIS BEHIND THE SCENES CIRCUS, OR WAS HE IN ON IT, TOO? OH, JANE DOE, COME OUT, COME OUT, WHEREVER YOU ARE.

WE HAVE SOME VERY POINTED QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

LET ME BE CRYSTAL CLEAR.

SO THERE IS NO CONFUSION.

WE ARE NOT THE VIOLENT SIDE OF POLITICS IN SHASTA COUNTY.

THAT DISHONOR BELONGS TO THE RADICAL LEFTIST DEMON RADICAL COUNTY EMPLOYEES WHO'VE BEEN STIRRING CHAOS AND HATE.

WE DON'T RIOT, WE DON'T THREATEN.

WE COME AT THIS LEGALLY.

WE HIRE ATTORNEYS. WE FIGHT BACK IN THE COURTS, ON THE RECORD AND IN THE PUBLIC EYE.

OUR STRENGTH. OUR ENDURANCE.

OH, THIS STUPID GOOGLE.

LET'S NOT YELL OUT FROM THE CROWD.

OUR STRENGTH, OUR ENDURANCE, AND OUR RELENTLESS PURSUIT OF TRUTH ARE TO BE ADMIRED, NOT FEARED, NOT SMEARED, AND CERTAINLY NOT SILENCED WITH DIRTY TRICKS.

BUT ONCE AGAIN, A FEW OF YOU HAVE PUSHED IT TOO FAR, TOO FAR. I PRAY TO GOD, BEGGING HIM TO EXPOSE EVERY SINGLE PERSON INVOLVED IN THIS DIRTY IN THIS DIRTY SCHEME.

EVERY LAST ONE OF YOU WHO THOUGHT YOU COULD IMPEDE US FROM CONTINUING THE FIGHT TO SECURE OUR ELECTIONS. WE WANT SECURE, FREE, FAIR, TRANSPARENT ELECTIONS, PERIOD. AND WE WILL HAVE THEM, EVEN IF IT MEANS BEING SUED BY GAVIN NEWSOM HIMSELF. THE MOST CORRUPT GOVERNOR OF THE UNITED STATES HAS EVER KNOWN.

[00:35:03]

WE WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, SO NOW WE WILL GO TO OUR CLOSED SESSION ITEM.

HOLD ON. TAKE IT EASY.

GETTING Q IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK. I'M GOOD.

OKAY. SO COUNSEL LARMER, THIS IS A CLOSED SESSION ITEM THAT WE ARE TO DISCUSS. THE JANE DOE VERSUS SHASTA COUNTY.

IS THERE ANY WAY IN CLOSED SESSION WE'D BE ABLE TO BRING THIS OUT INTO THE OPEN? THE THE BROWN ACT DOES NOT REQUIRE YOU TO HAVE AN ITEM THAT QUALIFIES FOR CLOSED SESSION BE CLOSED SESSION.

SO IF IF THE ITEM QUALIFIES FOR CLOSED SESSION, STAFF WILL LIST IT AS A CLOSED SESSION ITEM.

AND THEN IF THE BOARD WISHES TO MOVE IT TO AN OPEN SESSION ITEM, THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO THAT BY A MAJORITY VOTE.

AND WE WOULD DO WOULD WE MAKE THAT MAJORITY VOTE IN CLOSED SESSION, OR WOULD I NEED A MOTION OUT HERE IF YOU INTEND TO BRING THIS OUT OF CLOSED SESSION.

YOU WOULD MAKE A PUBLIC VOTE TO BRING IT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION.

OKAY. SUPERVISOR. CRYE.

WELL, I JUST WANT TO. OOPS, SORRY.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING BECAUSE I SAID THIS ABOUT, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE IT WAS A YEAR AGO. ONE OF THE THINGS, YOU KNOW, HAVING EMPLOYEES, THERE'S ONLY REALLY TWO EMPLOYEES THIS BOARD OVERSEES, WHICH IS THE TWO GENTLEMEN TO OUR RIGHT.

THEY DON'T MAKE ANY DECISIONS.

THE FIVE OF US DO. SO WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH HIS LEGAL OPINIONS OR NOT, ANY DECISION MADE IN THIS COUNTY AS IT RELATES TO THIS GOVERNING BODY IS MADE BY THE FIVE OF US UP HERE. SO I'M JUST MAKING SURE YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND.

BECAUSE I FEEL FROM, FROM THE, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF OUR EMPLOYEES, LIKE, YOU KNOW, AND I HAVE QUITE A FEW OF THEM, I DON'T FEEL IT'S RIGHT BECAUSE THEY CAN'T SPEAK UP FOR THEMSELVES.

JOE HASN'T ASKED ME TO DO IT, QUITE HONESTLY. JOE IS PROBABLY IRRITATED THAT I AM SPEAKING ON HIS BEHALF, BUT THEY DON'T MAKE ANY DECISIONS.

THEY ADVISE US THE BUCK STOPS WITH US.

SO IF YOU HAVE ANY ANIMOSITY OR ANGER OR VITRIOL, PUT IT TOWARDS US. IT'S NOT TOWARDS THEM.

THEY JUST ADVISE. AND I JUST FEEL LIKE I HAVE TO STICK UP FOR ANY EMPLOYEE.

BUT REALLY, I BASED IT DOWN TO THESE TWO BECAUSE THESE ARE THE ONLY TWO THAT WE HIRE AND FIRE AS A BOARD, AS A BOARD, NOT INDIVIDUALLY AS A BOARD.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND IT'S DON'T MISGUIDE IT TOWARDS HIM, PUT IT TOWARDS US. THANK YOU.

OKAY. SO COUNTY COUNCIL, IF WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION, THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT THERE MAY BE A MOTION MADE IN CLOSED SESSION TO BRING THIS BACK OUT IN THE OPEN. ULTIMATELY, IF YOU GO INTO CLOSED SESSION AND YOU DECIDE THAT YOU THINK YOU MIGHT WANT TO BRING IT OUT HERE, YOU WOULD COME OUT HERE AND MAKE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

AND IF IT CARRIES, IT'S NOW AN OPEN SESSION ITEM.

OKAY. SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO TELL THE CROWD, THIS IS ESTIMATED TO BE 30 MINUTES, BUT THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK OUT HERE AND PUT THIS ON OPEN SESSION. SO WE'LL SEE.

I MEAN, I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

WE BRING IT OUT BECAUSE I DID IT LAST TIME AND IT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

BUT IF THAT'S IF THAT'S A CONSIDERATION, THEN I'LL I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

WE BRING IT OUT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO RECEIVE ANY ANY ADVICE FROM COUNTY COUNSEL WHEN WE GO INTO CLOSED SESSION OR ANY DISCUSSION.

NO. OKAY. I'LL SECOND THE MOTION.

ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE. MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR CRYE. SECONDED BY MYSELF. WE HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE, I GUESS, STARTING AT MY LEFT.

SUPERVISOR. LONG? NO. SUPERVISOR.

HARMON. YES. SUPERVISOR.

KELSTROM. YES. SUPERVISOR.

CRYE. YES. SUPERVISOR.

PLUMMER. YES. PASSES FOR ONE.

OKAY, THEN I GUESS WE CAN HEAR THIS NOW ON OPEN SESSION.

SO DOES THAT HAVE TO BE ON THE AGENDA? IT IS ON THE AGENDA. IT'S ON THE AGENDA IN A CLOSED SESSION.

AND WE JUST BROUGHT IT INTO THE OPEN. WHO WOULD YOU LIKE TO START? WELL, I MEAN, I BROUGHT IT OUT JUST BECAUSE I DON'T I THINK I THINK IT'S A PUBLIC CONVERSATION. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF I MEAN, I'VE TRIED TO BE AS PUBLIC AS I CAN ABOUT MY FEELINGS OF IT. I STATED FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, I THINK THE MEASURE IS COMPLETELY FLAWED.

IT'S IT'S, IT'S LEGAL ON THE ON THE BASIS OF A LOT OF THINGS.

I'VE ALWAYS SAID THAT CARL DEMAIO'S CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BALLOT INITIATIVE IS A WAY TO DO IT. I'VE ALWAYS SAID THAT.

I ALSO SAID GOING BACK 9 OR 10 MONTHS AGO, THAT IF THEY GOT THE SIGNATURES, THEN THAT MATTERS TO ME.

I MEAN, MEASURE AYE, WHICH WAS THE MOST FLAWED, FAILED ATTEMPT AT RAISING OUR TAXES.

BUT THEY GOT THE SIGNATURES THAT WENT TO THE BALLOT. I MEAN, I COULD HAVE TOLD YOU THAT WASN'T GOING TO PASS. AND IT WAS.

AND THE CITY OF REDDING SPENT A HALF $1 MILLION ON IT.

IT WAS A JOKE. I MEAN, THEY LOST LIKE 70 OR 30%, BUT IT WENT TO THE BALLOT BECAUSE THIS THEY HAD THE SIGNATURES.

SO THIS IS FLAWED, BUT I'M A MAN OF MY WORD.

AND I SAID, HEY, I THINK WE HAVE TO PUT UP SOME DEFENSE OR WE HAVE TO AT LEAST MAKE SOME

[00:40:02]

EVEN THOUGH WE KNOW, I BELIEVE IT WILL PASS 80%, 70 OR 80%, I THINK THE ONE WACKADOODLE THAT CAME UP HERE AND SAID THAT NOBODY WANTS IT.

I THINK THE WHOLE COUNTRY WANTS IT. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO PASS IT AS A STATE.

I THINK THE ENTIRE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WANTS VOTER REFORM, BOTH SIDES. I BELIEVE THAT.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HOW THIS GOES TO A BALLOT TO SEE JUST, YOU KNOW, AS SHASTA COUNTY LEADS IN MANY OTHER WAYS TO SAY, HEY, THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE REALLY THINK ABOUT IT, BUT IT IS ILLEGAL AND WE WILL GET SUED.

BUT I STILL THINK WE HAVE TO STAND UP FOR THE PEOPLE.

THAT'S HOW I FEEL. SUPERVISOR.

PLUMMER. COUNSEL LARMER.

COULD YOU DESCRIBE TO US WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IN TERMS OF BOARD DIRECTION TODAY? SO THIS CLOSED SESSION WAS PLACED ON BECAUSE MR. CURTIS WOULD LIKE TO HIRE HIS OWN ATTORNEY, WHICH HE CAN DO AT HIS OWN COST AT ANY TIME, BUT HE WANTS TO ASK THE BOARD TO PAY FOR THAT.

SO I PREPARED THE LEGAL INFORMATION FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER AS TO WHETHER THEY NEED TO PROVIDE THAT ATTORNEY LEGALLY OR WHETHER IT'S A DECISION OF THE BOARD TO DO IT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED.

COULD YOU SHARE THE LEGAL OPINION ON THAT MATTER? YEAH. SO ULTIMATELY THIS THIS LAWSUIT LISTS THE BOARD AND MR. CURTIS AS A NOMINAL DEFENDANT OR NOMINAL RESPONDENT WHICH STATES ULTIMATELY THAT THEY'RE INCLUDED IN THE LAWSUIT FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES THAT THEY CARRY OUT THE MINISTERIAL DUTY THAT THE COURT NEEDS TO CONTROL, TO EXERCISE ITS, ITS JUDGMENT.

SO THAT BEING SAID, IF THE COURT ORDERS THAT THIS THING NOT BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT, HE NEEDS THE COUNTY AND MR. CURTIS UNDER HIS JURISDICTION TO CARRY OUT THE MINISTERIAL DUTY OF EITHER PLACING IT BACK ON THE BALLOT OR REMOVING IT FROM THE BALLOT.

AND THAT COMES FROM A CITY OF SAN DIEGO V DUNKEL 86 CAL APP FOURTH 384 2001.

ALSO CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE 9295, SECTION B THREE.

SO ESSENTIALLY THERE IS NO CASE IN CONTROVERSY THAT EITHER THE COUNTY OR MR. CURTIS NEEDS TO BE DEFENDED FROM.

THAT BEING SAID, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE BOARD UNDERSTAND THAT.

I BELIEVE THE COURT ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING OR CONTINUING THE HEARING TO ALLOW THE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST, THE PROPONENTS OF THIS TO TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THEIR OWN DEFENSE.

THAT IS ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY LAID OUT IN THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO V DUNKEL TALKED ABOUT BEFORE. AND TO THE EXTENT WE GO BACK, SORRY, WERE YOU SAYING THAT THE, YOUR OPINION IS THAT THE COURT SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED THEM TO HAVE THEIR ATTORNEY PRESENT A DEFENSE, RIGHT. WHEN THIS CASE CAME BEFORE THE COURT? HANNAH TOTALLY GOT IT WRONG.

HANNAH TOTALLY BLEW IT.

GROUND BALL THROUGH THE LEGS.

SO SO WE WE ARE WE ARE NOMINAL DEFENDANTS.

AND THEY ARE THE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST HERE AS THE PROPONENTS FOR THIS ITEM.

AND SO WHAT ONE OF MY REQUESTS TODAY FROM THE BOARD IS THAT IF THIS PROCEEDS TO ANOTHER HEARING THAT I BE GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO CHALLENGE ANY ASSERTION OF THE COURT THAT THE PROPONENTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO DEFEND THIS CLAIM.

BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S WRONG ON THE LAW.

AND SO I FEEL LIKE THAT'S A CHALLENGE THAT WE COULD MAKE.

THE OTHER PIECE THAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT HERE.

SO BASED ON THE FACT THAT THERE'S NO TRUE CASE IN CONTROVERSY.

I THINK THAT WEIGHS INTO THE, THE BOARD'S DECISION OF WHETHER YOU DO OR YOU DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR MR. CURTIS TO HAVE HIS OWN ATTORNEY.

BUT I THINK ONE OF THE IMPORTANT THINGS, AND WE HAD DISCUSSED IT BRIEFLY IN THE LAST CLOSED SESSION IS RULE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT 3.1.

SECTION TWO, WHICH STATES A LAWYER SHALL NOT PRESENT A CLAIM OR DEFENSE IN LITIGATION THAT IS NOT WARRANTED UNDER THE EXISTING LAW UNLESS IT CAN BE SUPPORTED BY THE GOOD FAITH ARGUMENT THAT THE EXTENSION MODIFICATION OR REVERSAL OF THE EXISTING LAW.

AND SO IN THIS CASE, BASED ON THE THE VERY RECENT RULING IN HUNTINGTON BEACH, AND WHETHER A CHARTER MAY BE USED FOR A CHANGE TO ELECTION ITEMS WAS PRETTY, PRETTY CLEARLY SHOT DOWN BY THE COURTS.

[00:45:02]

AND THAT'S TRUE TO THE EXTENT THAT THAT CHARTER AMENDMENT IS COMPLIANT WITH THE HOME RULE. AND WHAT THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CASE STANDS FOR, THE PROPOSITION OF IS THAT THE HOME RULE DOES NOT APPLY TO ELECTION ADMINISTRATION.

AND SPECIFICALLY AND WORDS HAVE MEANING.

WHEN THEY USED IT IN HUNTINGTON BEACH, THEY, THEY STATED THIS ELECTION CODE SECTION 10005 IS REASONABLY RELATED TO A STATE ISSUE IT ADDRESSES, AND THAT THAT'S AN ISSUE OF STATEWIDE CONCERN.

AND THEY LIST THAT AS ELECTION INTEGRITY NOT YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T LIMIT IT TO VOTER ID OR ANY SPECIFIC ISSUE, SPECIFICALLY ELECTION INTEGRITY.

SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I, I HAVE ADVISED THAT I DON'T BELIEVE THIS CASE IS DEFENSIBLE. I THINK THAT YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT A CASE THAT WE SHOULD DEFEND.

NOW, THE QUESTION FOR YOU WITH MR. CURTIS IS BASED ON THAT, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S A LEGAL REQUIREMENT THAT THIS BOARD PROVIDE HIM WITH HIS ATTORNEY AND PAY FOR IT.

HE CAN DO THAT AT HIS OWN COST.

OR THIS BOARD CAN CHOOSE EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED TO PAY FOR IT.

AND THAT DECISION IS YOURS.

SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE TWO DECISIONS. ONE IS AROUND WHETHER TO DECIDE TO HAVE THE COUNTY PAY FOR MR. CURTIS TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY AND DEFEND THIS CASE.

AND THEN THE SECOND WOULD BE TO AUTHORIZE YOU TO ESSENTIALLY, SHOULD THIS PROCEED, TO ARGUE THAT THE PETITIONERS HAVE A RIGHT FOR THEIR OWN DEFENSE. RIGHT. AND I THINK ONE THING THAT I FORGOT IS THIS THIS CASE IS UP ON APPEAL.

THE THE FINAL BRIEFINGS ARE DUE TOMORROW AT NOON.

THE COURT OF APPEALS MOVING QUICKLY.

I EXPECT THAT THE COURT OF APPEAL WILL SEND THIS THING BACK DOWN TO THE COURT TO TO DO THIS HEARING OVER AGAIN WITH THE PROPONENTS.

I DON'T EXPECT THAT, THAT IT WILL BE UPHELD ON APPEAL.

NOW ALL THAT REALLY DOES IS RESETS EVERYTHING, BRINGS THE HEARING BACK QUICKLY.

AND THEN JUST TO MOVE THIS ALONG, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THEN THAT WE PROVIDE YOU THE ABILITY TO LET THE PROPONENTS OF THE PETITION REPRESENT THEMSELVES.

SO I'M GOING TO MAKE THAT MOTION. SO I WANT TO CLARIFY THE MOTION.

IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE DOING THAT.

IT'S THAT IF THE IF THE COURT'S POSITION IS GIVING YOU PERMISSION TO EXPLAIN TO THE COURT THAT WE ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT THE PETITIONERS OF THE OF THE BALLOT MEASURE GET TO REPRESENT THEMSELVES, THAT'S MY MOTION.

OKAY. SO I'D ASK YOU TO CLARIFY IT A LITTLE BIT.

SO NOT, NOT THAT WE AGREE THAT YOU GIVE ME PERMISSION TO ARGUE, ARGUE, ARGUE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT THEIR POSITION.

CORRECT. WELL, I'LL SECOND.

YEAH. FOR FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO REPRESENT FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO REPRESENT THEMSELVES.

RIGHT. YES. THAT'S MY MOTION.

SUPERVISOR. I'LL SECOND THAT. AND THEN I HAD A CLARIFICATION ON THE THE FIRST PART, WHICH IS WHEN YOU SAY THAT ROV CURTIS COULD HIRE HIS OWN ATTORNEY, IS HE THEN OPERATING IN A PERSONAL CAPACITY OR AS ROV IF HE WERE TO DO THAT? SO WHEN IT COMES TO ELECTED OFFICIALS SEPARATELY FROM APPOINTED OFFICIALS THERE.

THERE ARE SOME CASES OUT THERE THAT SAY THEY'RE ENTITLED TO HIRE THEIR OWN ATTORNEYS.

NOW, THIS IS A GRAY AREA.

ON WHETHER HE EVEN HAS THAT ABILITY.

BECAUSE IT TALKS ABOUT THAT ESSENTIALLY WHEN IT AFFECTS THE CORE FUNCTIONS OF THEIR ELECTED OFFICE. THIS IS, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE CASES WHERE THERE'S REALLY NO CASE LAW OUT THERE TO, TO DETERMINE WHETHER THIS IS CONSIDERED A CORE FUNCTION. SO I DON'T, I, I ULTIMATELY AM LEAVING IT TO THE BOARD FOR YOU TO MAKE IT MAKE THAT DECISION.

THERE'S. THERE'S REALLY NO GUIDANCE ON WHAT THAT MEANS BECAUSE THE COURTS NEVER TAKEN IT UP. OKAY. AND THEN. ONE OTHER QUESTION, SOMETHING THAT HAS COME UP IS BEEN REGARDING WHETHER ROV CURTIS, IN HIS ROLE AS THE ELECTIONS OFFICER, CAN ESSENTIALLY TAKE AN OFFICIAL POSITION ON A BALLOT INITIATIVE THAT WILL BE ADMINISTERED THEORETICALLY THROUGH THAT ELECTIONS OFFICE.

SO THERE ARE AND THIS COMES MOSTLY FROM SECONDARY SOURCES THERE.

THERE ARE LARGE DISAGREEMENTS ABOUT WHETHER IT'S APPROPRIATE AT PRE-ELECTION FOR A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY TO DEFEND A PROPOSITION OR MEASURE OR CHARTER AMENDMENT THAT WASN'T

[00:50:06]

THERE'S THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENT ISSUES IN THAT YOU WOULD BE THE ONLY APPROPRIATE PARTY TO DEFEND IT AT THAT TIME.

AND THE DISAGREEMENT UP AND DOWN THE STATE.

AND AGAIN, THESE ARE THESE ARE ACTUALLY PRETTY RARE.

YOU DON'T SEE A LOT OF THESE.

THE, THE ARGUMENT PRE-ELECTION IS THAT THE ELECTORATE AT THAT POINT HASN'T SPOKEN.

AND YOU HAVE A SMALL SAMPLING OF THE ELECTORATE WHO SIGNED.

AND SO TO EXPEND COUNTY FUNDS TO DEFEND IT AT THAT TIME A MAJORITY OF.

OF THE AGENCIES IN CALIFORNIA TEND TO SAY NO.

THERE ARE SOME THAT SAY YES.

WHEN YOU GET TO POST ELECTION HAVING A MEASURE THAT'S PASSED, THERE'S PRETTY. THERE'S SOME CONSISTENCY THAT AGENCIES FEEL AT THAT POINT.

THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE AUTHORITY OF THE VOTERS TO DEFEND A MEASURE.

NOW THERE'S ANOTHER PIECE OF THAT THAT YOU'RE ASKING, WHICH ISN'T, WHICH DOESN'T HAVE TO DO WITH THE LITIGATION, WHICH IS NO, A COUNTY CANNOT ACTIVELY TAKE A POSITION TO SUPPORT OR TRY TO DEFEAT A MEASURE. WITH THE LIMITED EXCEPTION OF WHEN THE BOARD OR COUNCIL PLACES, PLACES IT ON THEMSELVES, BUT THEN EVEN STILL THEIR MORE RESTRICTED THAN THAN THE PROPONENTS ARE CITIZENS IN THAT YOU CAN PROMOTE IT IN THE GUIDES, BUT HAS TO BE FACTUAL INFORMATION, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME OTHER RESTRICTIONS.

SO, SO THE ANSWER IS NEITHER THE BOARD NOR MR. CURTIS SHOULD BE EITHER PUSHING FOR OR AGAINST IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY.

A MEASURE THERE IS NO CASE LAW TO SAY THAT IT'S ILLEGAL TO DO IT.

AND SO THOSE SECONDARY SOURCES AS TO WHAT THE OPINIONS OF THE OTHER AGENCIES AND, AND HOW THAT ISSUE HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY SCHOLARS.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SUPERVISOR LONG, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE, A MOTION BY MADE BY SUPERVISOR CRYE, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR.

PLUMMER. WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE THAT VOTE FIRST BEFORE YOU SPEAK.

OR DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK BEFOREHAND? NO, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK FIRST. OKAY. GO AHEAD.

THANK YOU. CHAIR. MR. LARAMORE, WHAT? I UNDERSTOOD THE AGENDIZED PURPOSE OF OUR CLOSED SESSION MEETING, WHICH IS NOW IN OPEN PUBLIC HERE.

IT WAS SIMPLY TO DECIDE ONE ISSUE, WHICH WAS WHETHER MR. CURTIS WOULD HAVE AN ATTORNEY APPOINTED AND PAID FOR BY THE BOARD, OR WHETHER NOT TO. AND WE WERE GOING TO HEAR FROM MR. CURTIS AND MAKE HIS PITCH.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S GOING TO CONTINUE TO HAPPEN HERE NOW THAT WE'RE IN OPEN FOR THIS DISCUSSION. AND THE SECOND THING WOULD BE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HAVING YOU PRESENT TO THE COURT ACCORDING TO THIS LATEST MOTION, THAT'S NOT AGENDIZED THAT THAT DECISION WOULD BE MADE.

IS THAT THE CASE AS A WHOLE IS AGENDIZED AND ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE RELATED TO THE CASE ARE OPEN. SO THIS MOTION THAT HAS BEEN ADVANCED HERE WOULD BE ALLOWED FOR US TO.

HAVE YOU APPROACH THE COURT AND SAY THAT THEY CAN THE PETITIONERS CAN DEFEND THEIR OWN CASE. ANY DISCUSSION OR DIRECTION FROM THIS BOARD RELATED TO THIS LITIGATION IS IS APPROPRIATE. OKAY. OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

AND THE NEXT WOULD BE, I HEARD YOU TO SAY THAT THERE IS NO DEFENSE FOR THIS BECAUSE THE IT'S CONSIDERED ILLEGAL ON THE FACE OF IT UNDER CALIFORNIA ELECTION LAW. SO YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PRESENT A DEFENSE IS WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING.

CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THAT A LITTLE BIT? BASED ON MY READING OF THE LAW AS IT STANDS TODAY AND MY ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS AS AN ATTORNEY, I COULD NOT GO IN AND ARGUE THAT THE LAW IS SOMETHING THAT IT'S NOT OKAY.

AND CAN YOU. CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT THAT ONE POINT THAT YOU MADE, WHICH WAS THAT. OOPS, SORRY.

COULD YOU CLARIFY THAT ONE POINT THAT YOU MADE, WHICH WOULD BE, WHICH WOULD PROHIBIT YOU FROM GOING INTO COURT TO DEFEND SOMETHING THAT YOU KNEW ON THE FACE OF IT WAS NOT LAWFUL.

AND WHAT WHAT WAS THAT POINT YOU MADE? CALIFORNIA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT 3.1.

[00:55:01]

I THINK ONE OF THE MISCONCEPTIONS HERE, AND I THINK THE JUDGE HAD THE MISCONCEPTION THAT THE COUNTY HAS A ROLE IN, IN DEFENDING THIS THING AND IS NOT JUST A NOMINAL DEFENDANT. AND SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF THE COURT'S THINKING IS THAT COUNTY COUNSEL IS EITHER THE ONE WHO WOULD DEFEND THIS OR THERE IS NO DEFENSE THAT THAT BE CLEARED UP, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S INAPPROPRIATE FOR THEM NOT TO HAVE THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT A CASE.

NOW, WHETHER THEIR ATTORNEY FEELS THE SAME ABOUT THE ETHICAL RULES AS I DO, THAT'S HIS CHOICE. OKAY.

SO, SO YOUR POSITION THEN, IS THAT THE COURT FELT THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD BE DEFENDING THIS, EVEN IF THERE IS NO LEGAL DEFENSE.

YEAH, HE MADE SOME HE MADE A STATEMENT IN, IN GENERAL THAT ULTIMATELY WITH NO WITH NO OTHER SIDE OF THIS, HE'S ONLY GOING TO CONSIDER WHAT HE'S GOT, WHICH IS APPROPRIATE. BUT IT ALSO SEEMED AS IF HE FELT LIKE THE COUNTY WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE PARTY TO ARGUE THIS.

AND I THINK WE'RE SITTING IN A NOMINAL POSITION AND THEY'RE THE APPROPRIATE PARTY.

THEY EVEN IF WE DON'T ARGUE, THEY SHOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY.

OKAY. AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT JANE DOE HAS COME FORWARD PER COURT ORDER WITHIN THE FIVE DAYS AND IDENTIFIED HERSELF.

IS THAT ACCURATE? THAT'S CORRECT.

SHE FILED HER AMENDED COMPLAINT OR AMENDED PETITION LAST NIGHT.

OKAY. AND SO SHE HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED.

SO THE POINT THAT SHE'S REMAINING ANONYMOUS AND THE FACT THAT SHE'S BEEN IDENTIFIED AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT, IS THAT LIKELY TO CAUSE THE JUDGE TO IS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION THAT THE JUDGE WILL MAKE THAT ORDER PERMANENT, OR IS IT WAS IT JUST TEMPORARY IN YOUR OPINION, NOW THAT WE WOULD PRESENT DEFENSE SOMEWHAT.

AND THAT SHE'S BEEN IDENTIFIED.

I'M I'M NOT I'M NOT SURE THAT'S I'M NOT SURE THAT I SEE THE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE TWO.

I DON'T I DON'T SEE THAT THE LITIGATION WOULD CHANGE IN ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY.

WHETHER SHE REMAINED JANE DOE OR HER NAME BECAME KNOWN.

OKAY. AND YEAH, I KNOW, I KNOW, THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT I'M BRINGING OUT BECAUSE A LOT OF THE SPEAKERS WERE SAYING THAT SHE'S AN ANONYMOUS AND THAT'S NOT TRUE.

SO MY, MY LAST QUESTION IS, DO YOU HAVE A LEGAL RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS BOARD BASED ON YOUR EXPERTISE AS TO HOW WE SHOULD PROCEED FROM HERE? I GUESS I WOULD ASK, IS THAT RELATED TO THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE TABLE, PROVIDING AND PAYING FOR AN ATTORNEY FOR MR. CURTIS OR THE LITIGATION AS A WHOLE.

OKAY. LET'S LET'S TAKE IT IN TWO PARTS.

SO ADDRESS THE ISSUE ABOUT WHETHER THE COUNTY SHOULD PAY FOR MR. CURTIS'S COUNSEL TO DEFEND.

SO I WILL ONLY GO AS FAR AS WHAT THE LAW SAYS.

I DON'T THINK BASED ON THE FACTS AS THEY EXIST, THAT THERE IS A LEGAL REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE IT.

BUT HAVING SAID THAT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THERE IS A LEGAL REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE IT OR NOT, THE BOARD CAN STILL CHOOSE TO PROVIDE AND PAY FOR THAT ATTORNEY. OKAY.

AND HOW ABOUT THE SECOND PART, THE LITIGATION AS A WHOLE? YES. I THINK THE COUNTY SHOULD CONTINUE TO STAY THE COURSE.

STAY THE COURSE, WHICH WAS NOT TO DEFEND.

BUT IF WE GRANTED THIS MOTION, THAT WOULD BE YOU WOULD GO IN THERE INTO THE COURT FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF.

SAYING THAT PETITIONERS CAN HAVE THEIR OWN COUNSEL.

IF THAT CONTINUES TO BE AN ISSUE, LIKE I SAID, IT'S. IT'S CURRENTLY ON APPEAL.

I EXPECT THAT IT'S GOING TO BE OVERTURNED ON APPEAL WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THE COURT HEAR IT AGAIN WITH THEIR COUNSEL PRESENT, AT WHICH POINT WHAT I'M ASKING YOU FOR ISN'T NECESSARY. BUT UNTIL WE HAVE A RULING AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT, I'M JUST ASKING FOR THE FLEXIBILITY AND TO STAY THE COURSE IS WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING.

WITH THAT CAVEAT OF THE CHANGE THAT YOU NOW HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FOR.

OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY.

SO BEFORE WE TAKE THE VOTE, I'LL JUST GET MY PERSONAL THOUGHTS OUT HERE.

[01:00:04]

WITH THAT BEING SAID, YOU GUYS COLLECTED 10,000 SIGNATURES.

YOU KNOW, THOSE PEOPLE, A LOT OF THOSE PEOPLE WERE PROBABLY TOLD THAT THAT'S GOING TO HOLD MORE WATER THAN IN MY OPINION, IT'S GOING TO HOLD. I THINK THAT IF THIS THING WERE TO GET ON THE BALLOT AND IT WERE TO PASS BY THE VOTERS, I THINK WE'D IMMEDIATELY GET SUED, JUST LIKE HUNTINGTON BEACH DID.

AND I DON'T REALLY THINK IT WOULD EVER SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY. I ALSO EXPLAINED TO YOU AT THE TIME THAT IF YOU WANTED TO COMPLETELY COPY HUNTINGTON BEACH, REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA PASSED ANOTHER LAW SAYING THAT YOU CAN'T COPY HUNTINGTON BEACH, NO OTHER CITY OR COUNTY CAN DO THAT.

SO LET'S JUST THROW THAT OUT THE WINDOW AND SAY, THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. IF YOU WANTED TO COPY HUNTINGTON BEACH, YOU WOULD HAVE TO BREAK OUT THE COUNTY ELECTIONS, AND YOU'D ONLY BE ABLE TO ASK FOR ID ON THOSE COUNTY ELECTIONS.

YOU'D STILL HAVE THE STATES, THE FEDS, THE CITIES ALL GO ON TO A DIFFERENT BALLOT THAT YOU COULD NOT ASK FOR ID FOR.

AND I EXPLAINED TO YOU MY THOUGHTS AT THE TIME.

IF YOU WANTED TO TRULY COPY HUNTINGTON BEACH, THAT'S FINE. WE'D HAVE TO PRINT TWO TWO SEPARATE BALLOTS, ONE FOR COUNTY RACES AND ONE FOR STATE, FEDERAL AND CITY RACES AND AND SCHOOL BOARDS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. AND THEN THAT WOULD PROBABLY COST THE VOTERS, IN MY ESTIMATION, 2 TO $3 MILLION.

AND AGAIN, I SAID, IF YOU CAN SELL THAT TO THE PUBLIC. AND JOHN Q PUBLIC SAYS, YEAH, IT'S WORTH $3 MILLION TO HAVE A SEPARATE BALLOT FOR SIX RACES IN THE COUNTY, THEN SO BE IT. THAT WOULD BE WHAT THE PEOPLE WANTED.

OKAY. SO I EXPLAINED TO YOU MY THOUGHTS ON THE WHOLE THING.

CARL DEMAIO WAS DOING IT THE CORRECT WAY.

CARL DEMAIO WAS DOING IT ON THE STATE LEVEL.

I SIGNED THE PETITION THAT CARL DEMAIO HAS.

I FULLY SUPPORT THE PETITION THAT CARL DEMAIO HAS.

I WILL BE VOTING YES FOR THAT WHEN IT GETS ON THE ELECTION IN NOVEMBER.

I AM ABSOLUTELY ALL FOR VOTER ID.

I WARNED YOU THIS WAS NOT THE WAY YOU GO ABOUT DOING THINGS.

SOME OF YOU WERE EVEN ASKED AT THE BEGINNING, WHY DON'T YOU JUST JOIN CARL DEMAIO CAUSE AND COLLECT THOSE SIGNATURES ON HIS BEHALF TO OVERTURN THIS AT THE STATE LEVEL, WHERE IT SHOULD BE OVERTURNED.

SO WE ARE WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

WHEN THIS TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WAS FILED.

I WAS ONE OF FOUR THAT SAID, I'VE BEEN SAYING THAT THIS IS GOING TO DO NOTHING BUT GET US INTO A LAWSUIT.

SO LET'S STAND BACK AND LET THE COURTS DECIDE.

AND THAT'S WHAT THIS BOARD AS A MAJORITY DID.

THAT'S WHAT WE INSTRUCTED JOSEPH LARMOR TO DO.

HE GAVE US THE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS.

HE EXPLAINED IT ALL TO US.

THIS IS WHERE WE'RE SITTING. THIS IS WHAT YOU CAN DO. THIS IS WHAT WE YOU KNOW, HE NEVER TOLD US WHAT WE SHOULD DO OR WHAT HE WANTED US TO DO.

HE JUST EXPLAINED THE LAW TO US.

AND THIS AS A BOARD MAJORITY, WE VOTED THAT WE'RE JUST GOING TO STAND ASIDE AND LET THE COURTS FIGURE THIS OUT.

SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE NOW BY SUPERVISOR CRYE, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR PLUMMER THAT IF THIS GOES TO APPEAL TO GIVE COUNSEL LARMER THE FLEXIBILITY TO SAY THESE PEOPLE SHOULD GET THEIR OWN DEFENSE, THEY SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO A DEFENSE TO DEFEND THIS CHARTER AMENDMENT AND DEFEND THIS TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

ARE WE READY TO TAKE THAT VOTE? CAN I GET START TO MY RIGHT THIS TIME? SUPERVISOR. PLUMMER. SUPERVISOR. PLUMMER.

YES. SUPERVISOR. CRYE.

YES. SUPERVISOR. KELSTROM.

YES. SUPERVISOR. HARMON.

YES. SUPERVISOR LONG? YES.

PASSES FIVE ZERO. DO WE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS REGARDING? YEAH. YOU NEED TO DISCUSS.

AND WHETHER THAT INCLUDES A DISCUSSION WITH MR. CURTIS OR. THAT'S UP TO YOU.

DISCUSS AND ANSWER HIS QUESTION ABOUT WHAT THE BOARD INTENDS TO DO FOR HIS INDEPENDENT REPRESENTATION. OKAY. CHAIR.

CHAIR, COULD I SUGGEST THAT WE ALLOW MR. CURTIS TO COME FORWARD AND PRESENT HIS REQUEST, AS WE WOULD HAVE DONE IN CLOSED? ABSOLUTELY. LET'S HEAR WHAT SUPERVISOR PLUMMER HAS ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION. SO IF WE IF WE SAY IF WE VOTE THAT THE COUNTY IS NOT GOING TO ALLOW HIM TO USE COUNTY RESOURCES TO HIRE ATTORNEY, DOES HE BY DEFAULT HAVE PERMISSION TO HIRE HIS OWN ATTORNEY, OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO WEIGH IN ON AS WELL? SO AGAIN, THAT'S A THAT'S A LEGAL GRAY AREA.

AND IT HAS TO DO WITH WHETHER IT TOUCHES A CORE FUNCTION OF HIS ELECTED OFFICE.

AND THERE'S WHEN, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE DEFENSE OF, OF A MEASURE I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT TOUCHES A CORE FUNCTION.

BUT THERE'S, THERE'S NO SOLID LEGAL AUTHORITY FROM THE COURTS FOR ME TO REACH A CONCLUSION WHERE I CAN TELL YOU THAT THAT'S ABSOLUTELY HOW A COURT WOULD COME OUT.

AND AS HAS BEEN THREATENED BY MR. CURTIS IF YOU DON'T PROVIDE IT, HE'LL, HE'LL SEEK LITIGATION, AT WHICH POINT WE'LL GET THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. ROV CURTIS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK.

DOES HE WANT TO DO AN OPEN SESSION OR DO YOU WANT TO ASK HIM DO YOU MIND IF I ASK.

WELL, YOU CAN ASK HIM, BUT WE'RE IN OPEN SESSION NOW.

YEAH, WE MADE THAT VOTE.

YEAH, BUT I'M JUST SAYING. BUT. BUT THAT I MADE THE VOTE BECAUSE I WANTED TO MAKE THAT

[01:05:02]

DO YOU WANT TO DO THIS IN OPEN SESSION? SURE.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'M ALWAYS WILLING TO DO EVERYTHING OUT IN THE PUBLIC, NEVER IN PRIVATE. CAN YOU PASS THIS AROUND? THIS IS A COURT CASE FOR ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE.

HOLD ON JUST A MINUTE. SO THIS IS AN OPEN SESSION, SO I NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE MET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR YOU GUYS TO RECEIVE THIS IN CLOSED SESSION. IT WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE IN OPEN SESSION.

WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE COPIES.

STEPHANIE CAN LET YOU KNOW THE NUMBER THAT WE NEED.

TO RAISE HER HAND ON A COPY.

WE HAVE ENOUGH FOR LIKE, TWO COPIES FOR THE PUBLIC.

IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE.

NOW THAT THIS IS AN OPEN, OPEN SESSION, I THINK WE NEED COPIES.

CAN PEOPLE SO THAT PEOPLE CAN JUST WAVE IT AND SAY THEY DON'T WANT IT.

I WOULDN'T DO THAT. ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE TOO MANY LITIGIOUS PEOPLE.

SO WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO? WE'RE GOING TO PRINT THEM. NOW I WOULD SAY THAT HE CAN.

HE CAN READ TO YOU FROM IT AND MAKE HIS POINTS.

BUT OTHER THAN THAT, YOU NEED, YOU NEED TO PROVIDE SOME COPIES TO THE, TO THE PUBLIC. YES. OKAY.

WE CAN EITHER PRINT SOME NOW OR YOU CAN JUST READ FROM IT.

AND ANYBODY THAT WANTS A COPY OF IT CAN COME TO YOUR OFFICE.

IS THAT FAIR? THAT'LL WORK.

THEY CAN LOOK IT UP. IT'S NOT THAT TOUGH.

OKAY. BASICALLY THIS IS A CASE WITH AN ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE MAJOR GOING ON THE BALLOT SAVES STAINLESS AREA FARM ECONOMY VERSUS THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, 1993. THEY HAD THE ISSUES.

THEY RAISED IT IN THERE.

IT GOT KICKED OFF. COUNTY STAFF REVIEW STAFF REPORTED MANY PROBLEMS WITH THE INITIATIVE, INCLUDING INTERNAL INCONSISTENCIES, CONFLICTS WITH OTHER PARTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN, CONFLICTS WITH STATE LAWS, CONFLICTS WITH THE GENERAL PLANS OF THE COUNTY, CONFLICTS WITH STATE LAWS AND GOVERNING LOCAL INITIATIVES.

IT HAD A PROBLEM OR TWO, AND THE COURT SAID, WHICH I'M SURE YOU ALREADY KNOW, THE RESULT OF THAT. IF I CAN GET TO THE PAGE THAT FINGERING IT. LICK YOUR FINGERS.

LET GO. LET GO OF IT. APPROVED.

GOT IT. NOPE. WRONG ONE.

ANYWAY, THE COURT SAID IT GOES ON THE BALLOT BECAUSE THE PEOPLE FILED THE PETITIONS.

THEY GOT THE SIGNATURES.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S BAD, IT GOES ON THE BALLOT BECAUSE THE PEOPLE GET TO VOTE ON IT. WE HAVE AN INITIATIVE PROCESS IN CALIFORNIA, ONE OF THE MOST LIBERAL ACTUALLY WHICH BASICALLY WANTS PEOPLE TO BE INVOLVED IN THEIR GOVERNMENT. WE WANT THEM TO DO INITIATIVES.

WE DON'T WANT THEM TO THREAD THROUGH SOME SORT OF A SPECIAL LITTLE LEGALESE TO FIND OUT IF IT CAN BE ON THE BALLOT.

NOW MY PROBLEM, MR. LARMER, IS HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN THE INITIATIVE, WHICH HE'S SHOWN SEVERAL TIMES, AND THE ADVICE HE GETS IS VERY POINTED.

HE GIVES YOU WHAT HE WANTS YOU TO DO, AND HE PUTS LEGALESE AROUND IT.

COUNSEL LARMER WAS NOT JANE DOE.

JUST SO YOU KNOW. YES.

OKAY. BUT HE DID KICK IT DOWN THE ROAD, WHICH IS UNETHICAL.

IF HE COULDN'T HAVE IF HE.

BECAUSE THE BOARD REPRESENTED IT.

AND I UNDERSTAND LAWYERS THAT SAY I'M NOT GOING TO REPRESENT THAT CASE.

THAT'S AN ILLEGAL CASE. I WON'T REPRESENT IT.

BUT THEN YOU FIND SOMEBODY ELSE TO DO IT AND THEN THEY GO IN.

THEY REPRESENT IT. WE NEED TO HAVE GOOD REPRESENTATION ON BOTH SIDES IN ORDER TO HAVE A FAIR SYSTEM. AND ARE YOU WILLING TO TO PROVIDE THAT IF IF WE GET THE APPEAL AND ARE YOU WILLING TO PROVIDE THAT? WELL, THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING YOU FOR.

IF I CAN GET PETER TICKTIN IN HERE, HE CAN PROBABLY SAVE THIS BEFORE IT GOES PAST THE EXPIRATION DATE. THERE'S AN EXPIRATION DATE OF MAY 6TH.

AFTER MAY 6TH, WE MISS ALL POSSIBILITIES TO ACTUALLY GET IT BACK ON THE BALLOT BECAUSE WE MISS OUR 88 DAY, WHICH IS WHEN WE HAVE TO DO.

HEY, REAL QUICK, WHO'S PETER TIPTON? AND JUST SO WE'RE ALL CLEAR, LIKE CLOSED SESSION, WE DON'T LIKE HIT AND Q WE JUST INTERRUPT SO I KNOW WHO'S WHO'S.

PETER TIPTON IS A HE'S TRUMP'S ATTORNEY.

HE HE'S ACTUALLY WENT TO SCHOOL WITH HIM WHEN HE WAS A KID.

AND HE IS THE ONE OF THE BEST ELECTION LAWYERS I'VE SEEN IN MY LIFE.

I DID ELECTION LAW. HE DOES ELECTION LAW ON STEROIDS.

SO IF ANYONE CAN SAVE THIS, IT WOULD BE PETER TIPTON.

OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT WAS THE SAME ONE, SAME ONE, SAME CHAIRMAN. CAN I, CAN I CORRECT A FEW THINGS? THE FIRST PART IS THIS ISN'T AN INITIATIVE PROCESS.

THIS IS THIS IS A CHARTER AND IT IS UNDER A DIFFERENT CODE SECTION OR SECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION. IT'S TREATED COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN AN INITIATIVE AND IT HAS TO DO

[01:10:01]

SO WHEN YOU LOOK STRICTLY AT AN INITIATIVE, YOU'RE YOU'RE NOT YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE ANALYSIS OF A HOME RULE.

SECONDLY, I WOULD SAY THAT HE.

THERE ARE CASES OUT THERE WHERE A COURT HAS UPHELD SOMETHING THAT HAS MULTIPLE ISSUES WITH IT. SO IT'S NOT THAT THOSE CASES DON'T EXIST.

BUT THEY'RE APPLES AND ORANGES.

WHEN, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A CHARTER AMENDMENT, WHICH IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AS IT HAS ANOTHER STANDARD.

IT'S A SEPARATE PORTION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND IT IS SUBJECT TO THE ANALYSIS OF THE HOME RULE. WELL, RIGHT NOW THEY'RE APPLES AND APPLES BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS, ARE YOU GOING TO LET THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE FILLED OUT THESE THINGS, GOT THEM CHECKED, GOT ALL THE SIGNATURES, WENT THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS. ARE YOU GOING TO LET THEM HAVE THEIR DAY IN FRONT OF THE VOTERS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE HAD SOME GUY COME HERE SAID, NO ONE WANTS THIS. WELL, THAT'S FINE THEN NO ONE WOULD VOTE FOR IT.

YOU KNOW, I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT IT YET, SO I'M NOT SURE I WOULD VOTE FOR IT. BUT I WILL DEFINITELY FIGHT TO THE END TO MAKE SURE IT GETS ON THE BALLOT, BECAUSE THAT'S THE PROCESS.

IT'S UP TO THE PEOPLE. IT'S NOT UP TO BUREAUCRATS.

IT'S NOT UP TO ATTORNEYS.

IT'S UP TO THE PEOPLE TO DECIDE WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE ON THERE AND WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO VOTE ON. AND IF YOU COME OUT AND GO, WELL, THAT'S ILLEGAL. THAT WOULDN'T DO IT. AND THAT SELLS THE PUBLIC AND THEY DON'T VOTE FOR IT.

THAT'D BE GREAT. IT CAME DOWN TO ONE JANE DOE AND A JUDGE IS WHAT THIS CAME DOWN TO.

RIGHT. AND I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION. THIS BOARD DID NOT MAKE THE DECISION TO KEEP THIS OFF THE BALLOT.

THE JUDGE DID. AND SO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY IS NOT WHETHER THIS DESERVES TO BE ON THE BALLOT OR NOT. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED IN THE COURT CASE. ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS WHETHER THIS BOARD WANTS TO EXPAND COUNTY RESOURCES TO DEFEND SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE SAID SINCE A YEAR AGO OR WHATEVER THAT WE DIDN'T THINK THIS WAS THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO DO IT. SO I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION.

IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE WAY THAT THE JUDGE RULED, THEN I THINK THAT IS YOUR POTENTIALLY YOUR PREROGATIVE.

THOUGH IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S LEGALLY QUESTIONABLE OF WHETHER YOU CAN MAKE THAT CASE TO THE JUDGE. THE JUDGE RULED CORRECTLY.

WE OFFERED ABSOLUTELY NO DEFENSE.

THE JUDGE IS REQUIRED TO LOOK AT BOTH SIDES OF A CASE AND THEN DECIDE ON THE MERITS OF IT. WELL, WE HAD NO SIDE TO THIS CASE.

WE WENT THERE AND SAID NOTHING. NOTHING AT ALL.

HE HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO RULE ANY OTHER WAY.

HE COULDN'T HAVE, YOU KNOW, HIS ONLY ISSUE WAS HE PROBABLY COULD HAVE LET YOU KNOW. THE PROPONENTS HAVE THEIR ATTORNEY, BUT HE'S NOT REQUIRED TO.

HE WAS LOOKING AT SOMETHING WE COULD DO. SO WE DIDN'T EVEN CORRECT THE RECORD. WHEN THEY HAD ALL THE THINGS, THEY SAID THEY WERE WRONG. WE DIDN'T EVEN FIX THAT.

SO WE JUST LET WE JUST KICKED IT DOWN THE ROAD, WHICH IS UNETHICAL, AND WE SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT.

WE SHOULD HAVE HIRED SOMEONE ELSE TO COME IN THERE.

WHO DOES BELIEVE IN THE CASE? WHO COULD PRESENT THE ARGUMENT FOR BEING ON THE BALLOT, EVEN IF IT'S NOTHING MORE THAN THE VOTERS DESERVE TO HAVE IT? THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ENOUGH ARGUMENT, PROBABLY, TO KEEP IT FROM GETTING TROWED, BUT WE GAVE THEM ZIPPO.

NOTHING AT ALL. OKAY. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

WELL, YEAH, AND WE AGREE.

AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THE BOARD KNEW THAT THAT WAS GOING TO BE THE THE JUDGE'S OPINION THAT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE CORRECTING THAT TODAY IN THAT YOU KNEW.

WELL, I KNEW THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO THAT'S WHY I VOTED AGAINST IT. OKAY.

WELL, THEN YOU KNEW. BUT THE IN ANY CASE, WE'RE CORRECTING THAT TODAY TO ALLOW THOSE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. I WILL TAKE THE POSITION, AND I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DO NOT EXPEND COUNTY RESOURCES TO ALLOW YOU TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY.

IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU CHOOSE TO DO IN YOUR OWN RIGHT.

YOU KNOW, THAT'S YOUR CHOICE. BUT I WILL NOT SUPPORT COUNTY RESOURCES BEING EXPENDED.

I WILL, I WILL SECOND THAT, AND I NEED SOME CLARIFICATION FROM COUNCIL.

YOU REFERRED TO MR. CURTIS'S POSITION AS ALMOST INCIDENTAL OR COLLATERAL.

WHAT EXACTLY WAS YOUR WORDING OF THAT? THAT THAT HAS TO DO WITH HOW YOU'RE NAMED AND WHY YOU'RE NAMED IN, IN A IN THIS CASE, IN A WRIT OF MANDATE.

ACCORDING TO THE ELECTION CODE AND ACCORDING TO THE CASE THAT I CITED EARLIER THE COUNTY AND OR THE ELECTIONS OFFICIAL ARE THEY'RE NOMINAL DEFENDANTS, WHICH MEANS NOMINAL. THERE'S, THERE'S NO ACCUSATION THAT THEY HAVE DONE ANYTHING WRONG. THERE IS NO CASE IN CONTROVERSY WHERE THEY'RE SEEKING DAMAGES FROM THE COUNTY. ESSENTIALLY, THEY'RE NAMED BECAUSE THE COUNTY IS THE ONE WHO CARRIES OUT THE MINISTERIAL DUTY THAT THE COURT IS ORDERING.

SO WHEN THE COURT ISSUES A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, THAT RESTRAINING ORDER IS AGAINST THE ELECTIONS OFFICIAL IN THE COUNTY.

[01:15:04]

AND THEN, MR. CURTIS, CAN YOU DESCRIBE HOW AN APPOINTED ATTORNEY FOR YOU, WOULD YOU YOU'RE CONSIDERED NOMINAL AND NOT PARTY TO THIS.

AND AND I AND I WANT TO CLARIFY ONE THING YOU SAID, WHICH WAS THAT YOU WOULD FIGHT FOR THIS.

I FORGET YOUR EXACT WORDS, BUT YOU WOULD FIGHT FOR THIS ADAMANTLY, STRIDENTLY TO TO GET THIS TO THE BALLOT.

ISN'T YOUR JOB TO BE NEUTRAL AND AND TO NOT KNOW.

ISN'T YOUR JOB TO BE NEUTRAL AND JUST FOLLOW THE COURT AND THE COURT? AND I THINK YOU SAID AT ONE POINT THAT IF THERE WAS AN INJUNCTION TO PREVENT THIS FROM COMING FORWARD, YOU WOULD ABIDE BY THAT.

AND THIS WASN'T AN INJUNCTION, BUT IT WAS A TRO.

AND IT SOUNDED LIKE YOU HAD SAID AT ONE POINT THAT YOU WOULD YOU WOULD BE NEUTRAL.

YOU WERE JUST FOLLOWING THE LAW.

AND IF THE VOTERS WERE PUTTING THIS ON AND WE COMPLIED WITH THE MINISTERIAL DUTY, THAT IT WOULD REACH THE BALLOT, AND YOU WOULD BE HAPPY TO DO THAT, BUT THAT YOU WERE GOING TO REMAIN NEUTRAL.

AND IF THE COURT INTERVENED, YOU WOULD STEP DOWN AND AND KEEP THAT.

SO CAN YOU DESCRIBE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOUR NOMINAL INTEREST AND WHY THAT WOULD JUSTIFY YOU GETTING AN ATTORNEY TO, TO, TO DEFEND YOUR NOMINAL INTEREST? YOU'RE NOT NAMED IN THIS AS A PRIMARY.

AND THE THE IDEA OF JUST STAYING COMPLETELY NEUTRAL IN YOUR POSITION.

WELL, I AM NOT EVER NEUTRAL ON WHETHER IT GOT ON THE BALLOT.

IT SHOULD GET ON THE BALLOT. I MAY BE NEUTRAL ABOUT WHETHER IT PASSES.

I MIGHT NOT CARE. THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS I SEE ON THE BALLOT. I DON'T EVEN CARE. RIGHT.

AND I HAVEN'T READ THIS ALL THE WAY THROUGH, SO I MIGHT NOT EVEN VOTE FOR IT.

BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

SHOULDN'T SHOULDN'T YOU BE NEUTRAL ON WHETHER IT GETS ON THE BALLOT OR NOT? ABSOLUTELY NOT. EVERYTHING THAT IS BROUGHT BEFORE ME AND PASSES THE SIGNATURE CHECK SHOULD BE ON THE BALLOT.

I DON'T CARE IF I HATE IT OR NOT. LET'S TAKE THE MARIJUANA CASES.

RIGHT. THEY WENT ON THE BALLOT.

THEY WERE GETTING STATE LAW.

THEY WERE AGAINST FEDERAL LAW.

THERE WERE 200,000 PEOPLE IN JAIL BECAUSE OF IT.

BUT ONCE IT PASSED, IT WAS ALLOWED TO PASS.

NOW THE 200,000 PEOPLE DIDN'T GET OUT OF JAIL BECAUSE THEY BROKEN THE LAW PREVIOUS. BUT THEN ALL THAT CHANGED. AND THAT'S HOW THIS PROCESS WORKS.

BUT THE PROCESS, THINGS GET CHANGED.

THERE'S THE SAVE ACT, WHICH IS BEING PUSHED RIGHT NOW.

IT'S ACTUALLY GOT MOST OF THESE IN THERE.

THERE'S AN EO. I WAS TALKING WITH A GROUP OF FOLKS YESTERDAY ON MY WAY DOWN TO SEE THE ROSEVILLE. AND THERE'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER EO COMING OUT IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS THAT PROBABLY IS FARTHER PUSHING THAN THIS.

SO TO PROJECT THAT IT'S ILLEGAL IS ACTUALLY INCORRECT.

THERE'S A LOT OF INTEREST, THERE'S A LOT OF PUSH.

AND SO DO YOU NOT DO YOU NOT SAY YOU'RE A NEUTRAL PARTY? RIGHT? YES. OKAY. SO YOU'RE A NEUTRAL PARTY.

YOU DON'T REPRESENT ANYBODY.

YOU'RE JUST GOING TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE AND PROCESS.

AND THEY GATHERED SIGNATURES LEGITIMATELY.

THEY REACHED THE NUMBER THAT QUALIFIED IT.

WE ADMINISTERED OUR MINISTERIAL DUTY.

IT IT WAS HEADING FOR THE BALLOT.

WOULD YOU ARGUE THAT THE COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO INTERCEDE AND ISSUE A TRO? IS THAT ARE WE ABOVE THE COURTS? I WOULD ARGUE THAT WE HAVE WE HAVE LOST OUR MINISTERIAL HIGH GROUND BY NOT PROTECTING IT AFTER IT GOT ON THE BALLOT. WE SHOULD PROTECT THAT PROCESS.

THAT IS OUR PROCESS. BUT DOES THE COURT HAVE THE ABILITY TO WEIGH IN A JUDGE AND ISSUE A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER TO STOP THIS GOING FORWARD UNTIL THEY HEAR MORE FACT? DO THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT AND ABILITY? THEY DO. BUT WE SHOULD HAVE DEFENDED IT AND WE DID NOTHING.

WELL, AND AND THERE WILL BE THERE WILL BE A LAWFUL APPEAL.

AND THE LAWFUL APPEAL WILL BE JUDGED ON ITS OWN MERITS, AND IT MAY BE BACK ON THE BALLOT.

SO, SO FOR US TO APPOINT AN ATTORNEY FOR YOU IN A NOMINAL FUNCTION WHERE YOU ARE NOT NAMED IN THE SUIT, THIS REALLY DOESN'T INVOLVE YOU AT ALL.

SO THANK YOU. I WOULD DISAGREE.

IT INVOLVES ME COMPLETELY BECAUSE THAT IS THE PROCESS THAT I AM TO PROTECT.

THAT IS WHAT I DO. AND WHILE YOU MAY THINK, YOU KNOW, HIRING MR. TICKTIN COULD BE EXPENSIVE.

IF WE DON'T GET THIS THING FIXED BY JANUARY 6TH, IT WILL HAVE TO GO TO A SPECIAL ELECTION.

[01:20:02]

THAT IS $1 MILLION OUT OF OUR POCKET.

NOT NOT NOT JANUARY. WHAT IS IT? MARCH 6TH. MARCH 6TH. YEAH.

MARCH OR APRIL 6TH. RIGHT.

MARCH 6TH. MARCH 6TH. MARCH 6TH.

BUT WE WOULD BE EXPENDING COUNTY FUNDS TO REPRESENT 10,000 PEOPLE.

NOW, IF THIS HAD BEEN GOTTEN ON THE BALLOT AND IT WAS VOTED FOR BY THE PEOPLE, I WOULD HAVE MUCH MORE APPETITE TO EXPEND COUNTY FUNDS TO DEFEND SOMETHING THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNTY VOTED FOR, BUT THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNTY HASN'T VOTED FOR THAT YET. THIS IS 10,000 PEOPLE THAT COLLECTED SIGNATURES, AND GOD BLESS THEM, THEY DID A GREAT JOB.

BUT I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN SEE NOT 100% OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM ARE FOR THIS INITIATIVE OR EXCUSE ME, NOT INITIATIVE, THE CHARTER AMENDMENT. SO I HAVE A HARD TIME EXPANDING COUNTY FUNDS TO DEFEND A CERTAIN SECTION OF THIS POPULATION AND USE EVERYBODY ELSE'S.

THANK YOU. YES. HEY! STOP! CALM DOWN, FOLKS, CALM DOWN.

SO THAT IS OUR PROCESS.

THAT'S WHAT WE DO. YEAH.

NO, I MEAN, I DON'T I THINK THERE'S A THERE'S A MIDDLE GROUND, BUT OBVIOUSLY THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE SUPPORT FOR IT. BUT, YOU KNOW, I, I APPRECIATE THE FACT AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, YOU TALK ABOUT EVEN THE FACT THE MARIJUANA, I THINK IS A GREAT, GREAT EXAMPLE AS WELL.

BUT YEAH, I MEAN, I, I DON'T KNOW.

I DEFINITELY, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT PETER TIPTON, I DON'T THINK WE'RE TALKING, YOU KNOW, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, LIKE I WOULD BE WILLING TO DO SOMETHING, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.

AND THE OTHER THING TOO, THAT YOU GUYS HAVE IS IF, IF COUNSEL LARMER GOES AND THE JUDGE GRANTS I'M NOT REALLY LOOKING AT YOU BECAUSE IT'S NOT YOU. IT'S WHATEVER PETITIONERS ARE THERE.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO THE LEAD PETITIONERS ARE. SO WHOEVER THE LEAD PETITIONERS ARE, YOU GUYS CAN HIRE YOUR OWN ATTORNEY.

LIKE YOU GUYS CAN GO OUT.

SOURCE FUND THAT I WOULD PUT MONEY TOWARDS IT.

AND THEN YOU GUYS COULD BE ABLE TO THEN TAKE THAT UP.

AND THAT'S ACTUALLY AT LEAST A FALLBACK THAT YOU HAVE.

OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE TO DO THAT QUICKLY.

AND, AND AGAIN, I WOULD BE ONE OF THE FIRST PEOPLE BECAUSE, BECAUSE I DO WHERE I DISAGREE WITH SUPERVISOR KELSTROM WITH YOU, SIR, IS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S TEN 000 PEOPLE, BUT LIKE CARL DEMAIO JUST GOT 1.35 MILLION SIGNATURES FOR THE SAME KIND OF STUFF.

SO I THINK, HEY, THANK YOU.

APPRECIATE IT. DON'T NEED IT. AND I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THIS IS LIKE A VERY BIPARTISAN SUPPORTED THING.

AND I THINK VOTER ID AND JUST VOTER REFORM IN GENERAL IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

AND WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT EXECUTIVE ORDERS, LIKE I'VE HEARD THAT FOR A LONG TIME. SO WE'LL SEE. I MEAN, MR. SUPERVISOR KELSTROM, I'VE BEEN DOING THIS THREE PLUS YEARS.

I DON'T BELIEVE CARL DEMAIO WAS ASKING FOR TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO DEFEND ANYTHING HE HAS BECAUSE WE'VE ALL WE'VE ALL DONATED TO IT. OH, I MEAN, NOT TAXPAYERS, BUT HE'S.

BUT LIKE TAXPAYERS LIKE ME HAVE SENT IN 25 BUCKS, 50 BUCKS, 1000 BUCKS TO HELP GET THOSE SIGNATURES.

SO I AM A TAXPAYER. IT JUST DIDN'T COME FROM TAXPAYER ALLOCATED FUNDS ANYWAY.

SO THAT'S WHERE I AM. SUPERVISOR CRAIG, CAN I JUST CLARIFY SOMETHING? JUST SOMETHING YOU SAID MADE ME THINK THAT MAYBE YOU WEREN'T AWARE OF THE MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS. THEY DO HAVE AN ATTORNEY.

THEY HAVE TAKEN THIS ITEM UP ON APPEAL.

YEAH. AND ONE OF THE ITEM.

WELL, THE MAIN ITEM ON APPEAL IS THAT THE COURT ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THEM TO ARGUE THEIR CASE. YEAH, SO WHAT I'M SAYING.

BUT WHEN YOU GO BACK TO COURT AND PUSH THAT BACK OVER, THEN AT LEAST WE'RE EMPOWERING THEM. AND FROM A COUNTY STANDPOINT TO SAY, HEY, LOOK, GO FOR IT. LIKE WE DON'T WANT TO, WE DON'T WANT TO.

I MEAN, AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE US TO BE FORMALLY INVOLVED A LITTLE BIT, BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, WHICH IS FINE, BUT AT LEAST THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THEIR THEIR SAY IN THE APPEAL.

THANK YOU. LET'S NOT YELL OUT AND DISRUPT THE MEETING, PLEASE. CAN I? I DID, I JUST WANT TO MAKE A FEW OTHER COMMENTS AND THEN A CLARIFYING QUESTION.

I THINK THE CHALLENGE HERE, AND WE'RE CITING A NUMBER OF EXAMPLES WHERE SOMEBODY WANTS TO CHANGE A LAW IN THE JURISDICTION THAT THEY'RE ATTEMPTING TO CHANGE THE LAW. SO WE WANT TO CHANGE STATE LAW.

SO WE MAKE AN AMENDMENT OR AN INITIATIVE THAT RELATES TO CHANGING STATE LAW, WHICH MAKES SENSE HERE.

THE CHALLENGE IS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO CHANGE STATE AND FEDERAL LAW BY CHANGING COUNTY LAW THROUGH A CHARTER AMENDMENT, WHICH IS THE PROBLEM.

NOW, THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE AND THIS MIGHT BE EITHER FOR YOU, ROV CURTIS OR FOR COUNSEL LARMER OR BOTH.

BUT THE CHALLENGE I SEE IN DEFENDING THE CASE IS THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE AT LEAST BASED ON OUR, YOU KNOW, THE PREVIOUS WELL, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE WOULD HAVE TO DEFEND THE LEGALITY OF THE MEASURE TO DEFEND GETTING IT ONTO THE BALLOT.

IS THERE A WAY TO DEFEND HAVING ON THE BALLOT WITHOUT DEFENDING THAT IT'S LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE? WELL, YOU WOULD PROBABLY WANT SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY BELIEVED IN THE CASE.

THAT WASN'T MY QUESTION. YOU CAN'T DO THAT.

YES. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SAY THAT SOME OF THESE THINGS MAY BE PASSING.

SOME OF THESE ARE IMPORTANT. IF YOU READ THROUGH THE STAINLESS AREA CASE, IT WAS TALKING ABOUT CHANGING JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING AND IT GOT ON THE BALLOT.

I DON'T THINK IT PASSED, BUT IT GOT ON THE BALLOT. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M

[01:25:02]

THAT'S NOT IMPORTANT. WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS THAT WE HAVE GIVEN THE PEOPLE WHO TOOK THE TIME TO SIGN THIS THING, THE DIGNITY AND THE RESPECT TO GET IT ON THE BALLOT, AND THEN THEY CAN DECIDE THE PEOPLE WHO SIGNED IT COULD DECIDE NOT TO VOTE FOR IT ONCE THEY READ THE REST OF IT, BUT AT LEAST THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO VOTE ON IT. AND THAT'S WHY THE APPEAL WAS FILED. CORRECT? SO WHAT? THAT'S WHY THE APPEAL WAS FILED.

I DIDN'T FILE THE APPEAL.

I'M TALKING ABOUT PRESERVING THE DIGNITY OF THE ROVE'S OFFICE ACTUALLY DOING WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO. AND YEAH ULTIMATELY WHAT HE SAID THERE WAS THAT YOU CAN GO IN AND ARGUE THAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S COMPLETELY ILLEGAL, THEY SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT.

THAT'S NOT, THAT'S, THAT'S NOT WHAT THE CASE LAW SAYS.

THE CASE LAW IS VERY CLEAR THAT IF YOU HAVE, THERE ARE MULTIPLE REASONS WHY THEY CAN TAKE THEM OFF PRE-ELECTION.

ONE BEING ILLEGAL IS ONE OF THEM.

THE SIMPLE FACT OF THIS ITEM IS THAT IF THE HOME RULE DOESN'T APPLY, THERE'S NOTHING LEFT TO ARGUE WITHIN THIS.

EVEN IF YOU WERE TO ARGUE SEVERABILITY IF THE HOME RULE DOESN'T APPLY AS IT RELATES TO ELECTIONS ITEMS, YOU CAN'T EVEN ARGUE THAT ONE ITEM COULD BE SEVERED FROM THE OTHER BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL DEPENDENT ON THE HOME RULE.

AND I THINK ULTIMATELY, FOR ME AT LEAST, THAT'S WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO, IS THAT IF WE HAVE TO ARGUE THAT THIS IS LEGAL, THEN I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THAT BECAUSE I, I CAN'T GET AROUND THE FACT THAT THIS SEEMS TO BE ILLEGAL.

IF THERE WAS A WAY TO ARGUE THAT IT SHOULD BE ON THE BALLOT WITHOUT IT, WITHOUT ARGUING THAT IT'S LEGAL, I WOULD ENTERTAIN THAT.

BUT I'LL STICK WITH MY ORIGINAL MOTION.

BUT THEN WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT EVERY INITIATIVE, EVERY REFERENDUM, EVERYTHING THAT THE CITIZENS COME IS GOING TO GO BEFORE YOU AND YOU CAN VETO IT. NO, WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT.

WE'RE SAYING THAT SOMEONE CAN FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST AN INITIATIVE, AND THEN A JUDGE WILL RULE ON WHETHER THAT IS LEGAL OR NOT.

THAT WE'RE NOT DECIDING WHETHER TO VETO IT.

WE'RE NOT BLOCKING IT FROM BEING ON THE BALLOT. WELL, YOU DON'T DEFEND IT, THOUGH.

WE'RE NOT DEFENDING IT.

YES, THE PROPONENTS CAN DEFEND IT JUST RIGHT, WHICH WE AGREE WITH. OKAY, OKAY.

AND COUNSEL LARMER CLARIFICATION.

SO IS IT TRUE THAT AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED? YES. OKAY. THE APPEAL WAS ON BEHALF OF WHO? MR. BUSH FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PROPONENTS.

OKAY. AND THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE THAT THE JUDGE WOULD HEAR THE APPEAL.

FINAL BRIEFING IS TOMORROW AT AT 12 P.M.

IT'S EXPECTED THAT WE MAY SEE A RULING AS AS EARLY AS TOMORROW NIGHT.

OKAY. SO WE COULD HAVE A RULING ON THIS, WHETHER THIS MAKES THE BALLOT OR NOT, WHETHER JANE DOE OR WHAT, MOST LIKELY WE WON'T GET A FINAL DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THIS MAKES THE BALLOT. WHAT WE'LL GET A FINAL DETERMINATION ON WAS WHETHER IT WAS AIR TO HOLD OUT ARGUMENT FROM THE PROPONENTS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS. IF IT WAS AIR, THEN THEY'LL SEND IT BACK DOWN FOR A REHEARING AT THE TRIAL COURT LEVEL, WHICH WOULD BE FOR THE TRO.

AND THEN YOU WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE THE FINAL HEARING.

GOT IT. THANK YOU. OKAY.

SUPERVISOR. HARMON. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? NO. OKAY.

WE ALL GOOD? SO I'M GOING TO LEAVE IT ALONE.

GO FOR IT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE BY SUPERVISOR PLUMMER, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR. LONG DID YOU WANT TO REPEAT YOUR MOTION OR SPEND NO MONEY.

PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA. IT'S BEEN A WHILE. MY NOTION WAS THAT THE COUNTY DOES NOT EXPEND FUNDS TO GRANT ROV CURTIS THE ABILITY TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY ON COUNTY FUNDS, AND THAT IN NO WAY PRECLUDES YOU FROM HAVING AN ATTORNEY OR THE PROPONENTS HAVING AN ATTORNEY. AND THAT IS YOUR SECOND SUPERVISOR LOAN. CORRECT.

OKAY. DO WE WANT TO DO ALL IN FAVOR? DO WE WANT TO JUST DO A ROLL CALL? ROLL CALL? I'M GOING TO VOTE LIKE IT'S NUANCED BECAUSE YOUR MOTION CHANGED A LITTLE BIT.

YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T WANT TO SPEND COUNTY FUNDS. NOW YOU'VE PUT IT IN THAT WE DON'T WANT TO ALLOW CLINT CURTIS TO HIRE.

SO NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, HE DIDN'T SAY THAT.

HE DIDN'T SAY THAT. I CLARIFIED THAT THAT THEY ORIGINALLY SAY THE PROPONENTS STILL HAVE A RIGHT. HE CAN HIRE IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY.

CORRECT. BUT I THOUGHT YOUR ORIGINAL MOTION WAS YOU JUST DIDN'T WANT TO SPEND ANY COUNTY FUNDS. THAT IS THE MOTION.

NO, IT'S A LITTLE SEPARATE.

I'M NOT SURE. I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE DISTINCTION. BASICALLY, YEAH, I'M VOTING NO.

BUT THE BIGGEST THING IS LIKE I WAS I WOULD NEVER BE OKAY WITH YOU SPENDING UNTOLD AMOUNTS OF MONEY. I THINK THERE'S A CAP. I THINK THERE'S SOME TRAVEL EXPENSES. I THINK THERE ARE SOME DOLLARS THAT COULD BE ALLOCATED, BUT IT'S DEFINITELY NOT IN THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS. WE'RE TALKING LIKE 50 OR 25.

AND WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF DISCRETIONARY MONEY THIS BOARD HAS, I MEAN, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW 1/100 OR A 10TH OF A PERCENT.

AND I THINK THIS IS OF STATEWIDE INTEREST.

I THINK IT'S A COUNTY INTEREST. BUT ANYWAY, WE DIDN'T GET TO THE POINT OF WHERE WE ACTUALLY CAN TALK ABOUT A DOLLAR AMOUNT. SO I'M GOING TO VOTE NO. BUT JUST SO YOU KNOW, I WAS NEVER GOING TO SAY, YEAH, LET'S SPEND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON THIS. JUST SO YOU KNOW, AND I CAN SAY THAT PUBLICLY.

IT'S A SHORT CASE. IF IT'S NOT SOLVED BY THE SIXTH,

[01:30:02]

I AGREE. ALL RIGHT. ROLL CALL.

ALL RIGHT. STARTING ON MY RIGHT.

SUPERVISOR. PLUMMER. SUPERVISOR.

PLUMMER. YES. SUPERVISOR.

CRYE. NO. SUPERVISOR. KELSTROM.

YES. SUPERVISOR. HARMON.

YES. SUPERVISOR. LONG.

YES. PASSES FOUR ONE. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOOD.

WE'RE GOOD. MEETING IS ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.