Media members learned last week that this room was being offered as a place for members of the press to work. Tuesday, the media room was empty at the start of the meeting.
Can you bear one more mention of last week’s media-room controversy?
During Tuesday’s Shasta County Board of Supervisors meeting, District 1 Supervisor/Chair Kevin Crye and CEO David Rickert suddenly seemed intent to rid themselves of the media-room hot potato they helped cook up last week to control media during meetings.
Suddenly, no way were they the authors, and golly, folks, they certainly didn’t intend for media to be cooped up inside the media room, even though their press release stated exactly that.
-
- Shasta County District 1 Supervisor/Chair Kevin Crye
-
- Shasta County CEO David Rickert. Photo by Mike Chapman.
In fact, Tuesday, Rickert and Crye pulled a tag-team gaslighting move that accused media of misunderstanding the press release, because media didn’t see the media room as a bonus location from which to film, record and observe.
Neither man mentioned the fact that the glass-fronted media room is located at the farthest corner of the board chambers, far from the action at the front of the chambers, so far away that media members would be required to jockey for position, and would require zoom lenses, which still couldn’t guarantee the line of sight wouldn’t block media’s limited vantage points.
Tuesday, the media room was empty when the meeting began. However, eventually, Robert Exter, known for his far-right affiliations with such alt-right characters as Lori Bridgeford, packed up his gear and set up inside the media room, where he had the room to himself all night.
Robert Exter was the lone media person to occupy the county’s designated space for media. Photo by Alan Ernesto Phillips for A News Cafe.
On Tuesday, Crye double downed and threw Sheriff Mike Johnson under the bus, and insisted the media room was all the sheriff’s idea.
If you missed the backstory about that led to the unexpected media restrictions in the first place, the July 23, 2024, supervisors meeting ended with sheriff’s deputies literally carrying out Jenny O’Connell as she sat peacefully in protest of District 4 Supervisor Patrick Jones’ lies about her husband, Benjamin Nowain.
Nowain was District 2 Supervisor Tim Garman’s nominee for the toothless Elections Commission, rejected by the board majority.
The First Amendment Coalition folks thought the county’s new media room policy violated several Brown Act laws. And supervisor Garman and District 3 Supervisor Mary Rickert sided with a free press came out against the media room. Finally, Dave Waddell, a retired CSU, Chico, journalism instructor, said this about the media room:
“I’m no expert on the laws of public meetings, but I question the legality of locking the press out of the board room where the county’s decisions are being made. The news media should have the same access to the board chambers as other citizens. They should not be corralled separately.
This seems like an effort by politicians to try to control what the public is able to find out about their decisions and the public’s response to those decisions. Such a strategy is not only anti-democratic, but quite stupid from a public relations standpoint.”
Apparently, the sheriff wasn’t a fan of not just the concept of the media room, but Crye’s depiction of the media room as the sheriff’s idea.
So in a July 31, 2024 statement, Sheriff Michael Johnson set the record straight about what part he played in the media room controversy. His entire statement is below.
Shasta County Sheriff Michael Johnson appears before the Board of Supervisors on April 25, 2023, during a presentation praising sheriff’s office volunteers. Copyrighted photo by Mike Chapman for A News Cafe.
Response from Sheriff Michael L. Johnson: ‘…Sheriff’s Office had nothing to do with the decision…’
“In August 2023, accompanied by some members of the Sheriff’s Office Command Staff, I met with the County CEO, the assistant CEO, personnel of the County Administration Office, the Board of Supervisors Chair, County Council, and the District Attorney and staff to discuss the decorum, safety, and other concerns associated with Board of Supervisors meetings.
The meeting was driven by the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office and our desire to establish a consistent protocol/process to safely address disruptive behavior and interference of county business at these public meetings. County Council and the District Attorney’s Office provided legal research and parameters to assure the protection of people’s Constitutional rights, compliance with Government Code regulations, and to restrict our operations within the confines of the law.
A clearly defined process was agreed upon by the conclusion of the meeting. The only mention of the media was the fact that they would have to vacate the board chambers with everyone else if the Board Chair, County Council, and/or the CEO had identified a problem or threat and moved to clear the chambers. There was no other discussion regarding the media.
With the transition to a new Board Chair in 2024, there have been two additional meetings to clarify and discuss this process. The established process did not change after the first meeting in February. Most recently, in July, (the second of the above mentioned two meetings), the possibility of establishing a media area in the rear “media room” was introduced. This was NOT introduced or in any way developed by the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office. In fact, upon learning of this new development, I questioned why it was even discussed or brought into play. In my time as Sheriff, that “media room” has been exclusively used by department heads that occasionally attend BOS meetings. Because of this option now being introduced, the SCSO had to account for other safety considerations that could become a factor when implementing the safety protocol/process.
Again, for clarification, the Sheriff’s Office had nothing to do with the decision to move the media or offer the option to move the media to the glass “media room”. Additionally, the Sheriff’s Office does not make policy for the County Administration or Supervisors.
I will not be drug into the frivolous politics and bickering that occurs. My job as Sheriff is to keep the peace, enforce criminal laws, protect life, property, and Constitutional rights fairly, unbiasedly and without regard. It does not matter to me what political affiliation a person sides with, what job title they hold, what interest group they represent, what gender or race they are, etc. The SCSO will enforce laws and keep the peace. It is not acceptable to interfere or disrupt public meetings (403 and 415 of the California Penal Code).
If a person(s) disrupts the meeting to the point where the board chambers must be cleared to restore order, they will be admonished by a peace officer (most likely a deputy) and not allowed to re-enter upon reconvening the meeting. If they do re-enter or attempt to re-enter, a citation or a physical arrest will be made for trespassing (602 of the California Penal Code).
There are also several Government Code sections applicable to this type of public meeting.
My hope is that all persons involved at these meeting can conduct themselves in a rational and respectful demeanor. Especially as we navigate a current local emergency. I do not have the luxury of pulling valuable resources from operations merely to deal with intolerable behaviors.”
Note that Johnson said that the concept of a “media room” was “NOT introduced or in any way developed by the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office.”
Perfectly clear
Johnson offered unequivocal denial of Crye’s claims that the media room was the sheriff’s idea:
“Again, for clarification, the Sheriff’s Office had nothing to do with the decision to move the media or offer the option to move the media to the glass “media room”. Additionally, the Sheriff’s Office does not make policy for the County Administration or Supervisors.
I will not be drug into the frivolous politics and bickering that occurs.”
It takes a special kind of pathological hubris to stand up in front of a board of supervisors meeting that’s being live streamed and archived forever, and proclaim false statements about the sheriff, one of the most powerful law enforcement officers in the county.
How Crye thought he wouldn’t be called on the carpet for throwing the sheriff under the bus is anyone’s guess. But we need only look back at how Crye planted a friend in a townhall meeting and attempted to pass her off as a stranger, and his proud descriptions of how he cheats his way to victory, to recognize a chilling pattern of blatant deceit.
What remains unknown is how Crye will publicly recalibrate and recover from being strongly challenged and contradicted by the sheriff.
Perhaps there’s a California Penal Code to cover the fact that Crye lied about the sheriff, and blamed the media room concept on him. Something along the lines of this code, for example.
In the meantime, we can place bets on what crazy stunt Crye will create next as a distraction to draw the public’s attention and interest away from the media room.
Today the media room is the main event. Tomorrow, who knows.
