This special meeting of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors was called to order at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, August 8, 2024. Supervisor Tim Garman was not present. The complete video and agenda are available here. Timestamps are in parentheses.
(1:43:) Supervisor Crye: This is, listen to this. This is something different. As you may recall, this meeting was added to the calendar during the evening meeting on July 30. It’s imperative that the ordinance introduced on July 30 be enacted today if approved as C1 on the agenda to ensure it can be placed on the November 5 ballot. Additionally, both items on the regular calendar are essential to ensure there’s sufficient time for the board to consider arguments in support of both measures adding to the County Charter and to allow staff time to coordinate with the board and provide those arguments to the elections department to be included in the voter information guide.
(3:13) CALL TO ORDER
The Invocation was conducted by Pastor Jeremy Twombley, Cow Creek Community Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Supervisor Crye.
REGULAR CALENDAR
Members of the public may comment on any item on the Regular Calendar before or during the Board’s consideration of the item. Members of the public may also address matters scheduled for public hearings at the time such public hearings are opened for comment. Those wishing to participate in public comment for Regular Calendar items must submit a speaker request card to the Clerk of the Board before public comment on the item begins. Each speaker is allocated three minutes to speak. All speaker request cards submitted after public comment for each Regular Calendar item begins will not be heard by the Board.
Board Matters
(5:25) R1 Take the following actions: (1) Temporarily suspend the operation of Rule 7(e)(1) in Administrative Policy 1-101, Operation and Conduct of Business by the Board of Supervisors; (2) approve the “Argument in Favor of Adding Limitations on Exercise of Eminent Domain to the Shasta County Charter (Measure P),” supporting the proposed addition to the charter for Shasta County, and if an opposing ballot argument is submitted, direct staff to prepare a rebuttal argument for the Board of Supervisors’ consideration; (3) select a member of the Board of Supervisors to assist in the preparation of the ballot arguments; and (4) approve and complete the: (a) Verification Statement, and (b) Argument Statement provided by the Elections Department.
No Additional General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
Deputy County Executive Officer Stewart Buettell made the presentation.
(5:45) Stewart Buettell: For your consideration are a series of actions related to ensuring that Measure P, which proposes in addition to the county charter, limiting the county’s ability to exercise eminent domain, can be placed on the ballot in a timely manner, with an accurate proponent argument articulated by the board. Typically administrative policy 1-101 limits the board’s ability to comment formally on items on the ballot. However, in certain circumstances and per elections code 9162 subpart A, where the board is responsible for placing an item on the ballot, rule 7E1 of administrative policy 1-101 may be waived. Accordingly, the first action is to temporarily suspend rule 7E1. The next action would then be to review and approve the draft supporting argument for Measure P and direct staff to draft a rebuttal argument in the event of an opposing argument being submitted. This would be brought back for the board’s consideration at a later date. The third action requests the board to select a member of the board to assist in the final preparation of ballot arguments related to this measure. Finally, the fourth and final action associated with this item is to request the board through the chairman to complete the verification statement and argument statement associated with the supporting argument for Measure P and authorize staff to deliver it to the elections department. I would also like to make a further note and thank the Elections Department for getting these materials processed quickly and for already providing a draft calendar, specifically outlining their next steps as they relate to Measure P and it’s imperative for the board to review and consider approving the supporting argument today as it must be submitted to the elections Department no later than August 15, which also coincides with other requirements as set forth by the elections department and elections code.
Outgoing District 4 Supervisor Patrick Jones
(7:24) Supervisor Jones: Thank you. Chair, would you like to be selected as the member of the board to assist and for the argument?
Supervisor Crye: Yeah, with the language Stewart did the original charter language and worked well with him. So I sponsored this, I’d appreciate doing it.
Supervisor Jones: Ok. Then with that, I would and since we’ve already discussed this, waste no time. Take action. Number one, temporarily suspend the operation of rule 7E1 and the administrative policy 1-101. Two, approve the argument in favor in adding limitations on the exercise of eminent domain of Shasta County Charter. Three, select a member of the board which would be Chair Crye and four, approve and complete the verification statement and the argument s:tatement provided by the elections department.
(8:20) Public comment on R1 began.
(8:29) Jeff Gorder: As I stated in my recent email about the Eminent Domain Charter amendment, it seems to me that this exceeds the authority given to charter counties by the California Constitution. As far as I can tell, there’s nothing in the constitutional provisions which authorized the creation of charter counties and set forth the legitimate areas of control by charter counties that would authorize a charter county to exercise control over eminent domain law. It just isn’t there as far as I’m concerned. I know this board is intensely concerned about following the rule of law and I’m sure this has been vetted significantly by County Counsel’s Office, but I believe that this amendment would be unconstitutional. Secondly, the State of California, in article 1, section 19, title vii of the Code of Civil Procedure has created a comprehensive set of eminent domain laws that leave no room for counties to make their own laws regarding eminent domain. The state has occupied the field and left no room for counties to independently legislate in this area. Thirdly, the amendment conflicts with laws already on the books regarding eminent domain. Article 1, section 19 of the constitution states local governments are prohibited by acquiring by eminent domain an owner occupied residence for the purpose of conveying it to a private person. You know, in essence the harm you’re trying to address is already covered in our constitution. However, your proposed amendment amidst the exceptions that are set forth in the constitution and that is a local government can exercise eminent domain over private property and convey it to a private person under the following circumstances: for the purpose of protecting public health and safety, to prevent serious repeated criminal activity, to respond to an emergency or to remedy environmental contamination that poses a threat to public health and safety. Your proposed amendment eliminates those and therefore conflicts with the California Constitution. I urge you not to put this on the ballot. I mean, the attorney general is already aware of the excesses by this board. They’re keeping an eye on this. Other private lawyers will be monitoring this as well. I believe it will be challenged in court. It’s an unnecessary expense to the taxpayers as the harms this amendment seeks to address are already covered in the constitution. I would really ask you to reconsider this.
(11:05) Susan: Yes, I wasn’t able to be here at the July 16 meeting. I’m trying to have a life. I’m sorry I missed it. I’m grateful to see that Tim and Mary voted against this issue because even your county counsel said that it was not within your purview to take this kind of action at that meeting. [Voice off] [To Supervisor Crye] No, he didn’t, Kevin, he didn’t take, he said it, I read it. He told he, he advised you that it wasn’t a good idea. Just like Jeff said, once again, we’re leading a, you know, a charge against the state. And then we wonder why you have so many speakers up here trying to talk to you about reasonable solutions and what you see as causing chaos, who’s causing the chaos? Who’s keeping us in possible legal situations which cost us money? It isn’t the citizens, Is it? You know what, from an outsider point of view? I think that you have somebody personally that needs this taken care of right now and you brought this quickly. I know you can look at me and say I’m crazy. I and I have no proof. I’m telling the audience, I have no proof, but as far as I’m concerned, it looks bad.
District 1 Supervisor/Chair Kevin Crye
(12:33) Supervisor Crye: Counsel, would you like to weigh in on the inaccuracies of everything that’s been
Counsel Tricia Weber: I’m happy to do so. Although some of the citations were accurate, digging into them a little further, I have some contradicting information. First and foremost, the board has already adopted this charter amendment to go onto the ballot. So that’s already occurring. With regard to the citations, there is a California Supreme Court case that allows the legislature to place additional restrictions on the exercise of eminent domain. So far, California has failed to do so. They’ve had a couple of attempts to place restrictions on the ballot and have the state voters enact that. That’s failed. Therefore, public agencies are empowered to do so and many have done so.
(13:24) Supervisor Jones: Well, I, you know, for the two speakers, I think it’s shameful, this what this does is protects private property rights and for anybody that doesn’t want to do that, it’s just shameful. You know, I applaud Chair Crye for bringing this forward. And these are exactly the types of things that we’ll put forward to the voters and they will approve because they’re the right things to do. The two speakers should be ashamed.
Supervisor Rickert: Supervisor Jones, that’s really inappropriate to say that to speakers. I just, I’m going to have to speak out more. This is just getting ridiculous the way you treat speakers. Ok. For transparency purposes, I’d like to know – evidently it was Supervisor Cry’s idea. And what exactly is the basis for this? Who is behind this? And what, who brought this forward to you who brought this forward to you.
(14:11) Supervisor Crye: I did, I brought it forward because of what I’ve seen government agencies in our area do to private property rights. And for me, when we talk about the State of California, just because the State of California has something in place, doesn’t mean they can’t repeal it, walk it back and do something different. Furthermore, San Bernardino’s Charter, which I think is one of the best charters in the state of California, I looked at their charter and some of the things in the ways that they protect their citizens and it seems very evident to me that this board in every opportunity should protect its citizens as it relates to private property rights. So, and if you, and if you oppose it, you can vote no.
Supervisor Rickert: Ok. I’d like to know in the last 20 years. How often has the county used eminent domain? Has there been a number?
Stewart Buettell: So I don’t have that number right off the top of my head, Supervisor Rickert. But in researching this item, I believe it was just over a decade ago the county had anything to do with a case involving eminent domain. They are few and far between typically for exactly the reason Supervisor Jones mentioned.
District 3 Supervisor Mary Rickert.
Supervisor Rickert: So in other words, that’s my point is we are spending time, we are spending taxpayers’ time, taxpayers’ money for something that hasn’t been happening and I’m a private property owner. A lot more than you are [Supervisor Crye talks over her] We have, we’ve worked very hard and we’ve done it legally and, and everything. And I’m telling you that this to me is another example of time consuming. It’s a lot of wasted resources and energy for something that we haven’t been using when we have. I had a presentation last board meeting, we had 58 deaths in this county last year from fentanyl. Not one of you said this is an important issue. We need to get into it. We need to find out what’s going on in our county and we need to save our people. Why can’t we get our priorities right in Shasta County. I am so tired of things that are virtually nonexistent that we cover and we spend time on, we call special meetings, but we’re not focusing on things that are impacting families in this county.
(15:33) Supervisor Jones: Well, we know where the fentanyl is coming from. It’s coming from across the border and this board took action to do something about that which you did not support. In addition to that, when I was with the City of Redding the use of eminent domain was threatened repeatedly. It wasn’t used, but it was threatened and I don’t think we should be threatening our citizens for the taking of private property. And so while it wasn’t used, it was threatened many times. This is a good amendment to a charter. I definitely support it.
Supervisor Crye: One of the reasons that for me again, with, you know, you talk about it hasn’t been an issue. Well, you know, it’s much like insurance, right? Like you never have enough until you need it. And it seems like if you, you know, it’s, well, here, here’s the thing at the end of the day COVID happened and we saw what the government’s capable of. [Rickert and Crye talk over each other] And for me, this is about an amendment to the charter. This is our, there will be two amendments on this one. Again, other charters constantly amend it. So as long as I’m seated, I will bring something, every single election that I believe protects people’s rights, gives people an opportunity to make things more affordable and gives them more sovereignty to raise their own family as they see fit any way, shape or form that an amendment comes forward, I’m going to bring that because it’s just like this boardroom had never been locked and the public been locked out before, but that happened. So things happen, Supervisor Rickert, that I feel as a chair or as a board member. I have to protect the citizens from the overreach of government.
Supervisor Rickert: This is not an overreach government if we haven’t had a threat. And that’s what I’m saying is that we haven’t dealt with this. It’s a waste of time. It’s a waste of money. I’m the one that’s worried about the taxpayer’s dollars. I’m the one and [Crye laughs] – we’re spending, how many, how much did it cost to have this special meeting to deal with this? And that’s what I’m saying is that this is ridiculous. We are having people dying, our streets are full of people that are unhoused and we’re putting this as a priority over something that virtually hasn’t happened. Think about it, use common sense. What happened to common sense in Shasta County?
Supervisor Crye: It was locked up.
Supervisor Rickert: I am sorry, and I agree with Mr. Gorder. I think that this has a potential to face legal challenges and with all the things that’s going on and the lawsuits that are piling up in this county as a result of the behaviors of the board majority. This is going to be one more thing and that’s going to cost the taxpayers of Shasta County. So I am still fighting for the taxpayers of Shasta County.
(19:40) Supervisor Crye: It’s a great speech. Stewart Buettell, can you please help Supervisor Rickert understand why this is put on today’s meeting and why this had to be called. And I hate to do that to you, but I’m going to say it.
Stewart Buettell: So I’ll just, I can clarify and mention that it is critical for the board to consider the proponent argument for this item as the board majority approved putting this on the ballot and typically whoever is supporting a measure such as that needs to have or come up with or generate and provide to the elections department that pro argument –
Supervisor Crye: And this item was missed. So it had to be put to or the wording clarify that.
Stewart Buettell : So this particular piece as we did when the charter was originally introduced, I had to come back last December and present an argument for the board to consider that could be added added to the voter information guide. That timeline is very quickly closing. As I mentioned, elections has to have this information by no later than August 15, which means if Supervisor Crye is selected to work with staff on this, we’ll be very quickly putting together this argument and getting it over to elections and then this information will be added to the voter information guide. So that that timeline is very tight.
Supervisor Rickert: No, I understand that. And you and I talked about this yesterday. So we, we also, we talked about this whole subject.
District 5 Supervisor Chris Kelstrom
R1 passed on a 3-1 vote with Supervisors Jones, Kelstrom, and Crye voting yes.
(21:07) PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD – OPEN TIME
During the Public Comment Open Time period, the public may address the Board on any matter not listed on the agenda that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board of Supervisors or on any agenda item listed on the Consent Calendar. Each speaker is allocated three minutes to speak. Those wishing to participate in Public Comment – Open Time must submit a speaker request card to the Clerk of the Board before the meeting begins. All speaker request cards submitted after the meeting begins, and any public comment not heard by the 12:00 p.m. recess, will be heard once all Regular Calendar items on the agenda have been considered by the Board, and before the Board’s consideration of the Consent Calendar.
Jenny O’Connell
(21:43) Jenny O’Connell: It’s very difficult to be here with the considerable disrespect that happens over and over again in this room and I definitely have to laugh at these preplanned speeches of Mr. Jones’s and his fight for freedom after repeated civil rights violations. Oh, you don’t think that protected speech is sitting quietly because it is, it actually has several statutes that state that sitting quietly and not bothering anyone is protected speech in a county meeting. You know what else is protected speech or outside of that, the fact that your lawyer, your lawyer did not allow for my lawyer to come and speak to me, but I was interviewed by five sheriffs and your lawyer with no representation. So you want to explain to me how you love the constitution because those are constitutional violations. The first amendment, the fourth amendment, the 14th. How many amendments are you going to violate? And I don’t care that you laugh and you’re smug because I will take you down. I will take you down and I will do it with the most kindness and love and respect possible. And you know why that is? Because you are reprehensible. You are a reprehensible human being. Do you know how many people hate you? Do you know how many people I’ve talked to who are glad you are out? And I, the next time I sit down, it will not be for an apology. It will be for you to leave. I am finished with you in this chaos. I don’t blame Kevin. I don’t blame Kelstrom. I don’t blame anybody but you. I have watched you do this for four years. You were outside of those of those doors with megaphones and I heard you on January 5 and 6, explain that you were purposefully disrupting meetings and I hate to tell you that’s a code 305 violation. And megaphones are a violation while sitting, while sitting quietly is not. And your lack of respect for me, to carry me out is actually illegal. You could have easily opened the doors. You chose not to and you chose to prove that it’s about power to you. Really who called the sheriff, who called the sheriff? [Voices from audience]
(25:15) White Goodman: We have an election coming up and I don’t know if anyone’s serious about it. I monitored the last election count and found fraud right in front of my eyes. It was reported to you guys and basically nothing happened. We have someone, a replacement, but as far as I’m concerned, I don’t see any change. So if there’s no change in an election, we put the same people back in, that’s on your back and it’s real sad. I didn’t expect it out of you guys. The lady who’s in charge as basically in her trial, she admitted to all types of fraud you might say and no one brought that up. She’s still back in business. No one’s doing anything about it. I don’t understand that. The attorney that they rewrote contracts, no one did anything about it. That’s in your pocket. You guys have control but you’re not stepping up. Mr. Crye put the lady back in and said, if you don’t vote for him, I will vote for her. You gave these guys no choice but you brought Joanna back. So how do you expect something different? How do you constantly expect something different? I went down and tried to be a poll set or whatever. I signed up. Then on the list, it said, are you a county worker? That’s irrelevant if I’m a county worker or not, it shouldn’t even be on there. There should be no criteria about wanting to. You know, I said, I hear there’s, we go down and I’m trying to get a job there just so I can do my part, Not looking in windows, be part of the solution. And I’m not given the opportunity. You go down and try to get a job. You can’t talk to that big guy. There’s no way I don’t think they have a person in charge of getting me into a position to help.
(28:29) Laura Hobbs: Why aren’t you putting forth an article of the most important topic of the day that affects every single citizen in the county? We need fair and transparent elections. Why haven’t you responded to the concerns of the citizens? If this topic is too controversial for your political careers to withstand, why not just turn it over to the public to decide, take the recommendations of the election commission and put hand counting at the precincts using paper poll books on the ballot for the people to decide. This would be a perfect addition to our charter county. Something, anything to fight the unconstitutional laws that the state continues to pass in order to codify their cheating. They now want to pass a law that prohibits counties from certifying elections too quickly. They must wait 28 days before they certify. This law has just been proposed with an urgency statute and it’s going to apply only to the November election. Why? Because they need more time to cheat? Ok. And at what point are you supervisors going to use your authority to say enough is enough? We’ve already nearly at the point of no return. Do you not love Shasta County? Do you not love the United States of America? Why on earth have you waited so long to act? I dare you to grow a spine and do something about the most important issue of our time.
(30:27) Benjamin Nowain: I stand before you today as a private citizen compelled to address the confusion and frustration stemming from the recent press releases issued over the past weeks. As a member of the public and for the media, it has been perplexing to receive three separate notices, two of which nearly identical, save for a word change from the word required to request it. This slight modification implied an optional choice for the media personnel to remain in a designated media room. And this decision, I believe was made in haste. The most troubling aspect however, was Kevin Crye’s subsequent statement blaming the confusion on public misreporting, throwing CEO Rickert under the bus, throwing the sheriff under the bus, doing everything but taking accountability for himself. The public did not misreport. The directive was clear. Media members were to be treated as ordinary citizens and in the event of a disruption, they would be removed from the room, possibly the atrium, only to be allowed into the media room as a courtesy, thereby distancing them from the information they are there to report. This is not merely an inconvenience, it may constitute a violation of civil rights into the first amendment, as suggested by the First Amendment coalition. The ACLU has also shown interest in these events, highlighting potential breaches of fundamental rights. Now consider this. Patrick Jones has often emphasized the paramount importance of the first amendment. Yet he allowed an individual to use a racial slur in this room, defending their right for free speech. However, my wife’s right to sit silently in protest, a form of expression protected by ample precedent, was not upheld. This is enshrined in our constitution, yet it was disregarded. Such inconsistency is troubling and demands accountability. Patrick Jones, you owe this community an apology for your actions. Your defeat in this recent election by a significant margin speaks volume about your standing with the constituents of Shasta County. Yet in remaining in your time in office, you continue to make decisions that impact us all. Furthermore, I did not previously voice my concerns about the elections commission because I was aimed at bringing a reasonable perspective to it. However, the community’s growing unease cannot be ignored. The commission as it stands lack members with balanced sensibilities. This is alarming especially considering our upcoming elections. Our current watchdogs includes individuals like Patty Plumb who promotes election denialism and conspiracy theories. Her actions, including wearing a pure blood t-shirt, an echo of Nazi ideology are deeply disturbing. Such rhetoric and behavior have no place in our community and we must ensure that our election commission is comprised of individuals who prioritize integrity and impartiality over partisanship and extremism.
Jeff Gorder
(33:29) Jeff Gorder: I know this may be surprising but I want to come to your defense over some recent accusations that have been levied against you last week. I heard Dr. Laura Hobbs accuse you all of treason, apparently for refusing to demand that the Hart machines not be used in the upcoming election and that the results be hand counted. I think it was wrong for Dr. Hobbs to call the three of you treasonous. In fact, I think it’s just as moronic as Crye saying that the recall folks were anti-god, ant-family, and anti-country. I think most of us would agree that the three of you are devious, deceitful, disrespectful and divisive, but we would not say you’re treasonous. That’s a step too far. You lack sound judgment, of course, but not treasonous. This had to come a great shock to the three of you because you’ve been the foremost champions of Dr. Hobbs’s lunacy for the last 1.5 years. The doctor of demonology could not have reached her level of prominence without the three of you supporting her so significantly over the last year and a half. And this is how you’re repaid. It’s sad. It’s just sad. Think of what you did for Patrick and Kevin and Chris, when you voted for that resolution, saying that you thought her election was affected by the fact that she wasn’t first on the ballot. Think of, think of what you did for her Patrick. You were like a little kid on Christmas morning carrying that resolution over to court wanting so bad to read it. The judge slapped you down and now the judges think you’re all morons. I mean, you guys have sacrificed for Laura and this is how she repays you.
(36:00) Bev Gray: We need to not use electronic poll pads and only use paper poll books, using electronics and having problems like during the primary. Why spend time training people on the electronic ones and the backup paper ones. Let’s just do it from paper. We need to create county ordinances for this November ballot. Illegal aliens should not vote nor get a ballot. We need to clean our voter rolls and not create a ballot or allow a vote if they only have a P.O. box, a mailing sitter and no physical address, addresses that don’t exist, empty lots, no address, number zero is the address number. Physical address is a post office, moved prior to the election. Address is out of the county. Address is a business, voter died prior to the election, shows voter did not vote and voter says they did, show voter voted and they did not, voters and care homes. There’s a really large percentage that are voting there. And I don’t know how, I mean, that’s way higher than even the normal population. And are they competent to be able to vote? 81% of the ages 90 and over voted. That’s extremely high. Duplicate ballots. For example, they get one for James and one for Jim. Blanks in physical address. State file doesn’t necessarily match with the county file. Multiple people live in the same address. An example is seven people living in a 790 square foot house. That’s a 10 square feet a piece. And the birthplaces is unknown. People living in the hotels. Voters have been deceased for years and still on the voter files. Good News Rescue Mission, that should be looked at before the ballots go out. There’s campgrounds that are getting lots of ballots, not just a few, but they don’t even have a space number on there. That needs to be looked at. Felons that are on probation should not be voting. Can’t look at canceled voter records yet same info as active and inactive people are still on the voter files that moved 10-20 years ago. They don’t track the date of birth. We need full transparency and it’s not a Democrat Republican. Everyone should, all we’re asking for is transparency, if the vote is accurate and we can see it. That’s the only way we’re gonna come back together is if we have transparency.
Alyssa Ballard
(48:06) Alisa Ballard: Our country is in deep trouble because we have so many corrupt leaders who are ignoring laws and allowing illegal immigrants to cross our borders by the millions, including Chinese and Middle Eastern men who may be entering our country to destroy it. Illegal immigrants are draining the coffers of our government as evidenced by our massive $48 million billion California budget deficit, porous borders fuel human trafficking and illegal drugs like fentanyl. A US House Committee released a report in April that details evidence that the Chinese government is directly subsidizing the manufacturing and exporting of fentanyl to the United States. More than 100,000 Americans are dying per year of drug overdoses which is more than died in combat during World War ll. I personally know two mothers who have tragically lost their sons to fentanyl in the last year. Many illegals are registering to vote and all will be counted in the census to determine congressional representation. In the last few years with the introduction of blanket mail in ballots, drop boxes and forced use of electronic tabulation machines, our state legislature and governor are aiding and abetting the destruction of our country. The voting machines are made in China and have proprietary software based on the Smartmatic operating system which was developed in Venezuela to subvert fair elections. We see the current upheaval in Venezuela as machine vote tallies are not even coming close to reflecting exit polls. Dominion, Hart, ES&S and others all run on the Smartmatic operating system. The current court case in Mesa County, Colorado involving Dominion voting machines has revealed that they are being accessed and monitored by employees in Serbia proving that they can be manipulated through the internet.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They may be acted upon by the Board at one time without discussion. Any Board member or staff member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion and consideration. Members of the public will be provided with a single opportunity to comment on one or more items on the Consent Calendar, during Public Comment – Open Time, before the Board’s consideration of the Consent Calendar.
Clerk of the Board
(51:14) C1 As introduced on July 30, 2024, enact “An Ordinance of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Shasta, Adding Procedure for Filling Vacancies of Elected Officials to the Shasta County Charter.”
General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
There was no board discussion on C1 and it was passed 3-1 with Supervisor Rickert voting no.
REGULAR CALENDAR, CONTINUED
Board Matters, Continued
(51:49) R2 Take the following actions: (1) Temporarily suspend the operation of Rule 7(e)(1) in Administrative Policy 1-101, Operation and Conduct of Business by the Board of Supervisors; (2) approve the “Argument in Favor of Adding Appointment of Elected Officials to the Shasta County Charter in the Event of a Vacancy (Measure Q),” supporting the proposed addition to the charter for Shasta County, and if an opposing ballot argument is submitted, direct staff to prepare a rebuttal argument for the Board of Supervisors’ consideration; (3) select a member of the Board of Supervisors to assist in the preparation of the ballot arguments; and (4) approve and complete the: (a) Verification Statement, and (b) Argument Statement provided by the Elections Department.
No Additional General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
Stewart Buettell made the presentation.
(52:07) Stewart Buettell: Before you today for your consideration, our series of actions related to ensuring that Measure Q, which proposes adding procedures for the appointment of elected officials in the event of a vacancy to the county charter, can be placed on the ballot in a timely manner with an accurate proponent argument articulated by the board. Typically administrative policy 1-101 limits the board’s ability to comment formally on items on the ballot. However, in certain circumstances and per elections code 9162 subpart A, where the board is responsible for placing an item on the ballot, rule 7E1 may be waived. Accordingly. The first action is to temporarily suspend rule 7E1 of administrative policy. The next action would then be to review and approve the draft supporting argument for Measure Q and direct staff to draft a rebuttal argument in the event an opposing argument is submitted, which would be brought back to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. The third action requests the board to select a member of the board to assist in the final preparation of ballot arguments related to this measure. Finally, the fourth and final action associated with this item is to request the board through the chairman to complete the verification statement and argument statement associated with the supporting argument for Measure Q and authorize staff to deliver it to the elections department. As with my last presentation, I would like to again note and thank the elections department for getting these materials processed quickly and for already providing a draft calendar for Measure Q specifically outlining their next steps. Again, it’s imperative for the board to review and consider approving the supporting argument today as it must be submitted to the elections department no later than August 15, which coincides with other requirements set forth by the elections department and California elections code.
(53:43) Supervisor Jones: With regards to section three select a member of the Board of Supervisors to assist in the preparation of the ballot argument, Chair, would that be you?
Supervisor Crye: I’d like to do that.
Supervisor Jones: Ok. So with that, I recommend that for R2, that we one, temporarily suspend the operation rule 7E1 in the administrative policy, 1- 101 operation and conduct of business by the Board of Supervisors; two, approve the argument in favor of adding an appointment of elected officials to the Shasta County Charter; three, put Chair Crye to assist in the preparation of the ballot arguments; and four, approve and complete the verification statement.
There was one public commenter:
(54:54) Laura Hobbs: Ok. Regarding R2, I support R2 and I think you’re doing the right thing. I would like to see more in this direction. We need to focus on things that are vital to this county. I appreciate what you’ve done with R2. But in my opinion, this is window dressing. This isn’t the true needs of the county. And I guess in that way, Mary and I agree to some extent. However, in addition to looking at fentanyl overdoses, I believe that we need to put our elections first and foremost because without that, we’re not a free country. And what has been uncovered in Venezuela is that these machines, we now have defectors who are on our side and they’re saying, look, they’re the ones who wrote the code R2. Ok. Yeah, this is related to R2. And this is where I think our charter needs to go next. It’s the direction the county needs to take next. But they have everything now, they have defectors who have gotten it down to the atomic level. What happened in Mesa, Colorado. So this is the issue of our day. I appreciate that you’re doing these other things, but I’m worried that we’re losing valuable time. And what happened in Venezuela where, you know, 70% of the population –
Supervisor Crye: We have, we have to stick –
Laura Hobbs: Right. I understand. But I feel that that is about to happen here in Shasta County. So just let me finish my thought. So with 70% of the population voting to get rid of the dictator and then nevertheless, him saying, no, I’m still in charge here. Well, this is the direction that I feel the US is fast approaching. So if we are gonna win this country and win this county back, we need to start here in Shasta County, the time is now. We have waited and wasted valuable time. We can use our charter to take our authority back. If you’re not willing to do it as supervisors, you can put it before the citizens. And this would be the perfect opportunity to do that. You could go down in history as heroes, basically, instead of being the ones who have chosen to do nothing. So instead of choosing comfort your own lives or your own careers, choose the good of the people of Shasta County who you represent. Where are the patriots who will pledge their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor?
R2 passed on a 3-1 vote with Supervisor Rickert voting no.
(58:04) ADJOURN
