Investigation Clears Supervisor Patrick Jones of Wrongdoing in Destroyed AG-Letter Controversy

District 4 Supervisor Patrick Jones “did not improperly fail to disclose the Attorney General’s January 29, 2024 letter”.

That was the conclusion of an outside investigation conducted by Sacramento-based Ellis Investigations into the controversy that arose after Jones destroyed a letter he received from the AG’s office.

Violence in the board chambers

The news that the investigation had absolved Jones was reported Tuesday afternoon by county counsel Joseph Larmour following the Shasta County Board of Supervisors’ closed-session meeting.

But before that, the meeting included an incidence of violence that took place when a public speaker, Thomas Hildebrandt, punched waiting speaker Christian Gardinier in the stomach after Gardinier had put a hand on Hildebrands’ shoulder in a gesture of no hard feelings about harsh words of misunderstanding spoken moments earlier by Hildebrandt to Gardinier.

This video shows Hildebrandt prior to punching Gardinier, but audio of the incident reveals sounds of the incident, and the reaction from the audience. A hot mic picked up chair Crye asking Jones if Hildebrandt had punched Gardinier.

The pair of private Securitas guards approached the men, and one guard asked Hildebrandt to leave, which he did. Crye then called for a 5-minute recess. Following the recess, Gardinier resumed his place in line to speak. He began by saying that he had considered Thomas a friend, what happened was a misunderstanding, and he was concerned for Thomas’ health.

Gardinier later noted that Hildebrandt could pack “quite a punch”.

For the record, this is not the first time that Hildebrandt has gotten physical with someone during a board of supervisors meeting. In a Sept. 27, 2022 meeting, Hildebrandt shoved KRCR reporter Mike Mangas, after which Hildebrandt was escorted from the board chambers by law enforcement.

No mention was made of the incident for the duration of the meeting by Crye, county counsel or the CEO.

The long lost, eventually found, ultimately destroyed letter

The letter in question was from Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office to Jones, dated Jan. 29, 2024.

The AG’s letter was in response to one sent by the board majority, allegedly crafted by District 1 Supervisor Kevin Crye, that implored the AG to investigate Crye’s allegations that Shasta County District Attorney Stephanie Bridgett had mishandled the Zogg Fire settlement lawsuit.

The AG office’s letter to then-chair Jones absolved Bridgett of any wrongdoing.

The letter would have stayed a mystery were it not for Bridgett herself eventually contacting the AG’s office to inquire about the AG’s response to the board majority’s accusations. That’s when she learned that Jones had received the letter, but that he’d not made it public.

When news broke of the existence of the AG’s letter, Jones came under scrutiny and criticism, such as this blistering dressing down by Cottonwood resident Dawn Duckett.

Ultimately, Jones finally admitted he had received the letter, but he also implicated Crye by mentioning no less than three times during a board meeting that he’d “shared the letter” with Crye. The meaning of the word “shared” was never clarified as to the medium; whether read over a shoulder, or emailed, or presented in a photocopy, or via a verbal exchange.

Crye, in turn, offered his version of what happened.

For weeks following the revelation of the AG letter, several members of the public questioned the suspicious timing of Jones’ decision to destroy the letter that cleared the DA of Crye’s accusations, since Jones was a candidate running for re-election.

“The public has yet to receive a satisfactory answer as to why the letter was not immediately disclosed when it was received by the County,” wrote former public defender Jeff Gorder in a letter to the editor. “The only reasonable explanation we’re left with at this time is that there was a decision to bury the letter because of the impact it might have on the March 5 election.”

Jones was soundly defeated in the March 5 election by challenger Matt Plummer, who will take Jones’ District 4 board seat in January, 2025.

Confidential investigation results

According to County Counsel Larmour, who reported the investigation results during the board meeting, by a 5-0 vote the supervisors agreed to forgo the attorney-client privilege and make the investigation public.

CEO Rickert and Larmour handed out hard copies of the 13-page report from the dais. The report included several attachments: Jones’ Aug. 29, 2023 four-page letter to Attorney General Bonta, County of Shasta Administrative Manual, a May 3, 2024 email to CEO David Rickert from “Mr. Chamberlain” from A News Cafe seeking information about the AG’s letter to Jones, a May 15, 2024 email from CEO Rickert stating May 3 was his first knowledge of the letter, and finally, the letter from the AG’s office to then-chair Jones.

Click here to read the full report.

The report contained witness statements from Crye, CEO Rickert, Jones, and former Agency Staff Services Analyst John Sitka, the only one of the witnesses interviewed twice. Sitka’s final interview was via telephone on Aug. 5, 2024.

John Sitka recently resigned from his county position to relocate to a new city for a new occupation. His final day was Friday.

According to the report, the investigator audio recorded the interviews, but did not obtain testimony under oath. An excerpt explained assumptions adopted during the investigation.

“Nevertheless, the investigation proceeded under the good faith expectations that witnesses would answer truthfully. The investigator made the findings in this Report based on the totality of the evidence, and a thorough analysis of all the information gathered.

As appropriate, the investigator made credibility determinations. When reviewing factual disputes, the investigator considered several factors, as appropriate, to assess the credibility of witnesses:

Corroboration with other evidence
Motive to lie, fabricate or exaggerate
Opportunity and capacity to observe
Inherent plausibility
Past record of similar conduct
Consistency of statements
Evidence of bias
Admission of untruthfulness
Reputation for honesty or deceit
Demeanor”

Under the category of Admonitions to Witnesses, the report said the witnesses were expected to answer truthfully, and that witnesses were asked to consider “the confidential nature of the investigation before discussing the subject of the interview, and that the investigator could not guarantee confidentiality.

Last, the investigator advised the witnesses about the prohibition against retaliation “both retaliation for bringing a claim and for participating in the investigation.”

AG letter or mere clutter?

One portion of the report relayed Crye’s observation that “Jones kept a clean office and had a practice of throwing away clutter. As such, Mr. Jones throwing away the January 29, 2024 letter appeared normal for him”.

That section also noted that since May 2024, Crye implemented a new board policy that required mail staff to open all mail, photocopy it, and give copies to the respective supervisors.

An excerpt of the analysis and findings portion of the report explains the rationale behind Tracy C. Law‘s conclusions on behalf of Ellis Investigations Law Corporation:

“This investigation found, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Jones did not improperly fail to disclose the Attorney General’s January 29, 2024 letter. The County had concerns that Mr. Jones did so. Mr. Jones acknowledged that he disposed of the letter but denied improperly failing to disclose it. And, the evidence supported Mr. Jones’ account.”

Another segment of the report said Crye and Jones had discussed their frustration with the Attorney General’s letter, and “how Ms. Bridgett appeared to have gotten away with impropriety.”

Why investigate the destroyed letter?

District 3 Supervisor Mary Rickert.

In May, District 3 Supervisor Mary Rickert explained why she requested an investigation into the issue of the destroyed letter.

“After listening to the many members of the public at the May 14th board meeting who were asking for answers as to why the January 29th letter from Attorney General Bonta was never shared at a board meeting, I felt strongly that we needed closure,” Rickert said.

“For true transparency, it is time to share why the letter wasn’t read at a board meeting when it was first received by Supervisor Jones. After the many accusations and disparaging remarks about DA Bridgett made by supervisors Crye and Jones, the members of the board who had knowledge of the letter need to do the ethical thing and inform the public of the findings of the investigation.”

Supervisor Rickert added that to accomplish the level of necessary transparency, it was obvious that an outside investigation was the logical next step.

“I will continue to press for an outside investigation until this matter is resolved,” Rickert said.

Meanwhile, on the one hand there will be those who read the investigative report and agree with its findings.

But on the other hand, there will be those who believe Crye and Jones fooled the investigator, and in the end, will feel frustration with the investigator’s findings, and believe that Crye and Jones appeared to have gotten away with impropriety” — thus leaving the matter still unresolved.