Mary Williams photo courtesy of Shasta County.
During the last several years of extremist upheaval inside Shasta County Board of Supervisors meetings, most citizens who show up at the meetings to make public comments are regulars. But Tuesday, a woman’s appearance at the lectern brought a hush over the chambers.
Former Shasta County Interim/Deputy CEO Mary Williams was that unexpected speaker. Williams said it was the first time she’d set foot inside a board of supervisors meeting since she resigned from her county job last year.
Former Shasta County Interim/Deputy CEO Mary Williams speaks out during Tuesday’s Shasta County Board of Supervisors meeting about the board majority’s negative effects upon the county, its people and its policies. Photo by Mike Chapman for A News Cafe.
Williams explained she was there to address agenda item number C18. (Be sure and look for Barbara Rice’s report from Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting for more details about C18.)
On the face of C18, it requested supervisors adopt a resolution to amend Shasta County’s Personnel Rules to “make necessary adjustments to certain language and maintain compliance with state and federal laws.”
But Williams looked at C18 with experience gained while under the authoritarian thumb of the extremist board majority; a work situation so toxic that she resigned to escape employment conditions she found intolerable.
Here are Williams’ comments:
“Good morning. My name is Mary Williams. I served Shasta County for 7 years until I resigned last year as Deputy CEO. Since my departure I’ve not set foot in this room that meant so much to me for so long, but I’m compelled to come today not out of frustration, but with a commitment to accountability and a sense of duty to remaining county employees.
“Item C18, specifically the updates to Chapter 22 of the personnel rules, tells a story of a work environment where such specific and detailed policies are now necessary to address harassing, abusive, and retaliatory conduct, and procedures must be outlined for handling of complaints against elected officials. It’s a story of a year of pressing for change and outcomes when the system is designed to intentionally lead to a dead end.
Historically, Shasta County did not need such explicit policies because a commitment to a safe and respectful work environment was evident in the work culture. However, I can personally attest that the current environment has necessitated spelling out what was once a standard way of doing business.
It is unfortunate that victims had to pave the way for these policies to be considered. The tireless actions behind the scenes should have been enough. But here we are.
C18 is a reactionary measure, and those of us who have been in the trenches know it is a Band-Aid on a deeper wound. Progress is slow but it is imminent because we will not stop pushing for it. A step in the right direction will be when this Board does not selectively release investigation findings only when they like the outcome.
To County employees, I want you to know that I am still here, l did not simply walk away after I resigned; I remain engaged because though I don’t work for the county any longer, I still live in it and am raising a family here. I’m invested in its future and yours. I’m on LinkedIn and socials if you’d like to connect.”
Sustained, enthusiastic applause followed Williams’ comments. A few audience members stood as they clapped their approval. District 2 Supervisor Tim Garman and District 3 Supervisor Mary Rickert were among those applauding.
District 1 Supervisor/Chair Kevin Crye, District 4 Supervisor Patrick Jones and District 4 Supervisor Chris Kelstrom did not applaud.
Shasta County Supervisors Patrick Jones, Kevin Crye and Chris Kelstrom sit impassively during Tuesday’s Shasta County Board of Supervisor meeting. Photo by Mike Chapman for A News Cafe.
In fact, Jones reacted to Williams’ statement by accusing her of something that allegedly happened while she was the acting CEO. Jones then essentially called Williams a liar, which was ironic considering the ostensible point of item C18 was to address civility and decorum among supervisors.
Jones frowned as he listened to Williams’ accusations about the board majority.
District 4 Supervisor Patrick Jones listens to Mary Williams speak prior to calling her a liar. Photo by Mike Chapman for A News Cafe.
Speaking of Jones and anger issues, earlier in the meeting he made a big deal out of clarifying that citizens in Shasta County COULD carry firearms inside county buildings, and provided the justification. He said it boiled down to permission granted by duly authorized officers in charge of local government buildings.
“That’s us,” a grinning Jones said. “And so we passed that resolution that allows a person, anywhere and any person in the state of California that has a valid concealed weapon permit, can enter this building as they were prior to January 1st of this year.”
Who protects supervisors from abuse during closed sessions?
District 2 Supervisor Tim Garman.
Supervisor Garman said he agreed with Williams, and added that he believed a portion of C18 was, in part, Crye’s way of punishing Garman by seeking to prevent Garman from traveling for some upcoming out-of-town county business.
Then Garman dropped a bombshell that was relevant to some of Williams’ comments pertaining to some allegations that some supervisors’ consistently utilize a pattern of retaliation and abuse. But this time, Garman was making it personal regarding allegations of how he and Supervisor Rickert are verbally attacked and abused during closed session meetings.
This is a tricky area, because technically, according to the Brown Act, anything addressed during closed session cannot be made public. However, as Garman pointed out, it was acceptable to speak of mistreatment in general, without mentioning specific items.
“I would like to know where the protection is for the Board of Supervisors when we’re in closed session, and we’re being called liars and other things,” Garman said, adding that in any other county position, an employee who treated a colleague as poorly as some of the board majority members have mistreated Garman and Rickert would be fired.
“You know what I’m talking about,” Garman said as he addressed Monica Fugitt, Director of Support Services.
“Anybody who gets mistreated, they file a complaint,” Garman said. “At some point you’re going to take some action. Unfortunately, we don’t have that recourse on this board, and it’s wrong and we need it, so I’m asking for your help.”
‘This has got to stop!’
District 3 Supervisor Mary Rickert.
Supervisor Rickert backed up Garman’s request for some official means of relief from verbal abuse endured during closed sessions.
“I want to agree with supervisor Garman that there’s no protection for those of us in closed session,” Rickert said. “There’s no accountability, and anything can be said in closed session that anybody wants to say, and there’s no personal responsibility,
no accountability. So I find it very hypocritical that we have a whole chapter on how to not discriminate, how not to harass, not to be abusive, and yet it’s happening at the very highest level in this county, and it has to stop. It has to stop.”
Rickert said she admired Williams for coming forward to make public that what’s been hidden.
“You have no idea what has been going on in this county,” Rickert said to the audience.
“You have no idea the employees that have been retaliated against, and harassed, and it’s got to stop. We’re losing people all the time. We are the laughingstock of the state of California. I have people that tell me that they have relatives in other counties that watch our board meetings for entertainment. This is reprehensible. This is not a Gestapo state anymore. It’s got to stop, and I am sick and tired of people being abused, of us losing talent and institutional knowledge that we will never be able to replace, and I am tired of it. When will Shasta County come to the realization that what’s happening right now in Shasta County is going to take decades to ever recover from?”
Rickert pointed out the hypocrisy of the board majority enacting a strict policy intended to prohibit discriminatory, harassing or abusive manner.
“This happens at this dais on a regular basis,” Rickert said.
“…The fact of the matter is this has got to stop. We have got to return to civility and decorum in this county, or we will never recover. We will never be able to attract qualified people to come here to work, and it’s got to stop. We are losing physicians, we’re losing veterinarians, we’re losing lawyers, we’re losing business people. and I have people complain to me about that all the time, and it has got to stop.”
Jones responded by scoffing at Supervisor Rickert, contradicting her, and saying he didn’t know “what planet Supervisor Rickert’s from”.
Eventually, Rickert asked for guidance from Director Fugitt, whether supervisors had any protection from fellow supervisors during closed session, to which Fugitt passed the question on to Shasta County Counsel Joseph Larmour, the attorney hand-selected by Chair Crye.
Anything goes: There’s no stopping supervisor-on-supervisor abuse
Jones interrupted and asked if there was anything to prevent supervisors Garman and Rickert from using profanity. (Both supervisors had each used a curse word during two past, particularly heated discussions.)
-
- District 4 Supervisor Patrick Jones
-
- Shasta County Counsel Joe Larmour.
Larmour’s reply provided zero assistance for supervisors who suffer verbal abuse during closed session.
“The reality is as elected officials you guys are not employees, which means you aren’t subject to discipline by any County staff,” Larmour said.
“Ultimately, the only way for you to react and enforce any rules is for you to agendize the matter and put it on and take a vote on it. Unfortunately, as members of the board you have to police yourselves. There’s really nothing within the county code that allows any other county officer to take action against a board member.”
Basically, according to Larmour, during closed session, anything goes with regard to how supervisors can treat one another. In a civilized world, rational people would walk away from verbal abuse, and not tolerate it. But if the verbal abuse happens during closed session, any supervisor who left the session would be unable to vote or voice their opinions regarding the item being discussed.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the abused supervisors are screwed.
‘The day of reckoning is coming’
-
- Dist. 1 Supervisor/chair Chair Kevin Crye
Supervisor Crye had the last word on the subject, and delivered one of the most bizarre monologues uttered all morning, one that featured barely concealed threats, laced with crazed, messianic undertones. A red-faced Crye said he’d kept his mouth shut and kept things buried for 20 months, but no more.
“Mary and Supervisor Garman, the day of reckoning is coming, and it’s going to be great because you guys know — and that’s what’s funny — is you start to see people coming forward and talking, and it’s going to be glorious when everybody is let in to know what has gone on in this building, just in the time that I’ve been here,” Crye said.
Supervisor Rickert piped up, and said she didn’t know how to follow up Crye’s statement.
“Well, you’re gonna have to figure out how to follow it up because it’s gonna be pretty good information,” Crye shot back. “Everybody’s laying the groundwork, but it’s OK, because the truth will come out and set us all free.”
‘If you can’t beat fear, do it scared.’
Later, after Tuesday’s frequently dramatic board meeting (see Barbara’s report for the full story), Williams agreed to answer A News Cafe’s questions about her previous comments.
Doni Chamberlain: To begin, can you describe your former employment position with the county?
Mary Williams: I was the Deputy County Executive Officer. My primary assignments were the Board of Supervisors and community engagement. I also briefly served as Acting CEO for a few months when there was a gap in the position being hired for. While in this temporary assignment, my Deputy CEO position was held vacant and I planned to return to it once a permanent CEO was hired. By that time, however, it had become clear to me that I wanted to leave county employment.
DC: What inspired you to speak at today’s meeting?
MW: For those of us who have left county employment for related reasons, there is often a desire to move on and leave our poor experience in the past. The result is that few people are talking about what is taking place. Certainly the remaining County employees are not in a position to do this without risking their jobs. When I read the Board agenda and came across the item that I addressed, it felt like the right thing to do to call it out. I also wanted to let County employees know that some of us who have left are still in the mix and pressing on some of these issues.
DC: You’re familiar with the pattern of retaliation from some of the supervisors against those who displease them. What gave you the courage to speak up?
MW: Can I be vulnerably human here? I didn’t feel courage. That was the last place I wanted to be. The atmosphere in those Chambers seems to lack any hint of empathy or respect anymore. Some supervisors have spread rumors about me, and I anticipated that appearing to speak would invite more of this. Yet I feel determined to use my experiences to advocate for change. Here’s a saying that has always stuck with me: “If you can’t beat fear, do it scared.”
DC: That’s a great quote, and I may borrow it from time to time. Mary, what do you wish you’d known during your darkest days at the county, that you know now?
MW: That I would find peace in my decision to move on from a place I’d really loved, and that I would meet many beautiful and driven people because of it. That I’d still have an opportunity to serve my community and create solutions; it would just be in different forms. That I would have the opportunity to work for someone who exemplifies leading with authenticity, integrity, and unwavering commitment to the community. That no one was going to step in and “save me,” but I would figure out how to pick myself up and move forward.
DC: Do you still have any lingering side effects from those worst final days with the county?
MW: A hard one is that I have lost touch with many dear colleagues at the county. As I’ve started speaking out, some have told me that they can’t be seen with me because they don’t want a target on their back. I get it, but it’s sad.
DC: Believe me when I say that I understand that last part completely. And it is sad. Mary, on a positive note, what were the best parts about working for the county?
MW: Leveraging resources, tools, partnerships, and teamwork to develop solutions to issues facing the agency and the community. Trying to innovate ways to make local government more accessible to the public. Being able to respond kindly, professionally, and results-focused to a frustrated customer and hopefully change their perspective of local government a bit. Oh, and Mary Rickert.
DC: Do you have a message for the public?
MW: Local government is inherently more personal and tangible than bigger forms of government. It’s a beautiful thing when it’s approached with a sense of collaboration and common ground. There’s opportunity to make real progress on the issues that we face in Shasta County if we can get past the political divisiveness and stop treating each other as enemies. It starts with each of us. I’m working on it, myself, too.
DC: What words do you have for the current employees, who are in negative situations similar to what you experienced?
MW: If you are struggling to maintain your values or ethics, it’s not worth it (to stay).
DC: Thank you, Mary. I’m so sorry that your career with Shasta County ended the way it did. But I thank you for stepping up and shining a light upon some of the county’s darkest corners.
Shasta Unmasked — Countering Extremism: Lessons from County Leadership
Tuesday was not the first time Williams has spoken publicly about her time with the county.
On the May 21 Shasta Unmasked radio program, hosted by Jessica French, Ashley Winters and Shaye Stephens, the co-hosts featured Williams in the episode titled, Countering Extremism: Lessons from County Leadership.
During the radio interview, Williams did not speak for any county employees except herself as she tackled replies to the women’s questions.
She explained that problems arose in earnest with the Shasta County Board of Supervisors with the swearing in of the strong new majority, a trio she said sometimes made decisions without facts or expertise, especially if the minority board members’ opinions on a particular subject didn’t match the majority’s.
Williams said there were times when it appeared the board majority was “flirting” with the risk of multiple lawsuits related to violating state election rules. She cited a lack of transparency among the board majority. She recalled the difficulty of locating a health officer to replace Karen Ramstrom, who’d been fired without cause by the board majority (prior to Crye and Kelstrom’s ascension to the board).
“Who would want the job after they fired the last one?” Williams hypothesized regarding the health officer position that remained vacant for a year before the board selected Dr. James Mu.
Williams said that because of several rigid stances adopted by the board majority, some previous county partners no longer wished to work with the county.
But the most memorable, stressful times centered around personal attacks Williams suffered during meetings.
“Many times I did not feel safe,” William said. “When statements are made — ‘you’re a dead woman walking’ — or talk about bullets and guns, and how ropes are cheaper, those are the kinds of things that make people feel unsafe.”
She recalled one of the first times that someone from the public addressed her personally with a rude statement.
“My first thought was my baby in daycare, and I wanted to get him,” she said.
She recalled her shock around that same period of time to hear one of the supervisors pontificate on the news that he was so happy with board meetings, and that they’d never been better, a statement that could not have been further from her reality.
Williams shared her surprise and discomfort over how she’d been treated and grilled by one supervisor in particular, who asked everything from her political affiliation and voting history to whether she’d been vaccinated.
“I’d never had anyone at the county ask me about those things before,” she said.
On the radio show, not limited by Crye’s arbitrary, nonsensical 2-minute speaking rule, Williams went on at length about just a sample of unpleasant and distasteful things in her job that eventually led to her resignation. She said the board majority modeled bad behavior from the dais, which the public soon began to emulate. She described the lack of trust between supervisors and staff. She talked about the difficulty of walking a fine line between working at a tough job, and not compromising her ethics.
“The employees who are still there, they’re walking that line.” Williams said.
“The thing is, the people who stand up and speak up, they won’t be there much longer.”
For Williams, she said the decision to leave followed lots of thinking, and the eventual realization that she no longer felt proud of the place she worked.
“It doesn’t feel good to leave work each day not knowing if you’re helping or hurting the county,” Williams said. “I had my answer, and I submitted my resignation.”
###
