District 3 Supervisor challenger Corkey Harmon showed up with 2 minutes to spare before the 6 p.m. start of his first public one-on-one face-off with two-term incumbent Mary Rickert.
The forum was hosted by the Shasta League of Woman Voters at the Shasta Lake Community Center. You can watch the entire live streamed forum by clicking here.
By 5:55 p.m., when Harmon still hadn’t arrived, there were murmurs among the audience that perhaps Harmon wouldn’t show up. After all, he’d not responded to an invitation to join Rickert last month as a guest on an episode of Shasta Unmasked radio.
Harmon put those speculations to rest when he joined Rickert at 5:58. LWV moderator Susan Wilson went right to the questions, selected from notecards provided by the audience members.
Harmon and Rickert’s responses to the opening question set the tone as a stark study in contrasts for the rest of the evening: Rickert presented as a poised, articulate, experienced, knowledgeable and professional public servant with a long history of community service.
Harmon did not.
Mary Rickert
In her introductory statement Rickert quickly ticked off just a sample of decades’ of community involvement, as well as some personal and professional accomplishments.
- 4-H leader
- Anderson Union High School Scholarship Committee
- Shasta College Ag Advisory Board and Accreditation Committee
- Fall River High School Board of Directors, founder of the Burney/Fall River Education Foundation and Fall River Boosters Club
- Sober Grad night chairman
- NAMI (National Alliance for Mental Illness) member and instructor of the Family to Family course
- Intermountain Fall River AAUW member and chair of the scholarship committee
- 10 years on the Shasta County Mental Health Advisory Board
- Member of the Cal Creek Watershed
- Panelist and crisis-intervention trainer for law enforcement, sponsored by NAMI and Shasta County from
2001 to 2012 - Chairman of the Children’s Committee, a subcommittee of the Shasta County Mental Health Board
- Mentored a teenage girl for more than four years through Plus One Mentor program
- Appointed by former Supervisor Glenn Hawes to the Psychiatric Hospital Facility Community Committee
- Parish council member.
- Elected several times as chair of County Farm Service Agency
- Served on the Mental Health Assessment and Redesign Collaborative
- Shasta Regional Community Foundation Board member
- Appointed by former Governor Jerry Brown to the California State Board of Forestry Fire Protection from 2013 to 2016
- With husband Jim Rickert co-owns, operates and oversees a 20,000 acre agribusiness venture that includes farm management, and raising cattle for beef and biomedical products
- Mother of 3, grandmother of 6
“I want to run again,” Rickert explained. ” I see a lot of things I want to get done in Shasta County. We’ve kind of been sidetracked with a lot of things, and I want to get back to the focus of mental health, public safety and substance abuse.
Corkey Harmon 
In Harmon’s opening statement he said he was born in Mercy Medical Center and was mostly raised in Shasta County. He said his family moved to the North State three generations ago. He reminisced about when his family moved to Pine Grove, not far from the forum. He told about a Pine Grove camp site there with wooden floors and pop-up tents, details he didn’t remember, but he recalled his father and grandfather talking about them. He described a recent 5-minute passionate exchange with an acquaintance at a gas station, where the man said he and his wife were considering moving to Idaho.
“I said, we’re gonna stay right here, and we’re gonna push back and we’re gonna do everything we can to improve,” Harmon said. “This is where I’m from, this is where you’re from, this is where your family’s from.”
He then listed his attributes and accomplishments.
- Owns and is project manager for three successful businesses, Stimpel-Wiebelhaus, Mountain Gate Quarry and White Rock Trucking.
- Married father of 3, grandfather of 3.
“I just feel like there’s a lot to do here,” Harmon said. “I wanna give back… I wanna see what a good business sense will do for the board. I think a good board is a diversified board. I feel like, you know, let’s stay here, let’s fix it, let’s do what we can.”
Dramatic Differences
The first official question pertained to the candidates’ goals as a Shasta County supervisor, and how they would achieve those goals. This time, Harmon went first.
Harmon said it was difficult to narrow his goals down to just one thing, but he said one of his top priorities is to bring some “continuity” to the board. He blamed all five supervisors for contributing to the lack of decorum.
“It seems they don’t get along, they don’t talk, and it needs to be friendly,” Harmon said. “There’s no reason why we can’t disagree with something and be very polite about it, to say the least.”
Harmon said he believed could help unify the board, because of his experience working with crews and doing projects.
“I’m a doer,” Harmon said. “I want to take on the job as county supervisor, and I feel like I’ll do a good job for the people. I think it’s all about the people. I want to represent the people.”
When it was Rickert’s turn to answer the question about goals, she also addressed Corkey’s goal, and the acrimony on the board. She made it clear that what’s happening in board chambers now was not her experience in her early years as a supervisor.
“We had a great relationship; all of our board members,” Rickert said. “We got along great, we worked together, we compromised, and we didn’t always agree, but we compromised and we supported each other.”
She then moved on to her goal; a combination of addressing substance abuse and mental illness. Rickert said most every Shasta County citizen has been touched by loved ones suffering from mental illness or a substance abuse disorder. Using the fingers on one hand she listed ways in which Shasta County has above-average statistics in some of the worst categories: suicide rates, substance abuse, domestic violence, child abuse and elder abuse.
“So much of this, the basis of it is substance use and mental illness,” Rickert said. “So if we can address those issues, then we are able to get … to the ground level of what needs to be done.”
The questions grew more pointed and specific as the evening progressed, revealing stark differences between Harmon and Rickert.
For example, when discussing rural living, Rickert mentioned her adamant opposition to the Fountain Wind project. Harmon, who’s expressed in prior years his support of the Fountain Wind project, and recommendation for the board to approve it, did not mention it Thursday night.
‘All the little details’
There was an awkward moment when Harmon was asked his opinion about Measures P and Q on the upcoming November ballot, both of which were voted on and approved by the board majority to augment the charter county designation Shasta County voters approved in the primary election, which will be enacted in January.
Here’s the description of both measures as provided by the Shasta County Elections Office:
Measure P: This measure adds a subsection to the Shasta County Charter. The proposed addition would limit the County’s exercise of eminent domain.
Measure Q: This measure adds a subsection to the Shasta County Charter. The proposed addition would allow for Members of the Board of Supervisors to appoint or call for a special election to fill an unplanned mid-term vacancy of designated elected department heads.
Harmon said he was “all in” with regard to backing Shasta County being a charter county, because he thought it pushes against the state.
But then he admitted he didn’t recall Measures P and Q.
“I don’t remember P and Q, to be honest with you,” Harmon said, adding a few minutes later that he’d had a bit of a “deer in the headlights” moment.
“I will learn everything there is to know about all these,” Harmon said. “I’m a little behind here, because I know Mary’s been in this job for two terms. Please don’t be critical of me not knowing all the little details. I’ll learn all the little details.”
While it’s true that Rickert is serving her second term of office, Measures P and Q were proposed by the board majority since Harmon first ran for office in the spring. During this time, Harmon has been attending supervisors meetings, where those measures were discussed.
Unequivocal no to P&Q
Rickert was clear about her opposition to P&Q, and the entire charter, for that matter.
“From what I’ve experienced in the last three or four years, I understand how boards can become politically lopsided, and I think it’s really important,” Rickert said.
“It’s imperative that the people have a voice. I don’t think it’s right for four supervisors to
pick another supervisor from a district that, say, District 4. I think the people from District 4 should pick that supervisor. So I am absolutely against it. I think this gives too much power to the board of supervisors, and I don’t feel that that is going be in the best interest of each individual person in any given district that loses a supervisor and needs to have that opening built.
So that was my very strong stand on that.”
Controversial Shasta County Election Commission
When Wilson asked for Harmon and Rickert’s thoughts about the Shasta County Elections Commission, and their expectations from the commission, Harmon made a statement that elicited from the audience the first verbal reaction.
“So, I don’t think anybody in this room can honestly say that there’s not concerns about a secure election, that we haven’t had problems, that we don’t have problems,” Harmon said. “Nobody can say that. Not honestly.”
A number of people in the audience reacted with words of disagreement to Harmon’s statement, which caused moderator Wilson to shush the audience.
But Harmon forged ahead with a non sequitur, not about the Shasta County Elections Commission, but about his views on other election-related opinions.
“Why would you not want voter ID for everything he asked,” which resulted in more sounds of disapproval from many in the audience, but a “yeah!” from an elderly bearded man.
“We need to dig into it,” Harmon said. “I see a lot of people shaking their heads. I don’t know why you would be against voter ID.”
‘Show me the fraud’
Rickert contrasted Harmon’s position about the Elections Commission, something she said was expensive, due to the need for outside counsel, but also, the commission has not brought anything of substance to the board. Most troublesome for Rickert was when commission made recommendations to the board that were patently illegal.
“This is going to put our county in jeopardy for liability, and that’s going to cost you, the taxpayer, money to pay for these lawsuits,” Rickert said. “I have a fiduciary responsibility to every one of you … and that’s what I will continue to do; to make sure we are risk-averse in Shasta County.”
Opposite hand-counting positions
Wilson asked Rickert if they could answer the next question as simply as possible, perhaps in about 10 words: “What is your position on hand-counting ballots in Shasta County.”
Rickert blew past the 10-word response, and cited research about hand-counting ballots.
“Hand-counting is more expensive, more time-consuming and has a higher error rate, and it’s been proven in study after study after study,” Rickert said.
Harmon said he “didn’t have a problem with hand-counting” ballots.
“If we need to hand-count to make sure that it’s accurate, then let’s hand-count,” he said.
Housing for the unhoused
While both Harmon and Rickert expressed dismay about unhoused citizens, Harmon said there should be strings attached to service, such as not providing help to those who use drugs. Rickert cited Shasta County programs that are working to help the unhoused, and offered some examples of facilities constructed to assist the unhoused.
When it was Harmon’s turn to answer a subsequent question, he said Rickert hadn’t answered the question correctly, because the programs she mentioned were for low-income, not homeless people.
As he spoke, Rickert shook her head slightly.
Forum wrap-up
At last, the forum arrived at the time for candidates’ closing statements. Harmon said he hoped he’d not disappointed the audience because of his lack of experience.
He also said he believed it was time for some “new blood on the board”.
“I understand Mary has a lot of experience,” Harmon said. “She’s also done two terms. We voted the two-term limit, and it’s time for a change on the change that needs to happen. There’s a lot to be said about having the right people that can reach across the aisle, so to speak, that can work with people. I’m a people person.”
Rickert spoke briefly about the need for the board to return to the topic of the jail. She then concluded with an upbeat message.
“I am really excited about looking forward to working with two new board members … and I think they’re the right people that will be coming in,” Rickert said.
“I have a great vision of where we can focus our energy that’s right for everyone … I represent all of you, not just one segment of the political population.”
Rickert concluded her remarks with a reminder that the board of supervisors are supposed to be non-partisan elected officials.
“I care about each and every one of you, and I really care about the most vulnerable in our communities,” she said.
“I’ve invested decades of my life to that, and I want to continue that and use my knowledge and my experience to move this county forward.”
###
