In this North State Breakdown Agenda Preview we look ahead to the January 14, 2025, Shasta County Board of Supervisors meeting. Along with the agenda overview, we focus on a controversial appointment to the Shasta Mosquito and Vector Control District Board, where one candidate’s troubling past (Richard Gallardo) has sparked significant debate.
Today we are looking ahead to the January 14, 2025, Shasta County Board of Supervisors meeting.
This is the second meeting of the year, and notably the second consecutive year for Kevin Crye as Board Chair. This continuation breaks with a decades-long tradition of rotating the position among supervisors annually, ensuring equal representation of the county’s diverse districts. The decision is emblematic of the Board majority’s consolidation of power, as Supervisors Crye, Kelstrom, and Harmon continue to set the agenda in alignment with his predecessor Patrick Jones.
Let’s review the key items on the agenda:
Regular Calendar Highlights
R1: Recognition of Employee of the Month
The Board will recognize Ryan Toney, Office Assistant Supervisor for the Health and Human Services Agency, as Shasta County’s Employee of the Month for January 2025. Toney is being honored for his professionalism, leadership, and dedication to fostering a supportive and productive team environment. His efforts exemplify the commitment and excellence of Shasta County employees.
R3: The H5N1 Bird Flu Virus Presentation
Sponsored by Supervisor Kevin Crye, this agenda item features a presentation from the Health and Human Services Agency on the impacts of the H5N1 Bird Flu virus in Shasta County.
The H5N1 virus, while primarily an avian disease, carries both economic and public health risks. Its ability to devastate poultry populations can lead to significant financial strain on farmers and ripple effects like higher egg prices for consumers. While human transmission is rare, the potential for outbreaks highlights the need for vigilance in prevention and containment strategies.
What makes this item particularly noteworthy is Supervisor Crye’s sponsorship of the item. Crye has a history of downplaying health crises, most notably his opposition to COVID-19 mandates, which he used as a cornerstone of his political platform. At a recent meeting, Crye even joked about Governor Gavin Newsom’s declaration of the state of emergency regarding the Bird Flu. This was an action intended to mobilize resources against this virus. This dismissive attitude raises concerns about whether Crye will approach this issue with the seriousness it demands.
Despite Crye’s track record, the issue itself is critical. A Bird Flu outbreak could force the culling of infected livestock to prevent further spread, significantly impacting the livelihoods of local farmers and driving up costs for consumers. Additionally, Shasta County’s preparedness for such an event will likely be addressed during this presentation. Key questions include:
What are the county’s current plans to monitor and mitigate the spread of H5N1?
How will financial resources be allocated to support affected farmers and ensure containment efforts?
What partnerships, if any, exist with state or federal agencies to handle a potential outbreak?
Crye’s sponsorship of this presentation provides an opportunity to see if his governance aligns with the county’s best interests or if he continues to prioritize political grandstanding over substantive action. Residents should pay close attention to this agenda item and consider providing public comment, especially if they are directly impacted by agricultural or economic challenges related to the virus.
As Crye seeks to frame this discussion, his response to both the public and the Board will be a measure of whether he can rise to meet the gravity of this issue or continue a pattern of undermining public health initiatives.
R4: Proposition 36
This presentation from the Sheriff’s Office, sponsored by Supervisor Chris Kelstrom, explores the local effects of Proposition 36, which reclassifies certain misdemeanors as felonies.
Crime is a pressing issue in Shasta County, and Kelstrom has long positioned himself as a champion of public safety. During his campaign, Kelstrom emphasized the need for a new jail to address overcrowding and resource constraints. However, last year, the Board majority—including Kelstrom—abandoned the project due to funding challenges. The county’s financial woes, exemplified by the recent $2.8 million settlement to former Captain Kropholler, continue to complicate efforts to address crime effectively.
Proposition 36 could provide valuable tools for reducing crime, particularly among repeat offenders, but it may also exacerbate the strain on county resources. With jail overcrowding and an overburdened court system already at critical levels, careful implementation will be key.
Key Questions to Consider:
How will the county manage increased arrests and prosecutions without a new jail?
What strategies are in place to balance stricter enforcement with resource limitations?
Can rehabilitation and prevention programs play a complementary role in reducing recidivism?
Supervisor Kelstrom’s sponsorship reflects his commitment to public safety, but the Board must ensure this effort doesn’t further strain the county’s already limited resources. Residents concerned about crime and enforcement should provide input during public comment to ensure their voices are heard.
R6: Appointment to the Shasta Mosquito and Vector Control District Board
This agenda item involves selecting a candidate to serve a four-year term on the Shasta Mosquito and Vector Control District Board. The Board must choose between two applicants, Philip Cramer and Richard Gallardo. While Cramer brings relevant experience as a former appointee to the District, Gallardo’s candidacy raises significant concerns due to his controversial past.
Gallardo’s record is littered with instances of disruptive and questionable behavior, making his suitability for this role highly contentious. Let’s examine key incidents that highlight why his appointment could undermine the credibility and effectiveness of the Vector Control Board:
Attempted Citizen’s Arrests of Public Officials
Gallardo has a history of weaponizing citizen’s arrest laws to make political statements. In 2020, he attempted to arrest the entire Shasta County Board of Supervisors when they refused to align with his demands to ignore COVID-19 mandates. This stunt not only disrupted governance but also demonstrated his willingness to misuse legal tools for personal or political gain.
Violence Against a Private Citizen
Recently, Gallardo was involved in an altercation where he pepper-sprayed an individual who was delivering legal documents related to a restraining order against him. Such actions reveal a pattern of aggressive and erratic behavior, raising serious questions about his temperament and judgment.
Animal Cruelty Allegations
Footage from an Animal Planet show captured Gallardo lying to law enforcement about shooting squirrels in a residential area—an act that was both illegal and reckless. His attempts to mislead authorities were documented on national television, further calling his integrity into question.
Slandering Private Citizens
In a separate incident, Gallardo and an associate posted private information and case details about a citizen, on public walls as an act of political retaliation. This not only violated the citizen’s privacy but also exemplified Gallardo’s tendency to engage in defamatory and inappropriate conduct to target his opponents.
Weaponization of Vaccine Misinformation
Gallardo disrupted a public vaccine clinic managed by the County by spreading misinformation and interfering with operations. Asked to leave by then Program Manager Dave Maron, Gallardo later attempted another citizen’s arrest. This illustrates his ongoing hostility toward public health initiatives.
Employment Termination from Cal Fire
Gallardo was reportedly fired from Cal Fire for brandishing a firearm at work—a deeply concerning act that is the perfect example of his history of unsafe and unprofessional behavior in high-stakes environments.
The Stakes for Vector Control
The Shasta Mosquito and Vector Control District Board plays a vital role in preventing the spread of mosquito-borne illnesses such as West Nile virus and addressing invasive species. It requires members who can work collaboratively, respect public safety protocols, and prioritize the community’s health and welfare.
In many ways this appointment is reminiscent of the appointment of Jon Knight to the Vector Control Board. Knight, the founder of Mountain Top Media, is known for promoting far-right conspiracy theories. Despite widespread opposition from public health advocates and community members, Knight was ultimately chosen for the position. His controversial beliefs and skepticism toward established scientific practices raised serious concerns about the Board’s credibility and its ability to carry out effective vector control.
The appointment of another contentious figure like Gallardo would further erode public confidence in this critical public health body. Residents are strongly encouraged to participate in public comment to advocate for professionalism and accountability in the Board’s composition.
Cramer’s Qualifications
In contrast, Philip Cramer has previously served on the District Board, bringing experience and a track record of contributing constructively to its operations. His candidacy offers stability and expertise, both of which are crucial for an effective public health body.
Consent Calendar Highlights
Next up is the consent calander. Some notable items include:
C1: Budget amendments increasing appropriations by $2.1 million, partly to cover litigation costs.
C2: Approval of the County claims list, totaling $195,090.
C3: Adjustments to accommodate Homeland Security Grant reimbursements.
C1 highlights the financial impact of litigation, including the Fountain Wind lawsuit and other high-profile cases, which continue to strain the county’s budget. Meanwhile, C3 emphasizes the importance of state and federal grants in sustaining local emergency preparedness efforts.
Next up is public comment -an essential part of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors meetings, offering residents the chance to voice their concerns, share perspectives, and hold the Board accountable. It’s crucial for the public to stay involved, especially as the Board considers decisions that impact the community’s future. Typically, speakers are allotted three minutes to address the Board, but under the guise of time efficiency, Supervisor Crye has made a habit of limiting public input when it suits his agenda. For example, during the January 7th vote for Chair and Vice Chair, Crye reduced speaking time to one minute, citing a “stack of cards,” despite there being fewer than ten speakers.
Closed Session
The January 14 meeting includes two significant closed session items, where the Board will deliberate behind closed doors without public input. These discussions often involve sensitive legal and personnel matters, and any reportable actions will be announced after the session concludes.
First is (R7) Existing Litigation : The Board will discuss the ongoing case of Betty Abbie et al. v. Shasta County. Details about this case are limited, but its inclusion highlights the county’s continued exposure to legal challenges, which have become a persistent issue under the previous Board majority. Whether that changes with the new board makeup remains to be seen.
Next is a R8 Public Employee Performance Evaluation (R8): This session will evaluate the performance of the Public Works Director, a critical role given the county’s infrastructure challenges.
Public Participation
Public comment is essential. Whether you attend in person or submit written comments via email, public participation ensures that the community’s voice remains central to governance. Your engagement really does matter – speak up and make your concerns known.
And that’s the Agenda Preview.
