Local In-Home Support Services workers and attorneys from the Public Defender and District Attorney’s offices urgently pleaded for higher wages at Tuesday night’s Shasta County Board of Supervisors meeting.
The IHSS workers, under the purple banner of Service Employees International Union Local 2015, currently earn $18.10 per hour. The minimum wage in California is $16.50 per hour. According to MIT’s living wage calculator, the living wage for one adult with no kids living in Shasta County is $23.44 per hour. That shoots up to $41.04 per hour for an adult with one child.
In Shasta County, public defenders and district attorneys are represented by the United Public Employees of California. As A News Café previously reported, the median salary for a new deputy district attorney is $127,000 per year. The starting salary for a deputy district attorney in Sacramento is $136,000 per year. In Shasta County, it’s $89,000.
Both of these groups took advantage of a rare nighttime meeting and the Board’s recent decision to move open public comment to the beginning of meetings to make powerful cases with the supervisors and the public.
They served as proxies for the American working and middle classes economically whiplashed by the erratic behavior of President Donald Trump, AKA Tariff Man, during his first three months in office.
The meeting was held at the Shasta Lake City Council Chambers while the county chambers is being remodeled. With a capacity of just 62 seated and 90 overall, the Shasta Lake chambers are decidedly more intimate; supervisors, speakers and audience are much closer together. The speakers clearly got the Board’s attention.
Employee of the Month
Anna Rodriguez, Supervising Staff Services Analyst for the County Clerk and ROV.
Anna Rodriguez, Supervising Staff Services Analyst for the County Clerk and ROV and Shasta County’s Employee of the Month for April, set the tone for the meeting when she took to the podium and defended her elections office coworkers, perhaps the most maligned public servants in the United States.
“Thank you board for the opportunity to be recognized for this,” Rodriguez said, turning away from the board and toward the audience. “I’d be lying if I didn’t say I’m a little put on the spot for being recognized for using a voting system, because that’s a hot topic. I’m sorry I’m not addressing you directly, but I want to make it clear to my home and my county that you have an incredible crew making your voice heard and busting their butts to make sure it gets done and it gets done right.”
Addressing District 5 Supervisor Christ Kelstrom, Rodriguez congratulated him on his recent apparent break with local election deniers, who continue to embroil the county in expensive legal controversies. The daughter of a pastor and a military veteran, she spoke with confidence and common sense.
“You want change?” Rodriguez asked. “Yeah, let’s do that. But let’s do it in a way that is legal and let’s do it in a way that we’re not depleting our funds and our resources locally.”
Any attempts by the election deniers in the audience to shout down Rodriguez were drowned out by loud applause from her supporters, who comprised the majority in the room, a pattern that was repeated throughout the 3-hour meeting.
ROV Toller Stands By His Crew Once Again
Outgoing Shasta County ROV Thomas Toller.
In one of his last official acts as ROV before he retires for health reasons, Thomas Toller praised Rodriguez.
“Joanna is entirely deserved she is an exemplary employee and I can’t tell you how valuable she’s been as a part of my management team,” Toller said. “She and the staff that she supervises basically run the technology that makes our modern elections work and helps us to comply with federal and state law.”
Toller was effusive in his praise for Rodriguez.
“Particularly in the general election with the problems that we encountered. I’ve just never witnessed somebody so quickly adopt new technology, learn it on the fly, train up 20 new temporary employees in how that technology worked and explain to observers and other members of the public exactly what we were doing,” Toller concluded.
Who will replace Toller, Assistant ROV Joanna Francescut or some so for unnamed candidate, remains to be seen in the coming weeks.
Crying Wolf Gets the Clicks
Gray Wolf, photo courtesy of CDFW.
Sierra, Lassen and Modoc counties are crying wolf. Shasta County CEO David Rickert wants to join them in declaring a local state of emergency over northeastern California’s slowly growing gray wolf population. According to the California Wolf Report for the last quarter of 2024, there were 18 confirmed wolf depredations of livestock, although none were in Shasta County.
“Recent evidence suggests that the wolves are killing without feeding which suggests motivations other than hunger,” Rickert said in his board report. “California law restricts the ability of us to effectively deal with the safety issue in response a letter detailing the situation is being drafted for the board to consideration to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and in addition a resolution declaring a local state of emergency.”
In response to rampant wolf worry in California’s northern counties, the CDFW issued a press release April 2 indicating that all things are under control as phase 2 of the state’s 2016 Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California is implemented.
Phase 2 includes a review of the gray wolves’ status, the continued collaboration with the California Wolf Project, continued habitat improvement for native prey species, the promotion of nonlethal means for wolf removal and the continued issuance of compensation payments to livestock producers with confirmed wolf depredation, a program started in 2022.
CDFW will also continue to reach out to ranchers and the general public about the risks posed by wolves. Are they worrisome enough to declare a state of emergency in Shasta County? Or is this just another case of Shasta County’s government attempting to stick it to the woke state of California?
Most likely, it’s the latter. It seems a little early to cry wolf just yet.
Will DOGE Wreck Shasta County Tourism?
The most unpopular person at the meeting.
Shasta County District 2 Supervisor Allen Long opened his board report by announcing he’s studied up on the rules regarding board reports and was now confining his reports to issues of “countywide significance.” The fate of Whiskeytown National Recreation Area in the wake of Elon Musk’s DOGE cuts certainly qualifies as that, so Long contacted Whiskeytown Superintendent Josh Hoines to assess the damage.
“I was wondering how it’s going with federal cuts and what that’s going to look like to his staffing,” Long said. Hoines told Long the park generates $40 million to $80 million per year in local spending. “Significantly, he told me that they’re into the double digits now in staff that has been reduced.”
“What effect could that have on our community when we’re talking about the multiplier effect when people are going to our hotels?” Long asked. “So I would like to make a motion that we bring this back for future discussion at which time I could have all facts and figures prepared and we’ll see what impact these cuts are on our parks, potentially, and whether we want to have a discussion about bringing a letter of support and and push back a little bit to educate Maybe Washington.”
Long made a motion to bring the issue back to the board at a later date; Board Chair and District 1 Supervisor Kevin Crye seconded it. After open comment, the motion passed 5-0, with Crye requesting that CEO Rickert and County Counsel Joe Larmour write yet another letter to Washington, D.C.
Speaking of letters, R2 on the regular calendar featured no less than three missives: a letter of support for AB 25: Voter ID and Election Integrity Act of 2025; a letter of opposition to AB 690: Criminal procedure: indigent defense compensation; and a letter of support for House of Representatives Bill 1383: Secure Rural Schools Reauthorization Act of 2025.
The Board voted 5-0 to send all three letters.
The Heartbreaking Case of Shasta County’s IHSS Workers
Rebecca Howe is an IHSS provider and a member of the SEIU 2015 bargaining team.
If Chair Crye could have a do-over, he might have never mentioned moving open public comment to the beginning of meetings, which wasn’t his idea in the first place. Since the change several meetings ago, the people have retaken control of the board chambers from Crye and his election denying sycophants, who have suddenly realized they’ve been outnumbered the whole time.
This was made all the clearer in the intimate confines of the Shasta Lake City Council chambers as nearly a dozen SEIU Local 2015 IHSS workers shared stories of their empathy for the aged and infirm and the poverty acting on such feelings entails.
Rebecca Howe is an in-home service provider for her sister-in-law’s 96-year-old mother and a member of the SEIU 2015 bargaining unit, currently in contract negotiations with the county.
“I want to echo and a Rodriguez’s comments about how proud she is of our election department,” Howe said. “I too am proud of our election department. I also want to comment about the people that are needing pay raises in their jobs in both the public defender’s office the district attorney’s office and health care workers. Yet in May of last year the board majority voted themselves a 59 percent raise.”
It’s true. In the wake of the highest inflation seen in the United States since the 1970s, the Board jacked up its own salaries while their constituents earned no such reprieve.
Now, it’s coming back to haunt the Board.
“We’re not asking for a lot,” Howe said. “We’re asking for a livable wage that will help keep the roof over our heads and feed our families. The nickels and dimes you’re currently offering us at the table won’t allow us to do that.”
Madalynn Clark, also a member of the SEIU bargaining unit, filled in the financial blanks.
“Eighty-one percent of Shasta providers work multiple jobs at least some of the time just to make ends meet,” she said. “Fifty-six percent of IHSS workers have difficulty paying their rent each month, reporting that they are sometimes are always late with their payments. Nearly 40 percent of IHSS workers experience food insecurity. Do you believe that what you have offered us is going to change any of this?”
Like many in-home health care providers, Natasha Harlow first gave care to a family member, her diabetic grandfather-in-law in 2008.
“He did not want to live the rest of his life in an assisted living facility surrounded by strangers,” she said. “So to honor his wishes and to support my mother-in-law, I quit my job as the paid programming manager for KRCR and I will always stand by that decision.”
“But it came with a severe financial hardship,” she continued. “Because I didn’t have an income, my husband and I struggled to pay our utility bills and sometimes had to skip meals to save money. Eventually we had to get on food stamps to make sure we could keep food on the table for our children.”
Despite these economic hardships, experienced in-home health providers shared similar stories of feeling compelled to help the 4500 Shasta County residents requiring such services. Currently there’s only 4300 IHSS workers to meet that demand. Raising wages could bring more workers into the fold.
“The thing that bothers me most is that you know as a union our strongest negotiating tactic is a strike, and we’re not allowed to strike,” said IHSS worker Harry Madson. “We can’t strike because we have to take care of our people. We can’t just let them go and get hurt. You’re taking advantage of that because if we could strike something different would come out of this.”
The Cost of Care Exceeds the Cost of Living
IHSS worker Michael Vanscoter.
“I have two clients that I work for and I work a primary job just so I can survive,” said Matthew Vanscoter, who has been caring for various relatives for 11 years. “With two other people in my house on a basic income with what you guys are giving us, I have actually been told by people on the street that I should just leave IHSS and go to school and get a better paying job.”
“But just like several of my co-workers have said, we can’t do that,” Vanscoter said. “I Feel quite exploited when it comes to the fact that just like one of my other people have said, we can’t strike. We don’t have the option of stopping what we’re doing at the risk of somebody else’s life.”
Belinda Hutchings has been an in-home caregiver for more than 25 years, beginning with a great uncle whose brain was damaged during the 1917 flu pandemic. Her family moved to Shasta County in the 1960s and she recalls the aged and the disabled begging for money on Market Street in downtown Redding.
“On the side with Penny’s and everything there was always a lineup of people on the street and some of them sat in boxes with wheels. Some of them were completely blind. There were several of them. They were different at different times of the day. They held little jars that they sold pencils for a penny.”
“They were blind, they were missing limbs and at the end of the day they would shuffle over to California Street where they would sleep on the sidewalks where all the unconscious alcoholics were also sleeping,
Hutchings said. “Sometimes they did not wake up in in the morning.”
Does Shasta County Care?
Susan McMains has been an IHSS worker for 17 years.
Susan McMains has been an IHSS worker for 17 years.
“I want not only to speak up for a livable wage for all Shasta County IHSS workers,” said veteran IHSS worker Susan McCains. “But also to remind the County Board of Supervisors that their commitment is to the community. They were elected to serve.”
McMains finds the Board’s efforts so far lacking.
“There isn’t anyone in this room that at some point, themselves, a family member, a friend or a neighbor will need these services,” McMains said. “Yet instead of investing I see this board divesting in not only the value of the program itself but in the people who work day-in and day-out who care for communities our communities most vulnerable IHSS workers live right here in Shasta County.”
Sympathy for the Assistant District Attorney?
Shasta County ADA Nolan Webber.
Following the IHSS workers’ compelling stories is a tough act, but the beleaguered underpaid attorneys of Shasta County’s Public Defender and District Attorney offices once again took advantage of the new open public comment rules to make a convincing case that their middle class dreams have been derailed by the penny-pinching MAGA board.
Senior Deputy District Attorney Noel Webber spoke on behalf of one of the office’s recent recruits, a former defense attorney who liked what he saw in Shasta County and joined the prosecutorial team.
“He’s a true advocate for the people,” Webber said. “He loves his job. But the problem is despite his love for the culture of our office, he lives in a trailer park and has one car.”
“Now ask yourselves, is that a saleable concept?” Webber asked.
It was in the 1970s, they called it “The Rockford Files.”
But that was a work of fiction. IRL today, prospective attorneys spend tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars and six to eight years of their lives to rise above the trailer court to that suburban mansion in the sky and can’t help but feel cheated in Shasta County.
When you see assistant public defenders and assistant deputy district attorneys teaming up like they did at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting and getting the same applause as In-Home Service Provider workers, one thing seems certain.
There’s a reckoning coming.
MAGA is on the ropes.
SCOREBOARD
R1 Adopt a resolution which recognizes Anna Rodriguez, Supervising Staff Services Analyst, of the County Clerk & Registrar of Voters Office as Shasta County’s Employee of the Month for April 2025.
Score: 5-0.
R2 Take the following actions: (1) Receive an update from the County Executive Officer on County issues and consider action on specific legislation related to Shasta County’s legislative platform; (2) receive Supervisors’ reports on countywide issues; and (3) approve: (a) a letter of support for Assembly Bill (AB) 25: Voter ID and Election Integrity Act of 2025; (b) a letter of opposition to AB 690: Criminal procedure: indigent defense compensation; and (c) a letter of support for House of Representatives Bill 1383: Secure Rural Schools Reauthorization Act of 2025.
Score: 5-0.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Score: C7 was pulled from the consent calendar by Supervisor Plummer. The Board voted 4-1 to approve C7, with Supervisor Long dissenting.
The Board voted 5-0 to approve the rest of the Consent Calendar.
County Clerk-Elections
C1 Adopt a resolution which consolidates the Shasta Fire Protection District with
even-numbered year elections.
Health and Human Services Agency-Public Health
C2 Authorize the Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA) Director, or the HHSA Public Health Branch Director, to sign an Acceptance of Allocation Agreement, Payment Invoices, amendments, and any required documents, including retroactive, to accept tobacco tax revenue from the California Department of Public Health for the Tobacco Prevention Program.
C3 Adopt a resolution which: (1) Designates the County Executive Officer (CEO) to act as the Authorized Agent; and (2) authorizes the CEO to: (a) enter and execute a retroactive grant agreement (Agreement) with the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) for the California HIV Surveillance Program; and (b) sign future agreements, documents and amendments, including retroactive, that do not result in a substantial or functional change to the original intent of the Agreement.
C4 Approve a retroactive renewal agreement with EMSystems LLC, dba Juvare, for a real-time communications and emergency preparedness resource management platform.
C5 Approve an agreement with ServFirst, Inc., dba Redding Spray Service, for
vegetation management services.
No General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
C6 Approve budget amendments for the “JRF West Recreation Yard Expansion Project,” which increase appropriations and revenue by $500,780 in the Land Buildings and Improvements Budget (BU 166) and increase appropriations by $500,780 in the Juvenile Rehabilitation Facility Budget (BU 262) offset by use of restricted fund balance.
C7 (Pulled by Supervisor Plummer) Approve an agreement with Samsara Inc. for GPS and telematics services for County vehicles, and designate authority to the Public Works Director, or their designee, to sign Order Forms.
C8 Approve the purchase of three 2025 Chevrolet Tahoe Police Package Vehicles
(PPVs) from Winner Chevrolet under California State Contract #1-22-23-23D.
C9 Authorize the Auditor-Controller to pay a retroactive step increase to a Public Works employee due to the evaluation being completed more than six months after the due date.
C10 Approve a budget amendment which increases appropriations by $208,561 in the Sheriff Budget (BU 235) for acquisition of the Taser 10s offset with a decrease in appropriations in Reserves for Contingency (BU 900).
C11 Take the following actions: (1) Adopt a salary resolution, effective April 20, 2025, which amends the Shasta County Classification Specifications and Salary Schedule to add a Law Clerk position; and (2) adopt a resolution, effective April 20, 2025, which adopts an amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Shasta County UPEC Professional Unit covering the period of May 1, 2023, through April 30, 2025, which amends the hiring sign-on bonus pilot program for the Deputy District Attorney I/II/III and Deputy Public Defender I/II/III classifications.
No Additional General Fund Impact Simple Majority Vote
REGULAR CALENDAR, CONTINUED
Clerk of the Board
R3 Approve an amendment to the 2025 Board of Supervisors’ meeting calendar.
Score: Board voted 5-0 to discuss amendment at next meeting.
CLOSED SESSION
R4 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
(Government Code Section 54957.6):
Agency Negotiators:
County Executive Officer David Rickert
Personnel Director Monica Fugitt
Chief Labor Negotiator Gage Dungy, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
Employee Organizations:
United Public Employees of California, Local 792 – General Unit United Public Employees of California, Local 792 – Professional Unit Deputy Sheriffs Association – Correctional Officer – Deputy Sheriffs
R5 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
(Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1)): Case Name: County of Shasta v. Hobbs, et al. (Shasta County Superior Court, Case #25CVG00515)
REPORT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS
Score: There was no reportable action taken during closed session.
###
