Decision to Clear Shasta County Board Meeting, Ban Commenter, Poses First Amendment and Brown Act Concerns
A first amendment attorney says Shasta County Board Chair Kevin Crye and attorney Joseph Larmour’s actions during the May 27 board meeting raise legal concerns for free speech and public access.
Shasta County’s legal counsel, Joseph Larmour, took security matters into his own hands yesterday when he approached a public commenter at the chamber dais, pulling the microphone away from their face to prevent their comment from being heard.
Larmour was assisting Board Chair Kevin Crye, who repeatedly interrupted the speaker before instructing the clerk of the board to cut the speaker’s microphone. At Larmour’s request, Crye then called a recess and told the public to clear the room. Within a few minutes the public was allowed back in, except for the speaker, who says they were told by attorney Larmour in the lobby that they had been “banned” for the rest of the meeting.
Crye and Larmour’s actions appear to contradict both California’s Brown Act and federal First Amendment law.
The incident in question occurred about an hour into the board’s meeting on Tuesday, May 27. The community member censored by the board was speaking during an allotted public comment period to respond to a presentation by Chriss Street, a healthcare consultant for the county.
The speaker, who gave their name as “Eris,” spoke on Street’s presentation, sharing concern about his involvement with healthcare initiatives, complex professional history and activist connections. About a minute into their comment, Eris mentioned Gaza, connecting the conditions of the war-torn region’s instability and imposed famine to their concerns about Street’s hiring. Eris illustrated this comparison by suggesting that Shasta County’s government is growing increasingly authoritarian in nature, as evidenced, they indicated, by Street’s contract, which is now the subject of a lawsuit.
Seconds after Eris mentioned Gaza, Crye interrupted them, telling them to stay on topic. They responded by saying their comments were tied to the topic, but within a few more seconds Crye had interrupted the speaker again, commanding the clerk of the board to cut their microphone. The clerk didn’t.
Crye’s first warning to the speaker occurred 21 seconds after they mentioned the word Gaza. A warning is something the Brown Act requires prior to expulsion in cases where a disruption by one or more individuals significantly impedes the ability to conduct the public’s business. In this case, Eris’ speech had only just started and was still well within their allowed three minutes of comment.
Twenty seconds later, despite Eris having already pivoted back to comment on Street, attorney Larmour left his seat at the front of the board chamber and approached the speaker, physically pushing the microphone away from their face to prevent further amplification of their words.
Larmour was closely followed by county CEO David Rickert. The two men stood next to Eris at the front of the room as the speaker shouted more of their pre-written comment without the benefit of amplification. Audience members responded from the chamber with cries of “let them speak” and “they’re allowed to speak.”
Around thirty-eight seconds after the first warning, Crye issued a second warning at Larmour’s request. Then, just six seconds later, Larmour stepped away from Eris and instructed Crye to clear the room. Crye called for the room to be cleared and everyone except the press left, including Eris.
As they were leaving, Eris called out to Crye, “you wouldn’t let me make my point.” Crye responded, “you didn’t have one.”
The entire incident from the start of Eris’ speech to the command for the room to be cleared occurred within two-and-a-half minutes.
A short while later, Larmour, accompanied by a sheriff’s deputy, allowed the public back into the room. Before doing so, he told staff that the commenter would not be allowed to return to the meeting. According to Eris, Larmour then spoke to them in the lobby, telling them that they were “banned” from further public comment that day, a statement Larmour refused to confirm or deny for Shasta Scout.
In response to a request for comment on what appear to be multiple violations of free speech and public access, Crye denied those claims telling Shasta Scout “everything I did complies with the Brown Act and First Amendment as it relates to a limited public forum.”
Eris is one of several dozen members of the public who recently participated in protests at Crye’s place of business over his decision to appoint Clint Curtis as Shasta County’s election official despite Curtis lack of prior experience in an election office.
Equal Speech Protections
Attorney David Loy is the Legal Director of the First Amendment Coalition (FAC), a nonprofit organization focused on protecting First Amendment rights.
In a response to a request for comment from Shasta Scout yesterday, Loy said Crye’s and Larmour’s actions pose a number of concerns for violations of both California’s Brown Act and First Amendment rights.
In a scenario like this, Loy explained, the standard is largely the same for both state and federal law, which intersect to protect the public’s speech and access. California’s transparency law known as the Brown Act provides the public access to speak during board meetings, while First Amendment law ensures that the content of that speech is protected from undue government interference.
As Crye alluded to, the Brown Act does put limits around speech in what are known as limited public forums such as public meetings. When it comes to a specific agenda item, such as the healthcare presentation Eris was responding to, the Brown Act allows public officials to limit public comment to the topic at hand.
But officials should do so in a way that leans towards public access, Loy said, explaining that the government must “construe the Brown Act broadly in favor of transparency rather than narrowly in a way that restricts access.”
In order to comply with First Amendment law, public officials must also enforce the Brown Act equally, using the same standards for all speakers on any given topic. For example, the board chair may limit all speakers on a topic to two minutes instead of three but must limit all speakers not just some. Similarly, public officials are required to hold the same standard for what is considered “on-topic” throughout the public comment period to avoid restricting some speech unequally.
But Crye did not equally apply the standard of what is “on-topic” during yesterday’s public comment period. For example, just a few moments before Eris’ speech, community member Dolores Lucero provided a comment on the same agenda item. Lucero’s speech veered from initial direct references to Street’s contract to repeated claims that public officials in Shasta are lawbreakers and liars who are causing chaos, a clear diversion from the topic of healthcare consulting but with some connections to the topic. Lucero’s pattern of speech was similar to that used by Eris but the response was different.
“You three don’t give a shit about the laws and yet you’re breaking the laws,” Lucero opined, referring to three of the supervisors. “I’m so mad I can’t even say what I want to say… I want to know why you think you have the authority to break the law… All these people who come up here and clap… These people are all a bunch of sheep. Do you understand what sheep are? People (who) just follow. To kiss your ass.”
Chair Crye did not respond throughout Lucero’s fiery three-minute speech, making no attempt to remind her to stay on topic, to silence her microphone, or to clear the room. His approach to Lucero’s speech clearly differed from that used with Eris when it came to what he considered “off topic” enough to interrupt.
Crye’s approach to policing speech yesterday also differed from several key incidents in recent board history, including a situation in June 2023 when a member of the public used a racist slur in the context of an agenda item about tiny-home permitting. Under former Board Chair Patrick Jones, that member of the public was allowed to continue their speech without interruption.
On December 19, as Chair Crye was overseeing the chamber a public commenter made Islamophobic comments in response to a presentation by the Sikh community about their religion and culture. Despite boos from the crowd, Crye did not interrupt that commenter, or respond to their disparaging remarks about Muslims.
Eris told Shasta Scout after the meeting Tuesday that they felt their First Amendment rights were clearly violated during the meeting, saying their speech was “silenced” by Crye’s interruption. They explained that they chose not to reenter the room after being “banned” due to a sense of clarity, not fear.
“I understood that the rights we’re told that we have, free speech, the right to redress,” Eris wrote by email, “only exist when those in power choose to honor them. In that moment, they didn’t. The people in charge revoked my rights, and without enough support in the room to reclaim them, going back in would’ve only served their narrative: that dissent is disorder, and truth-tellers are the threat.”
Other Free Speech and Access Concerns
In addition to a concern about unequal enforcement, there were a number of other apparent violations of free speech and public access law by Crye and Larmour during yesterday’s incident. For one, the Brown Act does not allow someone to be removed from the room at all unless they are causing a disruption sufficient to impede the public’s ability to conduct business.
“In order to be removed from a meeting,” FAC attorney Loy said, “the speaker would have had to actually disrupt, impede or prevent the meeting from going forward.”
That’s not what happened. Even more concerning, Loy said, was Crye and Larmour’s decision to clear the public from the room, something which should only occur if its absolutely necessary in to remove a specific individual or individuals who are impeding the public’s business.
“I don’t think it was valid to remove the speaker,” Loy said, “and it was certainly not valid to clear the entire room.”
Law enforcement were never directly involved in the incident and did not give Eris commands, issue a citation, or give a trespass warning to prevent them from reentering the room. Instead, the county attorney, who has no official authority to enforce the law, forbade their reentry and further comment. That’s particularly problematic because banning Eris from returning to the room exacerbated their First Amendment concerns by continuing to restrict their speech.
As the incident played out, Crye claimed the Shasta County Sheriff had given the board “direct orders on how these things have to be handled.” But no such instructions have been approved by the board, or written into county policy and the situation did not present an immediate safety issue which is when law enforcement would normally take charge.
Yesterday was the third time in the last year that a member of the public was forbidden from returning to a public meeting after expressing their criticism in ways that did not significantly impede the board’s ability to conduct the public’s business.
Other Public Criticisms
After the incident, several members of the public, including local “militia” member Richard Gallardo and election activist Laura Hobbs, used their public comment to express concerns about how county attorney Larmour had behaved during the incident.
Gallardo said the attorney should not be behaving like a “sergeant-in-arms” during meetings, reminding Crye that deputies stood just feet from the attorney, and are the appropriate responders during a disruption. Hobbs spoke similarly, indicating her concern about how the attorney handled the incident.
The county defines the role of county counsel as providing legal advice and assistance to the board, representing the board in legal matters, drafting contracts and other legal documents, and “providing professional support that enhances the services provided to the public.”
While that description appears to encompass a variety of roles, one thing is clear: a county attorney does not have the right to prevent anyone from remaining in, or reentering, a public space. That right belongs only to law enforcement, whose actions must be executed in compliance with state and federal law.
Different Public Agencies, Different Approaches
Last week, Eris, who spoke at that time under a different name, gave public comments at the Redding Council meeting. They spoke on two topics, the city’s negotiation with Amazon for real estate and the Redding Police Department’s use of military equipment. On both topics, Eris interwove their direct comments about the topic with thoughts on the connections to Israel’s bombardment of Gaza.
Eris’ speech was not contested by Mayor Jack Munns and they were able to speak uninterrupted. After both comments, Council member Dr. Paul Dhanuka took time to address Eris’ remarks, expressing concern about the Palestinian humanitarian crisis, with some degree of apparent solidarity.
Here’s What Eris was Legally Entitled to Express
In comments to Shasta Scout after the meeting, Eris explained what they had hoped to say before being interrupted and forced from the room.
“Fascism doesn’t arrive overnight,” Eris said, mentioning Street’s contract. “It is cultivated. And you can see it being cultivated here — through the people they’re installing into power.”
During their speech, Eris also noted ties between Supervisor Chris Kelstrom and a self-described local militia. The comment provoked Kelstrom to respond, noting from his chamber seat as the room was cleared that the Cottonwood Militia is a “great organization” and he “stands behind every one of those guys and gals.”
Eris called that connection “more than a coincidence.”
“It’s a pattern”, they continued, “stacking government with those loyal to authoritarian ideology and setting the stage for what comes next.”
“What happened today wasn’t just silencing…” Eris suggested. “It was escalation.”
“This isn’t the time for polite compliance” Eris continued. “It’s time to ask: who are we, and are we ready to resist before it’s too late? Because when rights are only honored at the convenience of power, they’re not rights — they’re permissions. And permissions can disappear.”
Editor’s Note: Shasta Scout has placed the word “militia” in quotes because Shasta County’s local groups are unauthorized and therefore cannot legally organize as a militia under California law.
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Through December 31, NewsMatch is matching donations dollar-for-dollar up to $18,000, giving us the chance to double that amount for local journalism in Shasta County. Don't wait — the time to give is now!
Support Scout, and multiply your gift
Author
Comments (31)
Comments are closed.
Related Articles
A group of community members are hoping to start a new medical school in Shasta. Here’s what we know
Redding Vice Mayor Dr. Paul Dhanuka and Simpson University President Dr. Norm Hall are some of the leading figures behind the plan.
With more rain ahead, Redding officials explain flooding, urge caution
This weekend, the city’s stormwater infrastructure became clogged with debris due to the speed and volume of rain, officials said, leading to serious flooding in parts of Redding.
The Redding Public Market opened about a month ago. Here’s how it’s going
The CEO of the development company that owns the market said the venue, which is serving around 2,000 people a day, is revitalizing downtown.
Thanks for this article Shasta Scout. I think we all need some clarity on this topic. Chair Crye is certainly inconsistent with his decision to clear a room or cut a mic. I was interested to here what Eris had to say and how it all tied together; jeez, they only have 3 minutes. Like you said, he let other speakers speak the entire 3 minutes despite being off topic. It seemed so over the top to have county counsel and our CEO physical move the mic from someone that was clearly in control of their body and emotions. I think the public needs their own counsel during these meetings.
I thought such personal attacks like Mr. Stadille made were not allowed on SS ?
Hi Frank. This is a good question. If you look at the other comments on this story you’ll see V4 also calling people names. Both commenters used name calling against peopple who are subjects in this story. At the moment I’m not allowing name calling against fellow commenters but I’m allowing name calling against public figures. But I’ll continue to assess whether this is helpful or not.
Nice double standard.
Nothing Annelise could do will ever satisfy you. You’ve got some big emotions there, bud. Grab a juice box and a nap, things will feel less big after you get some rest.
Interesting. I wonder if Tim Garman is your real name? If so, using the moniker associated with Supervisor Tim Garman is in deplorable taste.
Frank,
Don’t worry they can’t hurt you in your safe space. I wonder if they/them has free speech in Palestine? They/them seems eager to defend them.
I certainly hope someone(s) will be filing a complaint to the CA Bar Association over the overt and outrageous actions by Larmour. He, like Crye, has stepped over the line of everything we want to stand for and live for here in Shasta County. Crye will lose his seat in June 2026, and Larmour will be removed; and unfortunately at great expense to the county. What was Larmour & Rickert going to do with the speaker, physically remove them from the room ? More strong arming fascism.
These masked Chicken shit interlopers who do nothing but interrupt and impede county business need to be removed every single time they come in. And by the way, it seems the free speech is only brought up when it’s a liberal bunch of crap! Get rid of these morons from the NorCal Underground
I thought such personal attacks like Mr. Stadille made were not allowed on SS ?
Lol you mean the NorCal Underground that no longer exists or operates in this area? Take a chill pill, Jon. No reason to get your self all in knots over a non-existent group.
What country are we living in? It can not be America. A country with guaranteed constitutional rights.
I suppose in a way it’s always been rights for some, but not for all. We recite to the flag with liberty and justice for all, but is it? And has it ever really been?
The same constitution that guarantees rights for the people, in article one, calls some people only 3/5 of a person. (Article 1 section 2, dealing with population for choosing how many delegates a state gets)
We were supposed to grow. To progress. To move forward.
First it was me. I was arrested for a silent protest. Not just removed, arrested. For expressing my first amendment right.
Now Eris.
So, look not for whom the bell tolls, for it tolls for you. Any one can cross the line. Anyone can be targeted next. Anyone. If you do not show concern now, wait until you cross the line. Wait until it is you.
He can be your friend today, your enemy tomorrow. I would know.
Annalise,
You talk about free speech and then screen all the comments. Typical liberal.
“Tim Garman”: This is not a public forum, limited or otherwise so 1st Amendment rights are not an issue. And yes we did edit a comment to remove part of that indicated a wish for harm to come to board Chair Kevin Crye.
For the sake of public clarity and awareness, the section of the comment we removed did not contain any threats, credible or otherwise. Our policy is to report any credible threat made against any community member on our forum to the appropriate law enforcement agency. California law specifically addresses this issue when it comes to public officials. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-76/
Yep! I can attest to her violation of my free speech!
Gaza has nothing to do with the business of Local citizens and Shasta County Board of Supervisor meetings and Hearings. There is no time locally to harbor murdering thugs of Hamas overseas.
It’s about local government issues not another country’s issues with Hamas thugs and murderers.
The individual needs to take ” it’s” complaint to the Organization for World Peace.
OWP. Perhaps in Washington D.C.
Thanks for clarifying that Eris had a track record of tying all comments to Gaza. Always. Geez. I agree with Crye. Stay on topic, “they”.
Then every speaker should be required to stay on topic, including the one who went before Eris. You’re disparaging remark regarding “they” is not helpful.
I am all for staying on topic since Crye is not applying the rule equally, I find it contemptible. You should be bothered by it, too.
Thank you once again Annelise for your very thorough reporting of what occurred yesterday. Over and over again chaos and disruptions at the BOS meetings are not caused by the citizens who come to exercise their rights to participate, but by the tone and the responses of the chairman.
WAKE UP citizens of Shasta County.
We are in trouble!
Susan Weiss
Hey Susan. Gotta agree.
Very nice, important reporting Annelise. Sunshine is the antidote to corruption, illegality, and fascism. Thanks for shining some light on Shasta County’s so called board of Supervisors and its attempt to bring darkness upon us.
Shasta Scout, thank you for the detailed report on a complex issue!
For the past five years, as extensively documented by Shasta Scout, A News Café, the Redding Record Searchlight, as well as national and international news and Abramsky’s book, Chaos Comes Calling, many of our Shasta County Board of Supervisors (BOS) meetings have been nothing but “Town Hall Love Fests” for far-right conspiracists discussing vote-rigging, chemtrails, misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines, hate for Biden, Newsom, and California, and love for Militia-Mommies For Liberty enthusiasts. Under the leadership of Supervisors Jones and Crye, their unwavering chorus of backing voices has turned BOS meetings into a clown-car conspiracy circus train wreck. Honestly, I’m surprised they haven’t shot someone yet.
There must be a balance between the First Amendment, the Brown Act, and official county business. Yet, as you have pointed out, I maintain that Ringmasters Jones and Crye have occasionally tilted the scale in favor of their extreme far-right views and their relentless chorus of supporters, allowing them too often to stray unchecked into topics not on the agenda or into a realm far removed from any definition of legal BOS jurisdiction. In contrast, failing to follow protocol brings much joy to their fans; however, it often leaves others in bewildered frustration. This misguided direction by the Ringmasters has also resulted in the waste of hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars, time, and resources.
I believe there is a nexus between the disgusting MAGA neo-fascism of Trump, and Crye, Corkey, Kelstorm, and CEO Rickard, though, be it at best tenacious and at worst direct, like the confederate flag hanging in militia leader and Kelstorm’s buddy Paul “Woody” Clendenen’s barbershop. The American confederacy, the prequel to the American Nazi movement, that Trump likes to call ‘Good People” is as repulsive as the well documented racism of Trump, the leader of MAGA.
As documented by Amnesty International, the United Nations, and by hundreds of Human Rights scholars, there are “ alarming, documented patterns of genocidal destruction of the Palestinians.” Trump has called for the removal of Palestinians from their legal homeland so he can turn Palestine into the “Riviera of the Middle East.” But I have to wonder, is the Gaza Strip and the genocide of the Palestinian people within the jurisdiction of the BOS?
While there is a health connection among people around the world, perhaps Attorney David Loy, Legal Director of the First Amendment Coalition, might suggest that discussions regarding the United States-backed genocide of Palestine would be better suited for the Open Public Comment time mandated by law in all public meetings, such as the BOS meeting, rather than during the specific comment period reserved for the public regarding far-right secessionist Chris Street’s fallacious presentation about Shasta County health.
Christian, I really appreciate your thoughtful and thorough review of the article—which, like you, I found to be impressively detailed and accurate. I also agree with nearly everything you’ve shared, and I’m genuinely proud to be in community with people like you—people who approach these issues with intelligence, moral clarity, and a deep commitment to justice.
That said, I’d like to gently offer a broader lens on one key part of the conversation. Specifically, around whether Gaza “belonged” in that public comment.
The reality is, we simply don’t know what Eris intended to say. They were interrupted so many times that they never even reached a full minute of uninterrupted speech. Each time they tried to begin again, they were cut off.
So the assertion that Gaza was “off-topic” is ultimately speculative—and that’s exactly why silencing is so dangerous. It preempts the message, erases the speaker, and forces the public to fill in the blanks through their own assumptions and biases. It dehumanizes the person trying to speak and dilutes our democratic process.
Equally important, as you shared and can likely resonate with, is the issue of consistency. If the Board of Supervisors intends to apply strict limits on what is considered relevant, those standards must be enforced equally—and they have not been. Historically, and even within that same meeting, some speakers are given wide latitude, while others are shut down almost immediately. The public sharing their opinion that Gaza didn’t belong may unintentionally validate an inconsistent and unconstitutional act of censorship—when the real concern should be the repeated suppression of public voices, especially those with dissenting views.
There’s also a deeper layer here that may not be obvious to everyone. The U.S. military, prison, and healthcare industrial complexes are deeply interconnected with the global machinery of violence and displacement—including what’s unfolding in Gaza. When someone like Chriss Street is in a position to influence how public healthcare infrastructure is built out in this county, a person committed to liberation for all—like Eris may be—may have valid concerns about whether those decisions could contribute to systems of harm in their county and beyond.
Whether one agrees or not with the premise that Gaza’s liberation is inherently tied to collective liberation everywhere (including America), the fact remains: Eris may hold that belief. And that belief—expressed through peaceful public comment—is not only protected speech, it’s the very purpose of a public comment period— to share a viewpoint in hopes it may resonate, challenge, or persuade.
Eris had that opportunity stolen from them—and with it, their constitutional rights and the integrity of the democratic process we’re all meant to uphold. That should concern every one of us, regardless of our political views.
We must also remember: fascists will waste your time. They distract, derail, and divide. So when we fixate on debating whether Gaza “belonged” in a comment that was never even heard, we’re doing exactly what they want. The point isn’t whether any of us personally agree with Eris’s viewpoint—the point is that they were silenced, publicly, and their right to speak was taken in a room full of people who, for the most part, stood by and let it happen.
That silence matters. It teaches the board what they can get away with. And it shows how quickly fascism can take root—not through brute force, but through our collective inaction.
When we only defend free speech for those we agree with, we abandon the very principle of public discourse. If we, as a community, can put aside partisan loyalties long enough to recognize censorship and authoritarianism when it’s unfolding right in front of us—we might still have a fighting chance to resist it. And to protect not just our individual rights, but the future of our shared democracy.
This experience sparked something deeper in me. Thank you, Eris.
In your honor, I’m making a commitment to my community. I haven’t always known how to help. I’ve been timid or unsure. But moving forward, I will intentionally uphold everyone’s right to speak during public comment—whether I agree with them or not. I will stop focusing on the speaker’s content, and start watching how the board behaves—because it’s their use of power that matters here. As long as a speaker is not promoting hate or calling for harm, I will stand in nonviolent, visible support if the board tries to silence them. If they’re interrupted unfairly while within their time, I will move toward the speaker in solidarity. I will peacefully place myself between them and the mic if necessary. I will do everything in my power to ensure what happened to Eris does not happen again.
And if I’m not banned, I will use my own comment time to name exactly what occurred and call out the board’s actions for what they are.
My focus is not on the audience. The public has a right to express disagreement. My issue is with the misuse of authority by those in power.
This commitment stands even if you’re someone whose views I deeply oppose (looking at you, Hobbs 👀). I may reject your beliefs—but I will not reject your humanity. That’s how we begin to heal and rebuild.
I urge everyone reading this to reflect. You don’t have to do what I’m doing—but do something. Decide now how you’ll show up as a fellow human being moving forward.
What am I missing here? Why the use of “they” in reference to an individual? Was there more than one speaker?
The speaker uses the pronouns they/their/theirs.
It’s DEI, and pronouns. Eris looks like a she to me. That’s common sense. DEI use is non-sense. Reporting should use common sense.
Hi Elizabeth. Common sense would be not assuming someone’s gender, name or pronouns by looking at a picture of their face. See also, science.
Nobody can clear out a room like Crye. That’s something, boy.
Good one!