After proposal to put county board salaries in public hands, Plummer pledges ongoing salary donation
Board Chair Kevin Crye publicly challenged Plummer to donate part of his salary back to the county as proof of his principles. Plummer did so, while continuing to advocate for placing board salary decisions in voters’ hands, something Crye and others on the board don’t yet support.
This week, Supervisor Matt Plummer pushed for the Shasta County board to take a new approach to implementing future raises for supervisors. He said he’s been working with staff behind the scenes on a draft measure that could amend Shasta County’s charter.
Plummer made a motion for the board to move towards drafting a ballot measure that, if approved by voters next June, would change county policy to implement a 1% annual cost of living increase for supervisors while preventing the board from changing its salary amount without a vote of approval from the people.
In hopes of compelling his fellow supervisors, Plummer introduced the idea by saying there’s really no other venue in which individual employees are permitted to give themselves raises without approval by a higher authority.
He emphasized that a recent county survey showed a lack of trust in public leadership. Part of that is due, he said, to supervisors’ decision to give themselves large raises last year, something he opposes now and also opposed at the time.
Plummer also noted another element of supervisors’ pay structure that he finds problematic: the board’s current cost of living raise schedule is tied to one of the county’s bargaining units, “which I think is not really appropriate in the sense that we are negotiating with that unit for their raises, and whatever pay increase they get, we get as well. So it’s kind of a conflict of interest there.”
As public commenter Steve Kohn pointed out, since supervisors voted themselves a pay raise last year, they’ve been drawing an annual salary of close to $90,000, including a vehicle allowance. “I mean, if anybody’s being overpaid in this county,” Kohn said, “it is this board.”
The board’s salary is also far above the county’s median cost of living, as commenter Dawn Duckett brought up. She suggested that the board tie their salaries to that median cost of living amount — currently around $72,000 — which Plummer said he’d support.
His suggestion to put board salaries in public hands prompted a contentious debate. Board Chair Kevin Crye said he didn’t want to send the issue of board raises to the voters because the community would never choose to implement them. He also told Plummer that if he feels strongly that supervisors should not have increased their own salaries last year, then he should stand behind that claim by publicly pledging to donate back part of his salary.
Plummer did.
Crye then declared that he’d personally be willing to give away his entire salary, but wouldn’t share publicly if he did so because such things shouldn’t be discussed openly. “I don’t think it’s right or righteous or anything else to talk about what you give,” Crye said, despite just having demanded that Plummer do so, “You just give freely and abundantly, and you just don’t talk about it.” Crye added that despite his decision to vote against last year’s raise, he believes it was actually “beyond necessary.”
Ultimately, Plummer was unsuccessful in convincing fellow supervisors to move forward with his idea of a charter amendment. But he did find some support from Supervisor Allen Long, who said he agreed with Plummer that the board shouldn’t choose its own raises, while also expressing concern about the board salary falling beneath a reasonable level.
“You’re going to limit the subset of people that are willing to take this on,” Long reckoned, musing about how to ensure that all kinds of people have the ability to run for office and serve the community, regardless of whether they have other financial resources. Plummer suggested that the financial barrier Long was predicting doesn’t currently seem to pose a barrier, adding, “I think what we want to protect against is the mistrust of the public in our Board of Supervisors.”
Supervisor Corky Harmon didn’t specify whether he’d support such an amendment. Instead, he emphasized how grateful he is for the current salary saying he’s taken a financial loss by becoming a county board member, since his construction company can no longer bid county projects — something he wasn’t aware of at the time he chose to run.
The board eventually voted unanimously to bring back a discussion about salaries in January. They’ll consider applying a new salary policy to all elected officials — including supervisors, the registrar of voters, sheriff and others. This change in procedure could happen as part of a charter amendment, or simply by changing board policy.
Plummer confirmed for Shasta Scout today that he’ll donate back the difference between his current board salary and the median income in Shasta County, about $13,000 annually. He plans to put that sum toward the county’s jail infrastructure fund, which holds money that has been set aside for capital development to improves incarceration capacity.
He added that if Crye or any other supervisor chooses to donate all or part of their salary in future, they should return it to the county rather than donating it elsewhere, to ensure the money benefits the same taxpayers who are paying current salary costs.
Do you have information or a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Author
Comments (19)
Comments are closed.
Related Articles
Shasta’s League of Women Voters announces candidate forums for June primary
The Shasta branch of the national nonpartisan organization has scheduled four candidate forums this spring. The public is invited to bring questions and hear directly from candidates running for a variety of roles.
Redding No Kings protest draws 2,000 as seniors and veterans show up and speak out
Community members gathered in Redding today to express discontent with the current federal administration. The event, which was organized as part of nationwide protest action, included dozens of veterans and numerous seniors, some of whom attended in wheelchairs.
To save her daughter’s life, she advocated for her rights to be taken away
California’s conservatorship system can be used to force people with severe psychiatric illnesses into involuntary medical care for up to a year. Marci Fernandes said the process has been life-changing for her adult daughter, Ann, but significant obstacles to her well-being remain.
It is the BOS themselves who can & do approve donations made to the County. They can draft a resolution specific to the planned donation, place it on the agenda for a future meeting, allow public comment on it & vote to approve the resolution or to not accept the resolution.
Annelise Pierce how many people participated in a county of not quite 200,000.
Come on Annelise Pierce, how many people participated in this survey
Nick: It’s right in the story. May I suggest reading?
” Is it any wonder the recent survey showed 76% of respondents don’t trust Shasta County government to make decisions in the best interest of residents.”
Annelise Pierce, I reread the article and do not see how many people participated in this survey.
No need to be rude!
Nick: “For the month that the survey was open, she said it received almost 1,900 responses. And a series of four community meetings garnered nearly 200 attendees.”
“No need to be rude?”
Hahahahahahaha
Just like you are never rude and mean to anyone.
Hahahaha
Are you really that oblivious to how you treat other people?
I used to think it was purposeful, but now I really just think you have no clue how you are treating others.
I suspect a setup. I’m thinking Crye, who knew this was his last hurrah as chair, aimed to lead Corky and Kelstorm into battle against Plummer, hoping to show Shasta County that he was more ethical, more moral, and more intelligent than his arch-nemesis, and throw down the gauntlet. After R4, the Community Engagement Survey clearly gave Shasta County a grade of D Crye seemed to take it personally, and he doubled down using his typical polarizing, blowhard, partisan bluster to challenge Plummer’s “principles” of letting voters decide the board’s salaries. In fact, Crye seemed to use the word “principles” 15 times or more, accusing Plummer of political theater… and to prove otherwise, Crye demanded that Plummer put his money where his mouth was. Of course, Crye added, if “principle” was the issue, “I would give away my entire salary!” And of course, Corky, whom Crye stated he had talked to about R4 before the meeting, did his part. Corky said, “I’m not lying. It cost me money to do this (be a supervisor…). I can’t bid on county jobs… I gotta drive all the way up to Burney…” (What, to battle some wolves or something?) Yes, Burney is in his district, but Corky’s wife or son can bid away, and, yes, Corky would have to recuse himself from a vote. Perhaps Corky could do us all a favor: resign now and save us all a lot of money. Long story short, Plummer won the ethics and “principle” battle, giving a good chunk of his pay back to the county for jail infrastructure improvements. We all should thank him. I don’t know if Mr. “I would give away my entire salary…” has done the same, but I hear he’s sending out donation asks to Trinity County citizens, and he’s borrowing thousands to battle Erin Resner in a June rematch. I wonder, have the Anselmo funds dried up?
Crye’s hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me. On May 7, 2024 he voted against the raise “on principle.” However, when the salary increase became effective he gladly accepted it without a peep that he would reduce the burden on taxpayers by refusing it. Now, 17 months later, after he’s been taking an extra $2,700/month, he challenges Plummer to forego the salary increase even though Plummer didn’t take his seat as a Supervisor until 7 months after the increase was passed. Then, when Plummer agrees, Crye refuses to reciprocate because he “gives freely and abundantly” of our taxpayer money behind the scenes. Is it any wonder the recent survey showed 76% of respondents don’t trust Shasta County government to make decisions in the best interest of residents.
Kevin Crye is an egregious bully and hypocrite. He fights everything that isn’t self serving.
I will regularly PRA the county to make sure Plummer actually does these donations. Too many politicians say one thing and do another.
Plummer couldn’t get a second—whats that tell ya?
“The board’s salary is also far above the county’s median cost of living, as commenter Dawn Duckett brought up. She suggested that the board tie their salaries to that median cost of living amount — currently around $72,000 — which Plummer said he’d support”
Government employees median cost of living amount may be $72,000 but like myself the private’s is much lower IMO
It is my understanding that when the races were originally implemented, supervisor Mary Rickert tried to donate her raise back to the county general fund, but the county auditor told her that that was not allowed. I don’t believe the county has a method for donating to the general fund. I also know that there is a strict policy for donations that the board has to approve within a certain threshold. Not sure what the threshold or dollar amount is, but I would guess that 13,000 would exceed that threshold and have to be approved by the board.
Dawn: You could be right. We’ll be watching.
If my memory serves me correctly, there was a policy at one time that the Board’s salary was tied to timing and amount given for elected and or appointed Department heads.
For my previous comment I meant “talking out of both sides of your mouth”.
Lmao
Crye publicly challenges Plummer.
Plummer accepts challenge.
Crye then complains that it shouldn’t be done publicly.
Talk about talking about both sides of your mouth. Mr Crye, I thought you were Mr Transparency. But apparently you’re only transparent when it suits you.
LOL! Crye’s so corrupt that he thought he was doing a real “gotcha” to Plummer because never did it occur to him that a person would actually give up money! What a fool he made of himself. The proverbial egg is all over his face. He got to see what standing on principle looks like. He should try it some time.