Board majority faces off against Supervisor Plummer on liaison positions, supervisor raises 

New Shasta County Board Chair Chris Kelstrom took the helm at this week’s supervisors meeting. 

While Kelstrom demonstrated a somewhat more conciliatory leadership style than his predecessor Kevin Crye when it came to discussions with fellow board members, his decision-making approach didn’t vary much from the leadership of the last two years under the former board chair.

The board’s seating arrangement under Kelstrom’s leadership also remained much the same as last year, with Supervisors Matt Plummer and Allen Long isolated to either end of the board’s central group of three.

The trio usually vote in unison and yesterday was no exception, as they presented a united front on issues that ranged from board liaison positions to supervisor salary adjustments. They were often joined in their votes by Long, leaving Plummer the consistent outlier on a variety of topics. 

Liaison Positions

Kelstrom placed a discussion of board liaison positions on supervisors’ consent calendar — a portion of the board’s agenda intended for items that are routine and noncontroversial. But yesterday’s discussion was anything but routine. Plummer asked the item to be pulled from consent for further discussion, saying he wasn’t happy to have been removed from some of his former liaison positions where he felt he was making progress with community leaders on important issues. 

He specifically cited his desire to continue to serve as part of the Mental Health Alcohol and Drug Advisory Board (MHADAB) as well as the Shasta Health Assessment and Redesign Collaborative (SHARC), both of which have been at the heart of recent controversial debates the board has had about new mental health facilities and healthcare initiatives.

Plummer said he’s been working with these groups to make positive changes, noting that MHADAB members have already voted to have him serve as vice chair of the group in 2026, an indication of members’ belief that he’s serving a useful role. MHADAB is a state-mandated group that advises county boards on mental health issues. It includes people with lived experiences and produces an annual report on the county’s mental health programs.

Since SHARC is not directly affiliated with the county, Plummer represents the board within that group in a non-voting capacity. As part of SHARC, Plummer said he’s brought forward presentations that have been welcomed by organizers who have been working for years to solve Shasta’s chronic shortage of healthcare providers. 

In defense of his decision to remove Plummer from SHARC, Kelstrom said he’d been informed by unnamed “staff” that Plummer was using his role on that board to unilaterally direct staff, something that supervisors are not permitted to do. Plummer debated the claim, asking for an example and stating that he was unsure how his role on either board could be used to direct staff. He received no response.

Plummer was also removed from his role as an alternate on the California State Association of Counties where he has just been appointed Vice Chair of the Health and Human Services Policy Committee. Kelstrom said he was removing Plummer from his role on CSAC because he was traveling to attend those meetings, something that’s not required as an alternate member and costs the county money.

An affirmative 4-1 vote by the board sealed Kelstrom’s decisions on the liaison positions, although Long stated before his vote that he would have preferred to keep Plummer on the MHADAB Board. As Kelstrom noted during the discussion, Plummer can continue to attend these meetings if he wishes, on his own time.

At the request of CEO David Rickert, the board also voted, 3-2 with Plummer and Long both opposing, to remove retired chiropractor Ron Henninger from the MHADAB Board. No explanation for why Rickert wanted him removed was given but Henninger has pushed the MHADAB Board to provide more in-depth reporting about the county’s mental health programs over recent years.

Cost of living raises for supervisors 

The board also discussed whether to make changes to how the county currently allocates cost-of-living adjustments — or COLA — for supervisors, at Plummer’s request.

As decided by the board back in 2024, supervisors’ COLA increases are tied to that of a union-represented labor group, the UPEC General Unit, while other elected officials receive COLA increases in conjunction with members of the county’s unrepresented management  — as approved by the board.

The board’s 2024 vote on salaries — which included a more than 50% increase — along with the new policy on COLA increases, has drawn ire from some in the public, including road workers represented by Teamsters Local 127 who spoke to the board yesterday. As road workers pointed out, the raise board members received last year significantly increased the pay differential between many county staffers and that of the supervisors. Additionally, most of the supervisors also have alternate income sources.

Nevertheless, board members voted 4-1 to add a COLA increase for themselves, matching the percentages that were negotiated with staff represented by UPEC General. The additional annual cost of supervisors COLA increases is $20,000. Plummer said he couldn’t in good conscience support that vote, emphasizing that an increase in COLA for UPEC General staff didn’t necessitate yet another raise for supervisors. He repeated again his belief that the board’s salary should be in the public’s hands.

Crye asked Plummer if his opposition to the COLA raise was a political stunt. He said he didn’t want to be made to look like he and the other supervisors were “money grubbing,” while expressing his belief that if the issue of board pay raises was put in the hands of voters they’d never raise the board’s pay. 

Plummer replied that he was principally opposed to the board deciding its own pay, holding the line on his opposition to the COLA increase. At the last board meeting, Plummer made the decision to donate a substantial portion of his salary — about $13,000 — back to the county, to emphasize the conviction behind his principles on supervisor pay. 

Adding items to the board’s agenda 

Plummer’s request to update the county’s policies to allow any member of the board to add items to the board’s agenda was also voted down by all four of the other supervisors. Board members can already suggest ideas for what should be added to future board agendas during their usual board reports and make motions to bring those ideas back to a future agenda, with the board’s approval. Plummer said he thinks the current process leads to an unreasonable delay. But his idea to expand individual board members’ powers to add things to the agenda was not supported by any other board member.

---

Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.