Shasta Supervisors will Discuss Proposal for Medical School, Lawsuit over Chriss Street’s County Contract

In February of this year, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 to give former Orange County (OC) treasurer Chriss Street a short-term role as a healthcare consultant.

The board’s vote stipulated that Street, who’s now a Shasta County resident, would be paid up to $40,000 for a six-month project to assess how best to address Shasta County’s severe lack of healthcare providers and relatively high rates of premature death. 

This Tuesday, May 27, Street will present his findings, which according to the board’s agenda apparently indicate the need for a medical school and residency program in Shasta County, something Street had been advocating for even before gaining the consulting contract.

The Board will also discuss a lawsuit that’s been filed against the county over Street’s contract asking the court to suspend the contract and ensure that taxpayers are repaid for the costs of consulting so far.

No paperwork outlining Street’s findings as a healthcare consultant has been provided for the board or the public. A document request submitted by Shasta Scout on May 12 and asking for work product related to Street’s consulting process turned up only an invoice, dated March 31.

Notations on that invoice show the county owing Mr. Street just over $7,000 for consulting tasks that included conversations, research and analysis. The bulk of the cost, almost $4,000, is noted as being billed for time spent researching data related to the need for medical providers in Shasta County. Another large chunk of funds was billed for an analysis of California’s Medi-Cal budget and a third chunk of funds for an analysis of something referred to as the “Shasta County Healthcare Budget”.

Supervisor Matt Plummer was among the four supervisors who voted to support Street’s contract. Plummer did so only after publicly negotiating the ability to have some oversight over Street’s consulting work, ensuring he would be allowed to meet with Street and Shasta County CEO David Rickert on a regular basis.

On May 14, Plummer lost access to that oversight when Chair Kevin Crye gained support from other supervisors to form a new group including himself, Street, CEO Rickert, and Redding Council member Dr. Paul Dhanuka, to “represent the board” on healthcare issues moving forward. Plummer, who was absent from that meeting, was specifically excluded from involvement in that group.

New Lawsuit Challenges Street’s Contract 

Tomorrow, the board’s discussion of Street’s findings will occur in open session, shortly before a second discussion in closed session related to Street’s contract. That second conversation is occurring in response to a civil lawsuit filed against the county, CEO Rickert and the board on May 8.

The suit was filed by a former Shasta County public defender, Jeff Gorder. He’s seeking to compel the court to suspend Street’s contract and ensure taxpayers are reimbursed for any paychecks Street has received from the county thus far.

Gorder filed his lawsuit under a California law that allows taxpayers to take legal action over any allegedly wasteful use of taxpayer funds. The claim is what’s known as a “taxpayer lawsuit,” meaning Gorder’s interest in the case is only as a taxpayer, otherwise he’s not directly involved. 

Gorder’s complaint alleges three main points related to Street’s contract. First, that the county had no need for a healthcare consultant; second, that Street is not qualified for the healthcare consulting position; and third, that he was chosen to receive the consulting job through an unfair process.

In his filing, Gorder notes the unusual circumstances under which Street’s contract was awarded. As previously documented by Shasta Scout, Street submitted a proposal to the county outlining the specific scope of work and fund amount for the healthcare consulting contract a full eight days before the board even discussed the idea of requesting bids for the project. 

Street was later awarded the proposal, despite having fewer qualifications than others that expressed interest, Gorder’s lawsuit notes, saying the decision to give Street the contract appears to violate the board’s own competitive procurement policies. According to Street’s resume his only work history directly related to healthcare consists of a five-year stint as the CEO of a healthcare corporation more than 25 years ago.

Additional information shared in Gorder’s lawsuit notes a significant and complicated history between Street and the county, including an earlier bid by Street to become the county’s CEO, a position which was initially granted to Street than later rescinded after a review of his background check results.

Gorder’s lawsuit includes a demand that the court issue an injunction preventing the county from continuing to utilize Street’s healthcare consulting services. He’s also requesting that the court require CEO Rickert and Chair Crye to jointly repay the county for any funds already expended on Street’s healthcare consulting.

Gorder’s case was initially scheduled to be heard in Shasta County Superior Court on May 20, it’s been rescheduled to June 5 at 8:30 in Judge Benjamin Hanna’s courtroom.

---

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