County Board Updates: Supervisor Pay Raise, New Elections Official and More

The Shasta County Board discussed a number of important topics during the May 7 meeting.

Pay Raise for Supervisors

The Shasta County Board hopes to raise its own pay by 46% while also instituting a $5,000 annual allowance for transportation expenses. The position of county supervisor hasn’t received a cost of living raise in over two decades.

On Tuesday, May 7, supervisors preliminarily voted to approve the raise, which would increase supervisor salaries from approximately $53,000 to over $78,000 annually and add an automatic cost of living increase that’s tied to increases negotiated by the county’s largest labor group. Shasta County’s median income is about $68,000.

During her presentation to the board, Personnel Director Monica Fugitt recommended the raise saying continuing to delay on instituting a supervisor pay raise only increases the difficulty of passing one, as the gap between current pay and what she proposed was equitable pay, increases, necessitating a larger jump in salary.  

Supervisor Tim Garman asked how the pay raise, which will cost about $200,000 annually, would affect overall budget numbers. The county’s general fund budget has been impacted by a number of recent decisions by supervisors, including the decision to decrease revenue from developmental impact fees. County CEO David Rickert responded that this item would have to be considered within the larger budget when discussions for the next fiscal year begin and said “there will be some difficult questions we’re going to answer during the budgetary process.” 

A number of members of the public expressed concerns about increasing the board’s pay, in part due to general demands on the county’s general fund budget, but also due to many of the details of the raise. 

Commenters noted that it’s uncertain whether the board has the money to pay for these salary increases, while others expressed concern that a flat travel allowance fee doesn’t account for differences in travel requirements for different supervisors. Other commenters mentioned that it’s not clear whether the position of county supervisor is actually full-time or part-time or what the exact job description is.

The vote passed three to one. Supervisor Mary Rickert was absent due to medical issues. Kevin Crye was the only supervisor to oppose the proposed raise. He said he believes he and his fellow supervisors work hard and deserve a raise, but also that voting in a raise as an elected official feels problematic to him. If the pay raise went into law, Crye said, he would no longer ask for supervisors to receive county-funded administrative assistance, something he’s asked for in the past. 

Some members of the public also brought up that tying ongoing pay raises to increases negotiated with the county’s largest labor union may represent a conflict of interest when it comes to bargaining. While Fugitt suggested the Board could avoid any perception of impropriety by tying pay increases to a different indicator, the board rejected her suggestion.

During discussion, Crye brought up the possible financial needs of Supervisor-elect Matt Plummer, who will take Patrick Jones’ seat in 2024. Plummer said last week that he continues to oppose the raise, as he did last year before his election.

The issue will come before the board again this Tuesday, May 14, when it has the potential to become law. If approved, changes would take effect in July of 2024. 

Board will Recruit for New Elections Official

Shasta County Supervisor Kevin Crye has told Shasta Scout that he’d like to conduct a “nationwide search” for the county’s new top elections official.

He, along with fellow supervisors Chris Kelstrom and Patrick Jones, voted on May 7 to initiate a recruitment process to fill the seat, which was recently vacated by the mid-term retirement of the county’s long-term elected Registrar of Voters, Cathy Darling Allen.

On Tuesday, Crye told the public that the county faces a short timeline to fill the position, something he blamed on former ROV Darling Allen, saying she should have retired earlier. Darling Allen announced her retirement, which was due to health concerns, in early February, letting the public know she’d leave office in May.

Crye is certainly right about a short timeline. Shasta County is only six months away from a presidential primary election and deadlines related to that election are coming up quickly. But supervisors didn’t mention those deadlines, which include candidacy filing dates in July, during Board discussions yesterday. Instead, they focused on the minimum qualifications needed for the ROV role and the legal deadline by which the position must be filled. 

After a presentation from Personnel Director Monica Fugitt, the Board voted to recruit for the position during a four-week timeline ending June 7. At Supervisor Patrick Jones suggestion, the board will hold public interviews of all candidates who meet minimum qualification requirements during the week of June 17.

While Fugitt had advised the board to require minimum qualifications of either a bachelor’s degree in a related field or comparable relevant work experience, the board decided not to require any qualifications other than that specified by law. The government code requires only that an individual must be a registered voter in Shasta County at the time they are appointed.

According to the Shasta County Elections Office, an individual can become registered to vote as soon as they move to the county.

See the ROV job application here. 

Supervisors Comment on Recently-Surfaced Letter Exonerating Shasta County’s District Attorney’s Handling of the Zogg Fire Settlement

On May 3, the Shasta County District Attorney released to the public a letter from the California Attorney General’s Office. The letter exonerated DA Stephanie Bridgett after accusations by several supervisors that she may have mishandled a case related to the Zogg Fire, which caused the deaths of three people in Shasta County.

Last August the Board asked the Attorney General’s Office to look into the matter after Supervisor Kevin Crye raised concerns. California’s Attorney General investigated, found that  Bridgett had handled the case appropriately, and released those findings via a letter dated January 29 and sent to Board Chair Patrick Jones.

Jones did not share that letter with the public or with DA Bridget, who says she became aware of the letter only after she contacted the AG’s office to ask for an update on the investigation. After learning of the letter, Bridgett made it public, releasing it in early May.

During a county board meeting on Tuesday May 7, Jones mentioned the recently released letter saying the AG’s findings on the Zogg Fire case were “to be expected given what (the AG’s Office) had to work with.”

As to why he did not make the letter public, Jones said the Board receives lots of letters and he assumed all the supervisors had received the AG letter. He also said he had specifically shared the letter with Supervisor Crye, who is now Chair of the Board, and then followed up with him to make sure he’d received it.

Crye also addressed the topic during his supervisor’s report, confirming that he had received the letter in January. Similarly to Jones, Crye’s given reason for not sharing the letter is that the Board receives many letters.

If the public wants access to letters received by the board, Crye said, they can submit records requests. 

“We are an open book,” Crye said.

Shasta Elections Commission Gains New Member

Supervisors, other than Mary Rickert who was absent for medical reasons, unanimously approved Supervisor Patrick Jones’ choice of Patty Plumb for the Shasta Elections Commission. Plumb will take the place of the embattled Bev Gray, who recently resigned after a controversial radio ad, among other concerns.

Patty Plumb, a proponent of the secessionist New California movement and spokesperson for failed candidate for supervisor Laura Hobbs, will join the only remaining original Commissioner, Chair Ronnean Lund. The other three seats on the Commission remain empty, meaning the group cannot meet for now, because it lacks a quorum.

Supervisor Kevin Crye’s appointee to the Commission, Lisa Michaud, resigned last week. Crye said he will consider filling that seat but not until after filling the position of Registrar of Voter, something that will likely occur by the end of June.

Supervisors Mary Rickert and Tim Garman have said they will not appoint new people to fill the seats vacated by those they appointed to the Election Commission because they feel the Commission is a waste of public resources. 

Traffic Impact Fees

After a presentation on traffic impact fees from Public Works Director Troy Bartolemei, Supervisors appeared poised to vote to suspend the fees, which pay for road improvements related to new development. The Board was reminded by County Counsel that the agenda item was discussion only, meaning a vote could not be taken. The issue will return to the Board soon, properly agendized for action.

Shasta Scout hopes to provide the public with Bartolomei’s full presentation on traffic impact fees, soon.

 Do you have a correction to this story? You can submit it here. Do you have information to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org