Shasta County will contract to defend DA Bridgett after new claim by former supervisor Patrick Jones

At the June 17 Shasta County Board meeting, former Supervisor Patrick Jones spoke during public comment about a new claim he submitted to the County Clerk earlier this month. It resurrects an old complaint, filed with County Support Services Director Monica Fugitt in 2023, that alleged District Attorney Stephanie Bridgett used county resources, taxpayer funds and DA employee time for her re-election campaign. 

Jones’ new claim is considered a legal threat by the county, and the board discussed the matter in closed session last week. Supervisors voted 4-1 to hire a contracted attorney to defend the county should Jones’ claim escalate to a lawsuit, with Supervisor Kevin Crye casting the only dissenting vote. 

Jones told the board members they shouldn’t hire an attorney to defend Bridgett because she wasn’t “performing her job within the scope” of her duties. Statements made by Supervisors Crye, Corkey Harmon and Chris Kelstrom indicated their acknowledgement of the legal requirement to defend the county over the claim, with Kelstrom saying “there was no choice” but to do so.

After an initial complaint was received by the county in 2023, an investigation completed into Bridgett found her not guilty of all allegations except one: she performed campaign work on county premises by sending campaign-related emails, but not during county time or using county resources. Per Rule 38 of the Shasta County Personnel Rules, a local policy, campaign activities are prohibited on county premises. 

The investigator, Attorney John Beiers of San Carlos, explained in his 2023 report that Bridgett’s only policy violation was not significant, saying “these activities were de minimus and clearly not an intentional effort to flout policy.” 

But Jones’ new claim calls for further investigation, saying that Bridgett was not investigated “thoroughly and properly” saying the Beiers firm ignored evidentiary materials, such as witness interviews and thousands of emails.  

Both before and after the board’s closed session vote on Jones’ new claim last week, Supervisor Crye pushed to discuss the details of Jones’ claim publicly. He said he wanted to give the public “access to the nearly three-year process this has undergone.”

In an email statement to Shasta Scout, DA Bridgett referred back to the 2023 investigative findings indicating that all allegations against her were untrue except that she used her personal cell phone and Chromebook to respond to campaign messages while in the office. 

“Normal operations of the District Attorney’s Office were not impacted by the 2022 election,” Bridgett said. “As the Beiers investigative report made clear, all employees were directed, by me, to not engage in campaign related activities inside of the DA’s Office.”

Inside Jones’ claim, investigation into Bridgett

Jones labels himself as a whistleblower in the original complaint, which he filed in July 2023. His complaint followed an earlier whistleblower complaint to the county in March 2023 by a former Shasta County DA employee, claiming Bridgett used DA employees and the office building to work on her re-election campaign. The unnamed whistleblower said she spent 80-90% of her work time during a three-month period on campaign activities while billing the time to the county. An investigation by the county found no merit to that claim.

Jones’ new claim, filed earlier this month, alleges that County Counsel Matt McCumber hired The Law Office of John Beiers to conduct an investigation into Bridgett without the knowledge of the board of supervisors. Jones also claims that due to Bridgett’s “theft/misuse/misappropriation/fraud”, the DA’s Office suffered a significant backlog of criminal cases, alleging 800 cases were dismissed as a result, costing taxpayers about $6 million. Jones offers no proof that supports this claim.

The bulk of the paperwork in the new claim is made up of the 2023 investigative report itself, which includes document reviews of evidence related to the allegations against Bridgett; summaries from interviews with the unnamed whistleblower, witnesses and Bridgett; as well as the investigatory findings. 

The unnamed whistleblower, who had worked at the DA’s Office for five years, said she and Bridgett were “strong work friends” before an incident in early 2023 that altered their relationship. 

According to her recounting of that incident, the women drove to Idaho to pick up service dogs for the DA victim witness program. During the trip, the whistleblower said several things went wrong, including issues with the dogs and strain between the two women. After they returned, the whistleblower said the DA’s behavior toward her completely changed from friendly to “troubling” — she said Bridgett became openly critical of her and her work and often acted frustrated toward her. The whistleblower said she resigned shortly after. 

Within a few months, she filed a complaint against Bridgett, alleging that the DA engaged in unprofessional conduct that led to the whistleblower’s “constructive discharge,” or resignation due to intolerable working conditions. That allegation was not sustained due to a lack of evidence supporting the whistleblower’s claim and several witness testimonies that contradicted her allegation. 

Also in the whistleblower’s complaint were allegations that she spent a significant amount of her workday on Bridgett’s re-election campaign and that other employees also worked on the campaign during regular work hours and on county premises. After witness interviews and a review of campaign-related emails, the investigator sustained only one allegation, that Bridgett working on campaign-related matters on county premises. 

In the course of the investigation, Bridgett admitted to engaging in election-related activities at the DA’s Office, saying she “could not recall with certainty being aware of the Rule 38 local policy prohibiting campaign work on County premises.” She also explained how the whistleblower was advised against conducting campaign activity on county time on multiple occasions. 

The new claim document submitted by Jones this month shows that the Shasta County Office of the Auditor-Controller decided against pursuing further investigation into the matter because it found the Beier’s investigation to be credible. The auditor referred the matter to the California Attorney General, who indicated that office would not be pursuing the matter either, according to documents in Jones’ new claim. 

Jones’ attorney Shon Northam states in the claim that he believes the AG’s decision not to investigate the matter further was “suspect because DA Bridgett’s former Chief Deputy District Attorney went to work for the AG about the time this matter was referred to the AG’s Office.” 

The claim also notes that Jones “believes the lack of investigation / refusal to investigate any further was done to shield the County from considerable liability for DA Bridgett’s unlawful actions.” 

Here’s what else you should know

Both Jones and Crye, as well as Supervisor Kelstrom, are united by a shared campaign funder, Connecticut-based donor Reverge Anselmo, a wealthy former Shasta County resident who’s funneled about $2 million into local races over recent years.

Anselmo’s funds were distributed through a series of PACs managed by brother and sister duo, Mark and Lyndia Kent. Those funds also supported Bridgett’s political opponent in the 2022 DA race, as well as the political opponents of former County Clerk and Registrar of Voters Cathy Darling Allen and former Superintendent of Schools Judy Flores, both of whom have since resigned mid-term.

Out of the slate of candidates Anselmo’s funding sought to replace in 2022, Bridgett is the last remaining female still in public office. Sheriff Michael Johnson, who beat out Anselmo-backed candidate John Greene in 2022, also still holds his role. In an interview with the Record Searchlight in May 2022, Anselmo said he was backing a slate of all male candidates because he considered women generally unfit for office. 

This isn’t the first time Jones has pushed for further investigation into the DA. After the Zogg Fire settlement in 2023, Jones and Crye publicly discussed concerns about the adequacy of the DA’s investigation into the Zogg Fire. This led to a vote by the board majority, including Crye and Kelstrom, to send a letter to the Attorney General requesting Bridgett’s office be reviewed for the handling of the case.

In response, the AG concluded there had been no misconduct by the DA, communicating that to Jones , who was board chair at the time, by letter. Jones threw away that letter without informing the public of the AG’s investigation results, resulting in yet another county-funded investigation, this time into his actions. Jones was cleared of misconduct by investigators who said he had “plausibly relied on mail staff” to ensure documents were retained as required.

Madison Holcomb is a recent graduate of the University of Illinois Ubana-Champaign. She’s reporting for Shasta Scout as a 2025 summer intern with support from the Nonprofit Newsroom Internship Program created by The Scripps Howard Fund and the Institute for Nonprofit News.

---

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