Despite Controversy, Shasta Board Votes to Offer Healthcare Consultant Role to Chriss Street

A tense discussion between Shasta County Supervisor Allen Long and County CEO David Rickert preceded the Board’s vote this week on whether to offer a consulting role to former Orange County Treasurer Chriss Street.

The contract, which has not yet passed legal and risk management reviews, will pay up to $40,000 for a six-month project to assess how to address Shasta County’s severe lack of healthcare providers and relatively high rates of premature death.

CEO Rickert said while nine candidates initially expressed interest in the consulting role, only two ended up applying based on the time and cost parameters. Of the two, Rickert said, Street’s application was the strongest, a sentiment shared by Supervisor Matt Plummer who said he’s also reviewed both applications.

The County did not use a request for proposal (RFP) process prior to choosing Street for the role. That’s in part due in part to the quick turnaround time, CEO Rickert said, and also because the $40,000 falls below the legal limits required to put out an RPF.

Four of the five County supervisors eventually supported the decision to offer Street the healthcare consulting role, but not before the fifth raised significant questions about whether the individual selected has the credentials the position requires. 

Noting that Street’s only known healthcare-related background is his experience running a healthcare management organization in the 90’s, Supervisor Allen Long asked how CEO Rickert had determined that Street has the “medical professional background” required for the role, as specified in supervisors’ previous public conversations on the topic. 

Rickert responded by saying he believed Street’s presentation for the consulting position was proof enough. The only publicly-available presentation from Street includes only basic information about healthcare. Supervisor Matt Plummer says that Street has also submitted another more in-depth proposal but so far, no such documentation has been made available to the public, despite Shasta Scout’s request to the County last week.

During a January Board meeting, CEO Rickert told Supervisors his goal was to find a healthcare consultant with experience in consulting and a “proven track record to implement medical capital projects.”

“We want experience in organizing, managing, and development of medical delivery systems”, Rickert continued, plus “proven experience in developing and delivering on state and federal grants tied to sub-projects”.

Street’s role at Comprehensive Care Corporation in the 90’s may have included similar skills but, as Long pointed out, Street held that role two decades ago.

Supervisor Long also expressed concern about the possibility of litigation, asking whether Street has the required insurance to contract with the County for such a role. In response, CEO Rickert emphasized that the contract is still being approved by the County’s legal and risk management teams and will include insurance requirements in its final form, which will ultimately be presented to Street for his consideration and possible signature.

“it’s not uncommon that we offer a contract to a vendor,” CEO Rickert said, “they look at the… rather extensive requirements in the contract and determine that they’re not able to meet it…”

What’s the Controversy About?

Before public comment on Street’s selection for the consultancy, Supervisor Kevin Crye preemptively shared his view that the decision shouldn’t be controversial. Reading from a list of other contracts that have been approved by the County without any public comment in the last year, Crye indicated that anyone who opposes offering Street the consulting position is intent on dividing the County. 

“Here’s what I would tell the community and the public,” Crye said. “Two boards have voted 5-0, the last Board and this Board, to go forward on this. The community wants it.”

“I would tell the detractors who are trying to do nothing but divide and destroy and get in the way,” Crye continued. “I would say, get on board, because we have a real opportunity for a real healthcare movement here in Shasta County.”

As a point of clarification, while members of both the 2024 and 2025 Shasta County Board of Supervisors did vote to consider hiring a healthcare consultant for an amount up to $40,000, neither group of supervisors had voted on whether to hire Street for the role until after Crye’s speech this week. 

And notably, last year, Shasta County Supervisors also voted 5-0 to rescind an offer to make Street the County’s CEO – a decision made after a review of his background check. This week, Long suggested that the Board should wait to decide whether to offer Street the healthcare consultancy until after he and the two other newly-seated supervisors could learn more about why Street’s previous offer was rescinded. But no other supervisor supported that idea.

Street has a complex professional history that includes a former role as Treasurer of Orange County. In 2010, he was stripped of his investment powers in that elected role after a federal bankruptcy judge levied a more than $7 million ruling against him for having mismanaged private funds, years earlier. Street tried twice, unsuccessfully, to appeal the federal judgment before successfully suing his attorney in that case for malpractice. The successful malpractice lawsuit earned Street almost $10 million in damages, but did not overturn the federal judge’s previous ruling that he had mismanaged funds. 

To add to public concerns, here in Shasta County, in the weeks after the Board rescinded Street’s CEO job offer, he accused the County of illegal accounting practices – allegations which were publicly refuted by County Auditor Nolda Short.

Notably, Street’s also the Chief Financial Officer of New California State – a highly-controversial secessionist movement which has been an active proponent of unproven claims of fraud at the Shasta County Elections Office. And he’s a central player in an online media organization that has close financial ties to the campaigns of both Supervisors Crye and Chris Kelstrom. 

During an interview with Shasta Scout in March 2023, Street said he believed in transparency and wanted more open communication with local media, emphasizing that he was committed to “no more secrets.” But yesterday, in a response to a voice mail request for an interview about the healthcare consulting position Street provided only a brief text response, writing:

“I am honored that I was selected by Shasta County and look forward to the task ahead.”

Supervisor Plummer, who supported the Board’s vote for Street this week, told Shasta Scout he’s aware of the public’s concerns and will monitor Street’s performance on the healthcare consulting contract closely. 

“I know that there are those who are skeptical,” Plummer said “and I can appreciate that and I think there’s good reason for that.”

“I would say in some ways it’s similar to my vote on the Elections Commission”, Plummer continued. “There is a real need in the community to broaden trust in elections. In the same way there is a real need around medical providers and (reducing) premature death. I’m willing to give an existing vehicle that could possibly solve that a chance, and my goal is to set up the conditions (for the consultancy) in a way that will increase the chances of success.”

Plummer has committed to meet with Street and CEO Rickert every two weeks for the first two months of the contract and then monthly until the consulting project is completed. He’s also planning to draw in local healthcare experts who have been working on the provider shortage long-term, including those from the Shasta Health Assessment and Redesign Collaborative or SHARC.

In an email sent to followers after the Board meeting, Plummer said he’ll use his close oversight of the process to ensure that Street’s consulting work does not “head to a predetermined outcome”. Such an outcome could include the County deciding to fund one of the healthcare-related projects Street has already been working on with Redding Council member Dr. Paul Dhanuka, such as bringing a medical school to Shasta County. 

Plummer said he’s open to the idea of a Shasta County medical school but he’s not convinced that it’s the right answer to the County’s healthcare provider shortage. If the idea were to rise to the top of the County’s priorities as a result of Street’s consulting process, Plummer said, “the question then becomes what entity actually runs that.”

“I think that’s an open question,” he emphasized.

---

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