Greg Watkins Censured by Fellow City of Shasta Lake Council Members After Sending Campaign Emails to City Staff and Public Officials

10.17.24 1:32 pm: We have updated the story to correct a Planning Commissioner’s last name.

During an intense public meeting on Tuesday, October 15, a majority of City of Shasta Lake Council members passed a resolution censuring fellow Council member Greg Watkins.

The resolution was written by Mayor Janice Powell and includes a concern about an unsolicited email sent out by Watkins to some City employees and public officials, suggesting a slate of candidates they should support, including himself. 

The censure also addressed apparently longer-standing behavior that a majority of the Council has found concerning, including alleged displays of anger directed at staff and council members, directly contacting staff with demands, and a perceived sense of entitlement to special rights and privileges due to his professional engineering education and experience. 

Watkins pointed out that these long-standing concerns are coming to light just three weeks before an election that pits the author of the resolution, and another council member who supports it, against him for reelection. 

But Powell and Tena Eisenbeisz, both of whom hope to retain their seats on November 5, said the timing of the censure was driven by concerns from members of staff and the public, not by a desire to detract from Watkins’ bid for reelection.

---

---

The concerns were first brought up at a special October 7 meeting of the Council. At that meeting City Manager Jessaca Lugo read a comment from City of Shasta Lake Planning Commissioner Gracious Palmer, saying that Watkins’ email to some City officials and staff members was unethical and potentially illegal. 

Eisenbeisz agreed, saying she didn’t think any any elected official should send an email to staff asking for their vote when the Council controls the City’s budget. The Counil member and candidate also shared additional concerns, including that Watkins has created an “impossible working environment”. When Watkins was Mayor, Eisenbeisz said, she wasn’t given any liaison positions in her official role as Council member until eight months after being seated and only then in response to the request being placed on a public agenda.

Watkins responded by claiming that Eisenbeisz was “holding a grudge.” He said he didn’t give her a liaison role earlier because doing such things takes time, and because all the liaison roles were already taken when she was seated. He also said he’d voted to reappoint Planning Commissioner Palmer to her seat.

He then thanked his fellow Council member Justin Jones for “being a common-sense man”, in what seemed to be a derogatory reference to the Council members who had expressed concerns about his actions – all women.

“That’s a typical Greg Watkins thing,” Council member Pamelyn Morgan replied, “male chauvinist that he is.”

Watkins responded with laughter. 

During this week’s October 15 meeting, the same allegations were again brought up by Mayor Powell, this time in the form of a formal resolution for censure. Council members Morgan and Eisenbeisz once again gave statements expressing their support for the censure and sharing their concerns about Watkins’ behavior.

Council member Jones hedged, asking the City’s Attorney, John Kenny, if he could be held liable for supporting it. Kenny thought that was unlikely, explaining in a series of careful remarks that the act of censuring Watkins is simply a rebuke from his peers and carries no monetary penalty or loss of privileges.

“The censure just expresses the views of the city council members that vote for him,” Kenny said.

Watkins defended himself vigorously against the accusations from his fellow Council members, saying they were rumor and hearsay and that his only mistake was sending two emails to city staff at their government email addresses, something that had occurred accidentally. He admitted to emailing others at their home addresses.

Watkins also claimed Powell’s decision to bring forward the resolution to censure him might itself violate election law, citing California Election Code 18370, which forbids campaigning within 100 feet of where any person may be casting a ballot, something Watkins theorized could be occurring anywhere in Shasta County given that ballots have already been mailed out. Watkins email recommending himself and other candidates was sent on September 19, before ballots were distributed.

Watkins also accused fellow Council members Powell, Eisenbeisz, and Morgan of breaking the Brown Act by conducting a serial meeting, specifically an “attack-Greg serial meeting.” All three denied that allegation, saying their only prior group discussion related to Watkins had occurred during the special October 7 public Council meeting.

Daniel Ringwelski, a candidate for the City of Shasta Lake Council included as part of the slate of candidates recommended by Watkins in his email to some city officials and staff, also spoke during the meeting. He called Powell’s resolution to censure Watkins a “pile of garbage, open and closed”, referring to it as a “a disgusting campaign stunt.”

“The same thing could be said of your comment,” Powell responded. 

The resolution to censure Watkins eventually passed, three to two, with Watkins and Jones dissenting.

State law forbids the use of public resources for campaign activities, something Watkins could possibly have violated by sending campaign materials to two city email addresses. But censuring Watkins is a symbolic gesture only and does not indicate that he is guilty of any illegal activity.

A total of six candidates are running for the three open seats on the Council this fall. Incumbents Watkins, Powell and Eisenbeisz will face off against newcomers Ringwelski and former long-term City Clerk Toni Coates, as well as former Council member Dolores Lucero, who was recalled from her seat on the Council in 2012 and convicted of felony election fraud in 2016.

---

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