Shasta board divides over county counsel’s contract

Shasta County’s lead attorney, Joseph Larmour, is slated to serve as county counsel for the next three years, per a contract he signed last year. But today, the board of supervisors considered whether to enter a new contract with Larmour that would add an additional year to his tenure, allowing him to serve until 2030. 

“This guy understands the law,” said Supervisor Kevin Crye during today’s board meeting during the discussion about Larmour’s contract. “He is saving us so much flipping money.” 

While Crye had strong opinions on Larmour’s contract, he’ll soon be leaving the board after being outvoted in the June primary election by Redding City Council member Erin Resner. It’s a point Supervisor Allen Long made during the discussion, saying he did not feel it was appropriate for outgoing board members to vote on items that will impact a new board. Crye eventually responded to that concern by recusing himself from voting “cause I won’t be there,” he said. 

Without Crye’s support, the vote to extend Larmour’s contract eventually failed, with only board Chair Chris Kelstrom and Supervisor Corkey Harmon voting to approve it, as Long and Supervisor Matt Plummer pushed back due to procedural concerns.

Amid debates about the contract today, supervisors voted to bring related discussions that occurred during a prior closed session into the public. Supervisors said that all five had given Larmour the highest possible marks during his closed session employee evaluation because he was seen by all to have exceeded expectations in his role. 

But Long also explained that Larmour had advised supervisors to consider waiting to vote on his terms until next year when a new board is in place. “Why don’t you just leave it up to them to figure out what they want?” Long recalled Larmour asking during the closed session. 

Shasta County Counsel contracts typically employ attorneys for four-year terms, and Larmour’s contract, signed in August last year, is valid until mid-2029. Despite this, the board has voted in the past few years to renew counsel contracts about every year, though contracts were not extended during the last couple of terms when new board members were incoming. 

While Long and Plummer opposed the extension for policy and procedural reasons, the contract renewal wasn’t supported by the majority of community members who spoke due to concerns about Larmour himself. About a dozen people across the political spectrum voiced their grievances with the county attorney during the public comment period.

Something several public commenters pointed out is the severance pay that would’ve been included in Larmour’s new contract. According to the contract, if the county terminates Larmour’s employment, it would have to pay him the remainder of his salary over the length of his contract, capped at 18 months. Eighteen months is the state’s maximum cash settlement for severance for public employees, and it’s the same timeframe used for Larmour’s contracts in 2023 and 2025. 

Some supervisors also expressed discontent with the length of the 18-month severance package, including Crye and Plummer, who said he believed standard severance lengths are closer to three to six months.

But supervisors who spoke up during the discussion emphasized overall that they feel Larmour has performed well as county counsel, with Long saying his vote against the renewal contract wasn’t a vote against Larmour. 

“This has nothing to do with county counsel personally,” Long said. “This is just a matter of principle and a matter of procedure in my book. That is something that I believe, that the next board should have the ability to build their team as they see fit and with their own discretionary authority and powers.”

---

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