Shasta board removes Kerns as planning commissioner amid contentious debate

After becoming the subject of much county discussion in recent weeks, Planning Commissioner Steve Kerns took to the board chambers dais yesterday to speak for himself. When asked whether he wanted to be removed from his seat, Kerns made his position clear. 

“I’ve never mentioned to anyone my interest in stepping down,” the soft-spoken biologist told the board. “I don’t have an interest in stepping down.”

Kerns explained that he wanted to continue to serve out the more than two years remaining on his term because he believes that a diversity of backgrounds is important on the planning commission, which makes decisions related to land management. 

“Jim Chapin and I come from a resource management background, and our other commissioners come from development and construction backgrounds, and I think that’s really, really healthy,” Kerns continued. “We need to continue that, to give a real, balanced approach to the questions that may come before the planning commission.”

Despite his plea for the seat, moments later, Kerns was voted out. The vote to remove him was split, with Board Chair Chris Kelstrom and Supervisors Corkey Harmon and Kevin Crye agreeing to do so, while Supervisors Matt Plummer and Allen Long opposed the vote.

Before the final decision, both Plummer and Long attempted to discuss the reasoning behind Kerns’ removal, referencing public comments made by Kelstrom last week indicating that he wanted to replace the commissioner because of his pushback on the environmental review process for a Manton-based solar project. Kelstrom said in an interview with Shasta Scout last week that he viewed Kerns’ pushback on the project, which was later withdrawn, as not “pro-growth,” saying that was why he was supporting his removal.

But a staff report given to the board provided no reason for the removal and County Counsel Joseph Larmour shut down Plummer and Long’s attempts at discussion yesterday, claiming that the decision to remove Kerns was “without cause.” 

Kelstrom also tried to end the discussion, telling Long his comments about planning commission history didn’t have anything to do with the decision on Kerns. Plummer pushed back on Kelstrom, then Crye pushed back on both Plummer and Long, saying the discussion should come down to something simple.

“Do you think a supervisor should pick their person or not? That’s it,” Crye claimed.

“No, I think it’s more complicated,” Plummer responded.

“You make it more complicated,” Crye shot back. 

“Well, actually, the rules about how this works make it more complicated,” Plummer retorted, “in that we get to vote on another supervisor’s appointee. We don’t blanket approve it. If we did, then they would just allow the supervisor to appoint, without giving the rest of the board a vote.”

Amid the argument, Crye falsely claimed that he has supported the appointees of every other person on the board.

When Long tried to take up his discussion of what might have led to Kerns removal again, he was interrupted by Larmour a second time, with the attorney referring to the discussion as “a grey area” under the law.  

“I will stop my line of questioning,” Long responded, turning off his microphone. 

Harmon, who instigated the removal of Kerns last month, had claimed publicly that Kerns had said he wanted to step down. He apologized to Kerns yesterday ”for any miscommunication.”

“It had nothing to do with everybody making it sound like I was firing him because that is not what happened,” Harmon claimed, before voting to remove Kerns mid-term without cause.

Harmon hopes to gain board support to appoint civil engineer Kevin Butler to the commission at the board’s next meeting.

---

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