Shasta County employees file complaints against supervisors over the past 2 years. Why?

Shasta County has spent more than $50,000 investigating complaints against members of the Board of Supervisors, according to the county counsel's office.

Acting County Counsel Alan Cox said Friday in response to a public records request that over the past two years, the county has spent $51,413 investigating complaints against supervisors. He did not specify which supervisors.

Redding attorney Adam Pressman, who requested the records from the county, said he represents a group of former and current county employees who have filed complaints against members of the board.

Some of Pressman's clients have filed complaints against county supervisors Kevin Crye and Patrick Jones. In Tuesday's election, Crye faces a recall attempt and Jones is seeking reelection.

Redding resident keeps her promise, sues city over vote to pick Tenessa Audette as mayor

Reached Monday afternoon, Jones said allegations made against him were false and were suspect due to their timing so close to the election. Crye could not be reached Monday.

Pressman said he sent a request for the documents on Feb. 8, but did not get a reply from the county until Friday afternoon, more than three weeks later.

Pressman asked for the following records:

• Records related to complaints made by county employees against members of theBoard of Supervisors in the past two years.

• Documents related to investigations of complaints county employees made against anymember of the Board of Supervisors in the past two years.

• Records of billing for investigations arising from complaints made by county employeesagainst member of the Board of Supervisors in the past two years.

Acting County Counsel Alan Cox sent Pressman a reply on Friday, denying his request for records, citing exemptions from the California Public Records Act. Those exemptions include any records of communications between the county and its attorneys and any documents or work produced by its attorneys on behalf of the county.

This $70M health campus in Redding could mean new types of specialty medical care

In his reply to Pressman, Cox indicated how much the county has spent investigating the complaints against supervisors, but he did not say which supervisors were under investigation.

Pressman sent Cox a written response after he declined to hand over the records. In the reply, Pressman said he disagreed with Cox's conclusion about whether the information he sought was open to the public.

"Clearly complaints have been made, as you have admitted that the county spent $51,413.22 toinvestigate the complaints. The complaints made by current or former county employees are notprotected by either the work product privilege or the attorney client privilege. Similarly, any recordsrelated to responses provided by the county to the current or former employees are not protected by the work product privilege or the attorney client privilege," Pressman wrote.

In early February, the Record Searchlight had also asked about possible investigations of complaints made against Kevin Crye, and asked county officials if any other supervisors were under investigation.

In denying the newspaper's request for information, which also was sent Friday, Cox cited the same exemptions as it did when he denied Pressman's request for records.

In an email sent to the Record Searchlight after 9 p.m. Sunday, Pressman said he represents a group of current and former county employees and that some of them had made complaints against Jones and Crye.

How to find a family doctor in Redding, Shasta County, when physicians are in short supply

He did not want to say what their complaints were because they were worried about that information identifying them and opening them up to possible retaliation.

Crye requested a list of questions seeking comment be sent to him Monday afternoon, but he did not reply to the questions.

Jones said Monday that an investigator hired by the county attempted to interview him about a month ago regarding complaints of harassment. Jones said the investigator did not specify what type of harassment.

Because she would not say who filed complaints against him or what the complaint was, he would not participate in the interview, Jones said.

Jones said the allegations against him were not true and that it was suspicious that information about the complaints was being released so close to the election.

"It's upsetting because it's false. I don't like being accused of something that's false. And we're costing taxpayers money by these people gaming the system for political gain. And so yeah, it's frustrating. And in the end, hopefully, appropriate actions are taken against false claims," he said.

Shasta panel asking county supervisors to defy California law that limits hand counting

Jones said it is possible legal action could be taken against people who file false claims.

"And just to reiterate, making a false claim, particularly one of harassment, is illegal, and subsequent actions can be taken for anyone that makes a false claim. I have not harassed anyone at the county, in any manner whatsoever," he said.

Pressman denied that the information coming out on the eve of the election was an attempt to influence the outcome. He said the county waited three weeks to deny the request for records and disclose the costs of the investigations.

"On the other side of it, that delay that we've experienced, that seems like politics as well. Why not hand over the public records in advance of the election, unless they're trying to keep it down so it doesn't come out right before the election?" Pressman said.

Reporter Damon Arthur welcomes story tips at 530-338-8834, by email at damon.arthur@redding.com and on X, formerly known as Twitter, at @damonarthur_RS. Help local journalism thrive by subscribing today!

This article originally appeared on Redding Record Searchlight: Investigating complaints against Shasta supervisors totals $51,413