close
close

The Shasta case highlights the weaknesses of public documentation policy

play

Although Shasta County Executive Patrick Jones was cleared of any wrongdoing when he destroyed a letter he received from California's attorney general earlier this year, open government advocates said the incident exposed weaknesses in the county's policy on handling public records.

The county hired an investigative firm that concluded Jones did not act inappropriately when he disposed of and did not make public a letter he received from the Attorney General's office.

In Jones's defense, the 13-page report states, among other things, that at the time Jones received the letter, Shasta County had no policy requiring supervisors to retain letters addressed to them, nor had the county provided training on the legal requirements to do so.

Under county policy at the time, the responsibility for opening and documenting official correspondence lay with postal staff, not with supervisors.

County Clerk David Rickert, one of the four witnesses interviewed, told investigators that the policy was unclear about what postal workers should consider official correspondence.

More: Even more sensationalism when Shasta wants to investigate why a superior kept the AG's letter secret

In June, supervisors voted 4-1 to hire the law firm Ellis & Makus, at a cost not to exceed $30,000, to determine whether Jones improperly failed to disclose a Jan. 29, 2024, letter he received from the state's attorney general's office. Jones cast the dissenting vote.

Ellis & Makus also conducted an investigation of the sheriff's office under former Sheriff Eric Magrini in 2021.

The attorney general's letter Jones received exonerated District Attorney Stephanie Bridgett in the Zogg fire, but the letter did not become public until May 3, when Bridgett's office released it as part of a press release announcing the findings.

The issue also dates back to August 2023, when Jones and Supervisor Kevin Crye criticized the settlement. Jones, then chairman of the board, sent a letter on behalf of the board to the Attorney General's Office asking them to review the district attorney's decision.

In addition to Jones and Rickert, Crye and the agency's staff service analyst, John Sitka, were questioned by investigators.

“Mr. Jones admitted that he had disposed of the letter, but stated that he had not done so unlawfully. And the evidence supported his statement.” For example, Jones told Crye about the letter shortly after receiving it, the report says.

Extension: New bus route from Redding to Chico starts this week

The report goes on to say that Jones thought the letter was “no big deal” because he expected the Attorney General's office to exonerate Bridgett.

“The conclusions in this report are not legal findings but rather findings of fact regarding the county’s concerns,” the report states.

Attorney Walt McNeill said the episode reminded him of the Magrini case. McNeill represented Record Searchlight in its legal battle to release documents related to Magrini's management of the sheriff's office.

A judge ultimately ruled that the district had to hand over the documents to the newspaper.

McNeill said that in his struggle to obtain these documents, he discovered that there were major gaps in electronic and possibly paper records related to communication between county officials.

Note to readers: If you appreciate the work we do here at the Redding Record Searchlight Please subscribe yourself or give a subscription to someone you know.

“And essentially, I've come to the conclusion that there needs to be policies that clarify the retention of records. There also needs to be specific instructions or clarifications about what records are retained, how long they are retained, and what the specific policies are for the destruction of records,” McNeill said.

The investigative report on the Attorney General's letter to Jones states that in May the county implemented a policy requiring county postal workers to open and photocopy all mail to ensure preservation.

Honored: Shasta County Superior Court official honored with statewide award

“Well, I don't quite understand that in terms of setting policies on record retention or what should be kept and what shouldn't,” McNeill said. “I wouldn't be surprised if the supervisors get a lot of mail, you know, they might get as much junk mail as I do. So there has to be something to separate the wheat from the chaff, and there's a policy for that.”

The Ellis & Makus report refers to Title 18 of the United State Code, Section 2071(a), which prohibits the destruction of public records.

David Loy, legal director of the California First Amendment Coalition, a public transparency organization, said part of the federal law likely doesn't apply to state or local government records. “I don't understand the reference,” he said.

But California Government Code 6200, which deals with the retention of public records, and this law may be relevant in this case, Loy said.

“I have no opinion on whether this statue was violated or not. I'm just saying this is something that should be investigated,” Loy said.

McNeill said there are state laws governing the handling and retention of public records.

“But these state laws really only provide a framework. What gives it substance are the guidelines adopted by the regulators,” McNeill said.

David Benda covers business, development and everything else going on for the USA TODAY Network in Redding. He also writes the weekly column “Buzz on the Street.” He is part of a team of dedicated reporters who investigate grievances, break news and tell other stories about your community. You can reach him at X, formerly Twitter @DavidBenda_RS or call 530-338-8323. To support and sustain this work, subscribe today.

You may also like...