Open records advocates: Case exposes weakness in county policies handling public records

While Shasta County Supervisor Patrick Jones was cleared of wrongdoing when he destroyed a letter he received from the California Attorney General earlier this year, open government advocates said the issue exposes weaknesses in the county's policies on handling public records.

The county hired an investigation firm that concluded Jones did not act inappropriately when he disposed of a letter that he received from the AG's office and did not disclose the letter to the public.

In clearing Jones, the 13-page report states , among other things, that at the time Jones received the letter, Shasta County had no policies that stated supervisors should keep letters addressed to them and the county provided no training on the legal requirements to do so.

The county’s policy at the time put the onus on the mail staff, not supervisors, to open and document official correspondence.

County Administrative Officer David Rickert, who was one of four witnesses interviewed, told investigators that the policy lacked clarity about what mail staff members should consider official correspondence.

More: More grandstanding as Shasta looks to investigate why a supervisor kept AG's letter secret

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

Ellis & Makus also handled an 2021 investigation into the sheriff’s office under former Sheriff Eric Magrini.

The AG’s letter that Jones received exonerated District Attorney Stephanie Bridgett’s conduct in the Zogg Fire settlement . But the correspondence did not become public until May 3, when Bridgett’s office made it public 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, who was then the board’s chair, sent a letter on behalf of the board to the Attorney General’s office asking it to review the district attorney’s decision.

In addition to Jones and Rickert, Crye and Agency Staff Service Analyst John Sitka were interviewed by investigators.

“Mr. Jones acknowledged that he disposed of the letter but stated that he did not do so improperly. And, the evidence supported his account.” For example, shortly after receiving the letter, Jones told Crye about it, the report said.

Expansion: New Redding to Chico bus line starts this week

The report goes on to say that Jones thought the letter was "not a big deal" because he expected the AG’s office to exonerate Bridgett.

“The conclusions in this report are not legal determinations, but instead factual findings regarding the County’s concern,” the report said.

Attorney Walt McNeill said this episode reminds him of the Magrini case. McNeill represented the Record Searchlight in its lawsuit to obtain documents related to Magrini’s management of the sheriff’s office.

A judge ultimately ruled that the county had to turn over the documents to the paper.

In fighting to obtain those documents, McNeill said he discovered there were large gaps in electronic and potentially paper records that involved communications between county officials.

Note to readers: If you appreciate the work we do here at the Redding Record Searchlight please consider subscribing yourself or giving the gift of a subscription to someone you know.

“And, basically, what I found is that there needs to be policies in place that clarify the retention of records, and there needs to be some specific instruction or clarity to what records are retained, how long they are retained, and what is the specific policy for destruction of records,” McNeill said.

The investigative report on the AG’s letter to Jones states that in May the county implemented a policy to have county mail staff open and photocopy all mail to ensure retention.

Honored: Shasta County Superior Court official honored with statewide award

“Well, I don't quite understand that, in respect to laying down any guidelines for records retention or what should be retained and what doesn't need to be retained,” McNeill said. “It wouldn't surprise me if the supervisors get a ton of mail, you know, they could get just as much junk mail as I get. So there has to be, you know, something in terms of sorting out the wheat from the chaff, and that's what you have a policy for.”

The Ellis & Makus report references Title 18 of United State Code, section 2071(a), which prohibits the destroying of public records.

David Loy, legal director for the California First Amendment Coalition public transparency group, said that part of the federal law probably wouldn’t apply to state or local government records. "I don't understand the reference," he said.

But California government code 6200 that addresses the retention of public records and that law could be relevant in this case, Loy said.

“I don’t have an opinion on whether that statue was or was not violated, I am simply saying that is something that should be looked into,” Loy said.

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

“But these state laws only provide a sort of framework, really. What puts meat on the bones is policies adopted by the supervisors,” McNeill said.

David Benda covers business , development and anything else that comes up for the USA TODAY Network in Redding. He also writes the weekly "Buzz on the Street" column. He’s part of a team of dedicated reporters that investigate wrongdoing, cover breaking news and tell other stories about your community. Reach him on X, formerly Twitter @DavidBenda_RS or by phone at 530-338-8323. To support and sustain this work, please subscribe today.

This article originally appeared on Redding Record Searchlight: Open records advocates: Case exposes weakness in county policies handling public records