Allegations of Selective Transparency and Hypocrisy Rock Shasta County Board
- Elisa Ballard
- Jul 18
- 3 min read
Former Shasta County Supervisor Patrick Jones has leveled sharp accusations against current board members and top county officials, claiming a pattern of selective disclosure and hypocrisy that shields certain relationships and investigations from public scrutiny while aggressively pursuing others.
Jones points to two intertwined issues: the county’s handling of its legal defense in the high-profile lawsuit over the Redding Rancheria intergovernmental services agreement, and the uneven treatment of workplace complaints and investigations involving supervisors versus other officials.
Rancheria Donation and Lawsuit Defense
At the center is the 2023 intergovernmental agreement between Shasta County and the Redding Rancheria for law enforcement, fire, and emergency services related to the Tribe’s proposed new casino at the Strawberry Fields site. The agreement was ruled illegal by a superior court judge in 2025, prompting an appeal.
Jones alleges that County Counsel Joseph Larmour suggested the Rancheria route funds through a $508,000 donation (announced in March 2025) — including $408,000 for re-roofing the Redding Memorial Veterans Hall and $100,000 for Veterans Services Office renovations — rather than directly paying the county’s mounting legal defense bills. This framing, Jones claims, was intended to create a more favorable public image while indirectly supporting the county’s defense of the agreement.
Jones argues that this arrangement hides the true nature of the Rancheria’s support from the public, raising questions about transparency in the management of taxpayer resources and tribal contributions amid ongoing litigation that has already cost the county hundreds of thousands of dollars.
County officials have not publicly detailed any direct linkage between the donation and lawsuit defense costs. The Rancheria has a long history of community philanthropy in the North State, including support for veterans, health services, and local organizations.
Selective Disclosure of Internal Investigations
Jones further alleges a double standard in how the county handles complaints and investigations. He references a May 19, 2023, complaint from former Director of Support Services Shelly Forbes (described by Jones as “very liberal” and opposed to the incoming conservative board majority). Forbes alleged discrimination, harassment, and retaliation involving Jones and others.
According to Jones, he received a November 7, 2025, letter from the current Director, Monica Fugitt, detailing the outcome of an external investigation conducted by Karen Kramer. The investigator sustained a finding (by preponderance of the evidence) that Jones made gender-based comments to county employees that “may not be appropriate for the workplace.” Jones adamantly denies this allegation. Two other allegations (retaliation and discrimination/harassment based on gender) were not sustained.
Jones claims similar sustained findings exist against Supervisors Kevin Crye and Chris Kelstrom, yet these have not received the same level of public attention or action as complaints against others. He contrasts this with the board’s (or certain members’) push to censure Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis over findings from the Oppenheimer Investigations Group report, which included sustained allegations of abusive conduct, threats, and unprofessional behavior. Jones and others have defended Curtis, pointing to reports of insubordination and alleged false complaints from entrenched staff in the ROV office. Shasta Unfiltered previously reported that the Oppenheimer firm was the subject of a lawsuit over its biased handling of allegations against a former teacher in Oakland, CA.
Forbes and former Deputy CEO Mary Williams later left county employment for positions at the Children’s Legacy Center. Jones questions the timing and handling of these matters, suggesting political motivations and a failure to apply consistent standards.
Supervisors Kelstrom, Crye, Harmon, Plummer, and Long, along with CEO Dave Rickert and Counsel Larmour, face Jones’ charge of hypocrisy — pressing accountability in some cases (e.g., Curtis) while covering up complaints against others, including members of the board.
Calls for Greater Transparency
These allegations come amid broader debates over government accountability, election integrity, and fiscal responsibility in Shasta County. Jones urges full public release of relevant documents, investigation reports, and details on funding arrangements to allow residents to judge for themselves.
Shasta Unfiltered will continue monitoring these claims and seeks responses from all parties involved. County officials, the Redding Rancheria, and affected individuals are encouraged to provide statements or documentation for balanced coverage. They may contact Shasta Unfiltered via email to provide their statements: contact@ShastaUnfiltered.com
What do you think? Is this another example of insider dealings and two-tiered accountability, or standard governance with politicized complaints? Share your thoughts in the comments and sign up for our weekly newsletter at ShastaUnfiltered.com for more local investigative reporting focused on faith, family, and country.
Sources include statements from former Supervisor Patrick Jones, county records, and prior Shasta Unfiltered and Shasta Scout coverage of the Rancheria agreement lawsuit and related personnel matters. Allegations are attributed as such and have not been independently verified in full by this outlet.
