Siskiyou County supervisors report closed-session actions: litigation defense authorized; public works director removed

Siskiyou County counsel reported at the board's reconvened session that the Board of Supervisors had met in closed session and took two formal actions: authorizing legal defense in Tobin v. City of Dunsmuir and removing the county's director of public works, with an effective removal date of Nov. 20, 2025.

County counsel told the board it entered closed session at 12:48 p.m. and reconvened at 1:28 p.m. Counsel said the board briefly convened as the In-Home Supportive Services public authority from 1:07 p.m. to 1:10 p.m. and that no approval action was taken during that session. Counsel also reported that, for agenda item 12(a), Supervisor Obrun recused herself and left the board chambers at 1:12 p.m. and did not return for the remainder of the meeting.

On agenda item 12(b), described by counsel as Tobin v. City of Dunsmuir, a premises-liability case, counsel reported that Supervisor Valenzuela moved to authorize defensive suit and to secure representation by the law firm Marie and Deaton; Supervisor Cobset seconded the motion. Counsel reported the motion carried with a unanimous vote of the supervisors present. The transcript did not record additional details about the claims or the terms of representation.

On agenda item 15(c), counsel reported that a motion to remove the director of public works pursuant to Siskiyou County Code section 7-3.04 was moved and seconded; counsel reported the motion carried with a unanimous vote of the supervisors present. Counsel said the director is "immediately relieved of his duties pending the effective date of his removal of 11/20/2025." When a speaker asked for clarification about the date, county counsel confirmed Nov. 20.

The report did not include the director's name, any personnel documents, or additional details about the grounds for removal. The transcript also did not record roll-call vote counts by individual supervisor for either action beyond counsel's statement that the votes were unanimous among those present. Supervisor Obrun's earlier recusal means one supervisor was not present for the votes, according to the report.

County counsel closed the report and the board continued with other business. The transcript excerpt provided does not include any public discussion of the two actions or additional documentary materials that might accompany them.