Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appointments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Shasta supervisors reshape committee roster after heated public backlash over Plummer assignments
Summary
The Board of Supervisors approved the chair’s reassignments of regional and advisory seats after an extended public outcry and debate over procedure and staff direction; a contested Mental Health advisory appointment was removed following a staff objection. Vote counts recorded the chair’s package as approved while the disputed nomination was excluded.
Chair Chris Kelstrom used his prerogative to issue most committee and regional appointments for 2026, but the decisions prompted an extended debate and loud public comment accusing the chair of punitive, opaque reassignments.
Supervisor Matt Plummer challenged his removal from several health-and-human-services roles, telling the board he had “worked to be a bridge between this board and that group of leaders” and that the Mental Health, Alcohol and Drug Advisory Board and other seats “have been an area of passion” and produced measurable changes. Plummer and multiple public speakers warned that removing a single, active supervisor from those assignments undermines continuity and relationships built over the prior year.
Chair Kelstrom defended his changes as staff-informed and budget-conscious. “When I was notified that you were directing staff from those positions,” Kelstrom said in reply, “staff answers to CEO Rickert. If we need something that we want to implement, we go to CEO Rickert and ask him to direct staff.” Kelstrom also cited travel and cost considerations and said he had granted most of Plummer’s earlier requests but rescinded a small subset after staff raised concerns.
The public comment period grew combative. Dozens of residents, mental-health stakeholders and county employees urged the board to keep Plummer on advisory bodies and questioned the process used to make the changes. “Removing people from boards after one year undermines that work,” one speaker said, urging supervisors to preserve institutional knowledge. Community members repeatedly criticized perceived back-room decision-making and requested transparent, board-level discussion rather than private staff direction.
County Executive Officer Dave Rickert and County Counsel Joe Larimer weighed in on a related appointments matter (Item C7). Rickert asked the board not to include a particular nominee to the Mental Health advisory board; Rickert’s office framed the objection as being in service of the advisory board’s needs. Supervisors discussed the nominee’s advocacy style—Supervisor Long said the candidate sought “accountability” but sometimes in a way that may not be collaborative—then approved the slate with the contested appointment removed.
The board recorded roll-call votes during the session. The chair’s overall slate of assignments was approved by the board majority; a separate roll-call on the contested Mental Health appointment resulted in the nominee not being approved as part of the slate.
What happens next: The board’s new appointment roster takes effect and the reconstituted advisory seats will begin work under the new assignments, while several community members urged the board to revisit both the process and the specific assignment decisions in future meetings.
Credits: Reporting is based on the board’s live meeting and on recorded public comment and roll-call votes during the meeting.
