Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents assail Tehama County supervisors at public comment, accuse board of targeting former commissioner
Summary
Dozens of callers during public comment accused supervisors of political targeting, called for resignations and criticized the boardfor opaque decision-making. Speakers cited a recording and the recent removal of a planning commissioner as evidence of misconduct.
A wave of angry public comment at the March 3 Tehama County Board of Supervisors meeting centered on allegations that supervisors conspired to remove former planning commissioner Patty Nolan and have since failed to be accountable. Several speakers demanded investigations, resignations and changes to how the board handles appointments.
The meeting opened with a prayer from a local pastor who asked the board to "listen with respect" and to show "visible integrity," then shifted into a sustained public-comment period in which callers repeatedly criticized recent personnel actions. "You fabricated a case against Patty Nolan, a conspiracy to get rid of her," said one caller who urged the board to fire county counsel and reconsider its approach. Another caller, Alan McFarland, described a recording and said the board had deliberately targeted Nolan, calling the board's conduct "unlawful."
Several residents who identified themselves by name also said long-standing directives from the boardincluding requests for the planning commission to revisit the county's cannabis ordinance and to adopt groundwater protectionshave gone uncompleted. "It's been two years and we have not heard back," said a caller who said she was interviewed by ad hoc panels but had seen no action. Other commenters said the county had spent taxpayer money on attorneys and investigations without producing results.
Board members allowed people to request items be pulled from the consent agenda for fuller discussion; a dispute arose when one supervisor declined to pull item 20 after a colleague had asked. The board ultimately proceeded with the consent agenda vote after extended comment; the roll call recorded one no vote on that consent motion.
The public comments were largely appeals for greater transparency and more visible accountability. Several speakers said they would press the issue by filing public records requests and by mobilizing at future meetings. The board did not take any immediate investigative action during the meeting; procedural replies from the dais confirmed that members had heard the complaints and that staff would follow existing processes for records and appointments.
The meeting moved on after the public-comment block to routine agenda items including department updates and the midyear budget presentation. The next formal opportunity for the public to influence board action will be through upcoming agenda items, public records requests or subsequent meetings.
