top of page
Episode 34 - Special Meeting about The Shasta County Justice System
0
7
0
In this episode of The North State Breakdown, we cover the Shasta County Board of Supervisors special meeting on February 27, 2025. The discussion focused on major challenges in the local criminal justice system, including staffing shortages, case backlogs, and budget constraints. We also examine the controversy surrounding Supervisor Kevin Crye’s closed-door law enforcement meeting. With ongoing challenges and limited resources, it remains to be seen what changes, if any, will be made.
Transcript
Welcome to the North State Breakdown with Benjamin Nowain. Today, I'd like to discuss the Shasta County Board of Supervisors special meeting that took place on Thursday, February 27th, 2025.
This meeting was framed as a discussion of the challenges faced by criminal justice agencies, but it also served as an opportunity for key agencies to explain the realities of the system's constraints. This meeting provided an informative breakdown of the staffing shortages, case backlogs, and financial limitations.
Prior to the special meeting, Supervisor Kevin Crye promoted a closed meeting about law enforcement, which raised concerns about transparency and compliance with the Brown Act. Despite stating that he was putting the meeting on as a private citizen, this does not absolve him of the legal obligations required of public officials.
The event required vetting, and individuals had to register through his website, votekevincrye.com. On January 13th, 2025, just hours before that meeting, Crye mentioned it in a Facebook Live.
Kevin Crye
"So with that, do me a favor, drop a comment, and remember, if you haven't registered for the event tonight, I probably have five or six spots left, and if you don't get an email back from me, that means I probably didn't see it, so private message me. Again, it is a private event, you do have to register, but that's the way this has to go."
The secrecy surrounding the event and its restriction to pre-approved attendees further fueled concerns that Crye was circumventing public transparency laws while engaging in discussions on law enforcement matters. The meeting we are discussing today, the February 27th special meeting that was open to the public, followed a tumultuous history between the Board of Supervisors, particularly Kevin Crye and the District Attorney's Office, regarding the prosecution of cases.
A significant flashpoint in this conflict was Crye's request to the California Attorney General to investigate D.A. Stephanie Bridgett's handling of settlement funds related to the Zog Fire. The AG returned a response, a letter that said there was no wrongdoing, but Kevin Crye and Patrick Jones failed to disclose that letter for months, leading to accusations of transparency violations. Jones admitted to throwing away the letter while Crye attempted to downplay its significance.
Kevin Crye
"This is what I'll say, everyone uses the word and one side of the room gaslights us, saying the D.A. was exonerated, the D.A. was exonerated.The D.A. was not exonerated. If you read the letter and you read what we sent, it was basically there's nothing to see here. Here you go."
This controversy further fueled tensions as Crye had previously stated,
Kevin Crye
"Here's the great thing about this—time will tell of what side each of us are on, and one of us will be highly vindicated, and the other should be embarrassed."
This adversarial stance set the stage for continued scrutiny of the D.A.'s office, culminating in this special meeting on criminal justice operations.
Crye has frequently voiced concerns that the D.A.'s office is not prosecuting cases in a timely manner. On his radio show on April 21, 2024, Crye hosted a guest whose daughter was a victim of sexual assault. The guest expressed frustrations over the lengthy delays in prosecution, blaming the D.A.'s office for not prioritizing serious cases.
Radio Guest
"They said it could be up to three years is the statute of limitations. So up to three years."
Kevin Crye
"Okay. So did they, did they give any, have you asked or has there been any question or justification why a person can operate a business within that proximity of a school?"
Radio Guest
"I've asked. Absolutely. We've asked several times because the community is not safe and he is right next to these schools. And what they have said so far is it's taken as long as it has because the D.A.'s office is understaffed, then hire somebody."
Crye used this testimony to reinforce his argument that the D.A.'s office was failing victims and needed greater accountability.
This public airing of grievances contributed to the political pressure on the D.A.'s office and added to the already tense relationship between the board and the district attorney.
However, as the presentations in this meeting outlined, these delays are the result of systematic understaffing, high turnover, and the inability to attract experienced prosecutors, all of which are exacerbated by budget constraints, some of which are imposed by the board itself.
The special meeting on February 27th featured presentations from multiple criminal justice agencies, including the Redding Police Department, Shasta County Sheriff's Office, Shasta County District Attorney, the Shasta County Public Defender, and the Shasta County Probation Department.
Throughout the meeting, these agencies explained the severe staffing shortages they face, particularly within the district attorney's office and the courts.
The D.A.'s office presented a document titled The Prosecutor Vacancy Crisis, which outlines how low salaries, extreme workloads, and a declining interest in prosecutorial careers nationwide have left many offices understaffed and struggling to keep up with caseloads.
During the discussion, D.A. Stephanie Bridgett stated,
Stephanie Bridgett
"The impact of low staffing is what we hear, what we all hear as community concerns.Long time getting cases filed, last-minute trial continuances, takes years to get some cases even to trial or a plea.This is just the general use of plea bargaining or the use of diversion, and delayed contact with victim.Those are the same types of community concerns we hear, and staffing has a huge impact on that."
Stephanie Bridgett continued:
"While there's a myriad of problems that contributed to prosecutor vacancy problem, low salaries are likely the biggest factor.Because we're seeing people who, yeah, their government salary can be pretty good, but when, and now it becomes almost cut in half because the amount of hours they're working, it impacts morale and becomes a big issue."
A major topic of discussion was the misconception that Shasta County could simply add more judges to alleviate delays in the legal system.
Melissa Fowler-Bradley, the court executive officer for the Superior Court in Shasta County, clarified that adding judges is not a county decision, but rather a process controlled by the California legislature.
Melissa Fowler-Bradley
"The court can't add additional judges, and the county can't create more judges even if they wanted to fund them.Only the legislature in California decides the number of Superior Court judges in each county."
Fowler-Bradley further discussed the operational challenges the court faces.
Melissa Fowler-Bradley
"The Superior Court is funded by the State of California.Although our operations are on the rise, our funding is not.When the state has budget problems as it has had this fiscal year, our funding is reduced even when our workload grows."
She explained that in the 2023-24 fiscal year, the governor reduced trial court funding by 8%, resulting in a $1.2 million budget cut for the Shasta County Superior Court.
As the meeting revealed, adding judges is not a local decision, but rather a state-controlled process requiring a demonstration of need over multiple years.
Most importantly, more judges would not resolve the bottleneck, as there are not enough prosecutors and public defenders to process cases efficiently.
One consequence of the backlog of cases is the troubling development in Shasta County of the rise of vigilante justice groups, such as Dads Against Predators (DAP). These groups have taken it upon themselves to conduct amateur sting operations, targeting individuals accused of attempting to meet with minors.
These extrajudicial actions have complicated law enforcement efforts. Law enforcement officials have warned that these actions can undermine legitimate investigations and jeopardize prosecutions.
While the Board of Supervisors appeared receptive to the information presented, the meeting ran long, and many of the agencies giving presentations had left, leaving no time for questions from the board.
Supervisor Kevin Crye's closing remarks hinted at the reality that no additional funding would be allocated to solve these problems.
Kevin Crye
"So we heard today there's a lot that comes down to fiscal responsibility.Well, if we can't ask the hard questions and can't ascertain the data we're given, is it true? Is it comparative? Is it selective?But the problem I found in this process that I've been doing this is someone will give information that has shades of truth."
However, Crye suggested introducing a part two of the meeting at a later date, which is yet to be determined.
He stated that this follow-up meeting would be a night session to allow for additional questions and further discussion.
This decision comes despite acknowledging the key role that competitive salaries play in recruiting and retaining qualified professionals to improve prosecution efficiency.
While the meeting was informative, it remains unclear whether any substantial changes will be made.
Shasta County residents must recognize that without proper funding, case backlogs will continue, experienced prosecutors will leave, and the criminal justice system will remain overwhelmed.
The question is now whether the community will demand action or accept the status quo.
And that's The Breakdown.
Related Posts
Comments
Share Your ThoughtsBe the first to write a comment.
bottom of page