Shasta County releases some sheriff's office records after Record Searchlight sues
After the Record Searchlight pursued public records requests for more than a year and eventually sued Shasta County, officials have released eight documents pertaining to the management of the sheriff's office.
The county, however, continues to withhold the results of an investigation it paid for to look into the numerous complaints levied against Eric Magrini during his one-and-a-half-year tenure as sheriff.
County officials also refuse to release any other letters, emails and communications about Magrini and his promotion to assistant county executive officer.
The newspaper maintains those documents should be disclosed under the California Public Records Act. But county officials say they are exempt from being released, citing attorney-client privilege and other privacy claims.
The Record Searchlight will continue to pursue the release of the remaining documents, said Silas Lyons, executive editor.
"This comes down to a question of how our local government views its business. We believe county business is the public’s business. It’s not right for county officials to treat public documents as their own," Lyons said.
"Transparency brings better government and deepens public trust in our institutions. We desperately need that — and it benefits everyone in the long term," he said.
For more than a year, the newspaper has been attempting to uncover the events that led to Magrini's resignation in June 2021, when he left behind a department that deputies said suffered from poor leadership, low morale and fear.
Trouble between Magrini and his officers began shortly after he was appointed sheriff in December 2019, according to the Deputy Sheriff's Association.
Relations continued to devolve and by early 2021, the sheriff's office command staff, as well as the Deputy Sheriff's Association, had both issued votes of no-confidence in Magrini.
A Feb. 8, 2021 letter from the DSA, the union representing deputies and sergeants, to Magrini describes a department at odds with its leader.
“Over the last year, the DSA membership feels you have failed at every opportunity to show your support for us. When deputies were shot at or involved in a shooting, your silence was deafening. When there were conflicts with allied agencies, you have sided with the allied agencies, ignoring your own deputies and command staff," the DSA wrote.
The DSA's letter to Magrini was one of the eight records released by the county. The union's rift with Magrini, however, had already been publicly well documented before the letter was released to the paper Friday.
Shortly after Magrini received a 31% pay raise and was promoted to assistant CEO in June 2021, the DSA and Sheriff's Administrative Association issued press releases slamming the move.
Because of alleged problems in the department, the Sheriff's Administrative Association, which represents lieutenants and captains in the department, asked the county in March 2021 to investigate Magrini's conduct.
The other documents released by the county consisted of the following:
A Feb. 17, 2021 letter from the SAA to the Shasta County Board of Supervisors, asking for an outside investigation into the sheriff's department due to a "hostile and unproductive working environment."
A March 3, 2021 letter from former Shasta County CEO Matt Pontes to the SAA agreeing to hire private investigator Diane Davis.
A March 4, 2021 letter from the SAA asking the county to hire an investigator other than Davis, due to possible conflicts of interest with her.
A March 10, 2021 letter from Pontes to the SAA informing the association the county intends to hire the law firm Ellis & Makus LLP of Sacramento to conduct the investigation.
An April 7, 2021 letter from Pontes to the SAA, expressing what he said was a lack of cooperation from the union.
An April 8, 2021 letter from sheriff's Capt. Pat Kropholler, then-president of the SAA, to Leslie Ellis of Ellis & Makus. In the letter, Kropholler accuses Magrini of numerous acts of misconduct and seeks whistleblower protection from retaliation. Kropholler's letter was anonymously posted online last spring and also has been publicly documented.
A June 14, 2021 letter from County Counsel Rubin Cruse Jr. to the SAA, providing a condensed version of the results of the investigation. Cruse said there were "no findings of significant violations of law or policy by Sheriff Magrini" and no further action would be taken on the SAA's complaints.
Cruse's June 2021 letter to the SAA also notes that Magrini resigned as sheriff on June 10, 2021, and the supervisors "will no longer have a direct role in overseeing SAA's complaints."
'Serious misconduct': Whistleblower complaint blasting former sheriff, county officials, leaked online
In his letter to the SAA, Cruse said the sheriff's office probe was completed June 2, 2021.
At an unknown date, Pontes verbally offered the job to Magrini.
Nine days after the probe wrapped up, Pontes made his offer formal through a letter in which he told Magrini he would earn $178,344 if he accepted the assistant CEO job.
"I am confident that with your background education, experience and honorable career serving the public, that you will carry that forward as a positive driving force in our administration team and county," Pontes wrote.
Magrini sent his letter of resignation to the board on June 10 and he started work at his new job on June 20.
"It has been both a fantastic and rewarding pleasure representing the professional men and women of the sheriff's office. As always, I am proud of my staff's continued accomplishments," Magrini wrote to the board in his June 10 letter.
Catch up: Lawsuit to obtain records about investigation into former Sheriff Magrini moves forward
But the majority of the employees within the department's two unions did not share Magrini's sentiments about his time as sheriff.
"Unfortunately, since you have taken office, there has been a lack of support on the most basic of levels, all the way to the handling of critical incidents. The DSA feels if a deputy was put in a life or death situation, you would not offer support to the deputy involved or communicate to the department why actions are being taken or not taken," the union wrote to Magrini.
Cruse, however, said in his letter to the SAA that the Ellis investigation looked into 15 allegations against Magrini and determined the former sheriff did not engage in 11 of the allegations brought out in the investigation.
The letter noted the following investigative results:
Magrini did not interfere in an investigation into an officer-involved shooting involving a sheriff's sergeant.
He did not fail to investigate threats made against former county Health Officer Karen Ramstrom.
The former sheriff did not inappropriately communicate with local militia groups during a June 2020 Black Lives Matter protest in Redding. Cruse also said the investigation found "Magrini appropriately deleted his emails and text messages consistent with county policy and did not do so with a malicious intent to hide evidence of his communications with militia groups as alleged in the SAA complaint."
Magrini did not misuse public/grant funding when the county leased office space for an emergency operations center during the COVID-19 pandemic.
He did not create a toxic work environment in the sheriffs department.
The investigation "sustained" four allegations made against Magrini, Cruse said.
The former sheriff on two occasions failed to follow established procedures in hiring and recruitment, but they were isolated incidents and inadvertent mistakes, Cruse wrote.
The other two allegations were also unintentional and "would not be expected to be made by a person holding the office of sheriff," Cruse wrote in the letter.
"However, the investigation findings also determined that such statements made by Sheriff Magrini appeared to have been made in jest or out of frustration, but were not indicators of Sheriff Magrini actually engaging in or intending to engage in intentional misconduct," Cruse wrote.
ICYMI: Shasta deputy sheriff's union slams Eric Magrini for 'failures' on the job
While Cruse elaborated on nine of the 15 issues the investigation focused on, there was no mention in the letter of the remaining six issues, said Walt McNeill, the Record Searchlight's attorney.
McNeill said the county needs to release the entire report so county residents have a complete picture of the investigation.
Chris Pisano, a Sacramento attorney hired to represent the county, said in a Sept. 9 letter to McNeill that the investigation of Magrini was exempted from release because the Ellis probe was conducted by another law firm and was thus protected from release because of "attorney client privilege work product."
Pisano's letter did not specifically address the 20 other documents the paper requested.
The Record Searchlight filed its first of four records requests on Aug. 2, 2021. All four requests were denied by the County Counsel's Office.
On July 19 of this year, the Record Searchlight filed a lawsuit in Shasta County Superior Court, asking a judge to order the county to release the records.
On Friday the county agreed to release the eight documents. The county and the Record Searchlight are due back in court in January for a hearing on whether the county must release the remaining records.
"I hope that in the future the county will consider its obligations of transparency from the start — taking public records requests seriously rather than meeting them with an initial volley of every possible legal citation in hopes the public or media will simply give up," Lyons said.
Damon Arthur is the Record Searchlight’s resources and environment reporter. He is part of a team of journalists who investigate wrongdoing and find the unheard voices to tell the stories of the North State. He welcomes story tips at 530-338-8834 by email at damon.arthur@redding.com and on Twitter at @damonarthur_RS. Help local journalism thrive by subscribing today!
This article originally appeared on Redding Record Searchlight: Shasta County releases some sheriff's office records after being sued
