Shasta County wants to 'digest' court order before releasing public records

More than three months after Shasta County officials were given 15 days to comply with a court order to release public documents to the Record Searchlight, the county wants to further delay relinquishing the documents so officials can “digest” the ramifications of complying with the ruling.

On Monday, Shasta County Superior Court Judge Stephen Baker ordered the county for the third time to hand over hundreds of pages of documents first requested by the newspaper two years ago.

The Record Searchlight has sought under the California Public Records Act copies of an investigation called the Ellis Report — requested by lieutenants and captains in the Sheriff's Office — into management of the sheriff’s office under former Sheriff Eric Magrini. The paper asked for communications among top county officials regarding Magrini’s resignation and reassignment as assistant county executive officer.

Baker has repeatedly ruled the documents should be made public.

But Chris Pisano, an attorney contracted by the county, on Thursday filed a request with the court asking for more time to hand over the documents because he is involved in a trial and two members of the board will not be available to consult with him before Tuesday.

“As a matter of timing, that will be less than two days from the deadline for production, which will not give enough time for my client to seek any relief from, or modification of the order should they decide they want to do that,” Pisano wrote in a memo to the Record Searchlight’s attorney, Walt McNeill.

If the county turned over the documents to the paper without first consulting with the county, including the Board of Supervisors, the county could suffer “irreparable harm,” Pisano said in his court filing.

Report may cause 'indigestion' at the county level

But McNeill argued the proposed delay was unnecessary and the county has had ample opportunities to ruminate over the court’s rulings.

“Sometimes the transparency and honest disclosure of public records which nourishes democracy causes ‘indigestion’ for government officials, even at our county level. Whatever discomfort the Shasta County Board of Supervisors may feel about disclosing the Ellis Report, the time has come for the respondent county to disclose the Ellis Report without further delay and simply obey the law of the California Public Records Act,” McNeill wrote.

Attorneys for the Record Searchlight and the county will be in court Friday for a hearing on the proposed delay.

The latest effort by the county to put off releasing the records began Monday when Baker ordered the county to turn over hundreds of pages of documents he called Exhibit A and Exhibit B.

On Tuesday, acting County Counsel Matt McOmber announced the Board of Supervisors voted 4-0 in a closed session to release only Exhibit A, which includes just a portion of the records sought by the newspaper. However, as of Friday, the paper had not received the contents of Exhibit A.

At the board meeting, McOmber did not address whether the county would release Exhibit B, which consists mainly of the Ellis Report ― which includes the results of an investigation into the sheriff’s office in the spring of 2021.

Pisano contacted McNeill to tell him the county wanted to further delay releasing the Ellis Report. On Wednesday, McNeill expressed frustration that the county continues to try to put off releasing the records, despite previous failed attempts to keep them secret.

The county has gone to great lengths to keep the documents from the public for two reasons, McNeill said.

“One factor is that the report is going to reveal information about the inner workings of the county administration, both through the Administrative Office and the sheriff's department, which are likely to be, at a minimum, embarrassing in some way,” McNeill said.

“And then that dovetails with another factor, which is basically a culture of secrecy in the county administration,” he said. “So, as opposed to transparency, you have a culture of closure and secrecy that really needs some sunshine to come in throughout the county.”

Ellis report looks into management complaints

At issue are records pertaining to Eric Magrini’s management of the sheriff’s office after he was sworn into office in January 2020. By early 2021, his department was in turmoil, with two of its unions issuing votes of no confidence in Magrini.

At the request of a union representing the sheriff's lieutenants and captains, the county hired Ellis Investigations to look into complaints against Magrini that had originated from within the department.

In June 2021, Magrini stepped down as sheriff but was appointed assistant county executive officer and given a 31% pay raise. Also that summer, the county supervisors sidestepped holding public interviews with candidates for the sheriff position and appointed former Anderson Police Chief Michael Johnson to the post.

In an effort to find out the results of the Ellis Report, county officials' reaction to those findings, what led to Magrini’s resignation and reassignment and to Johnson's appointment, the Record Searchlight submitted four separate Public Records Act requests for documents in 2021 and 2022.

The newspaper asked the county for copies of the Ellis Report and communications about the sheriff's office among top county officials, including the supervisors and then-county CEO Matt Pontes.

After the county denied the Record Searchlight’s requests for records, the newspaper filed suit against the county in July 2022, asking a judge to force the county to relinquish the documents.

The county claimed the information was exempt from release because the documents were private personnel records and matters of attorney-client privilege since it involved the county counsel’s office.

The county and the Record Searchlight went to trial in January 2023 on whether the documents are exempt from release to the public.

On April 10, Baker ruled that the county must relinquish the records, giving the county 15 days to comply.

Instead of turning over the documents, the county asked for a delay in the judge’s ruling and ask the judge to either reverse his ruling or hold a new trial. Baker denied everything the county asked for.

Baker also denied the county’s request to have the Record Searchlight pay for costs to locate the materials the newspaper sought. In his second ruling on the delay and request for a new trial, Baker gave the county five days to turn over the records to the newspaper.

Shasta County delays releasing documents

Even after the judge for the second time ordered the county to relinquish the materials, the county remained defiant, sending out a press release in May explaining why it would not release the information.

“The county recognizes the importance of transparency. However, by law, there are limits to the right of access to public records, and there are equally important concerns that must be considered when deciding what records to make available,” the press release said.

The case was further delayed after the county sought to redact from the documents information it claimed were not public records. McNeill said much of what the county wanted to redact was already decided in the judge’s earlier rulings.

On Monday, Baker released documents that addressed all of the county’s proposed redactions and specified what information the county could withhold within the documents.

McNeill said the judge allowed the county to remove some personally identifiable information, such as phone numbers, email addresses, criminal records and social security numbers.

He also allowed some communications between the county’s attorneys and county employees to remain concealed, under an attorney-client privilege exemption of the Public Records Act.

But Baker ordered the release of nearly all of the Ellis Report, McNeill said.

Reporter Damon Arthur 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 wants to 'digest' obeying public records court order