Top Shasta County official Patrick Jones calls judge in records case to apologize

A judge on Friday denied Shasta County's request to delay turning over hundreds of pages of documents requested by the Record Searchlight. But before issuing his ruling, the judge disclosed that he had been contacted by the chairman of the county Board of Supervisors, who offered him an apology and an invitation.

Superior Court Judge Stephen Baker disclosed during a court hearing on Friday that he received a phone call earlier this month from Patrick Jones.

The judge said he felt the phone call was harmless, but also felt he needed to disclose it because it was unusual and felt the conversation created an "awkward" situation because the county is a defendant in the case.

The newspaper sued the county last year, asking a judge to force the county to relinquish records pertaining to an investigation into management of the sheriff's office under former Sheriff Eric Magrini.

The county and the Record Searchlight were in court Friday for Baker to rule on a request from the county for more time to comply with the judge's order to hand over the documents.

Before issuing his ruling on the proposed delay, Baker began the hearing by disclosing the encounter. He said he wrote out notes from the phone call with Jones, which he read in open court during the hearing.

Recounting his conversation, Baker said Jones initially apologized that the county had taken so long to relinquish the documents to the Record Searchlight. The judge said that at that point he politely interrupted Jones and told him he could not discuss the case.

Jones then changed the subject and went on to invite Baker to a town hall meeting Jones held on July 20 in Redding, Baker said. The town hall featured an election denier who addressed claims of voter fraud in recent elections.

Contacted by the Record Searchlight later Friday, Jones said he was not attempting to influence the judge's decision in the case.

"I just wanted to let him know that I was sorry that it was taking so long for this information to come out. And so I thanked him for being patient with the process that the county is using, because I was upset. I have been upset on this whole issue from the very beginning that it (the documents) weren't turned over immediately," Jones said.

Was he aware the phone call put the judge in an awkward situation?

"Looking back, I might have done it differently. But part of the problem in a lot of different situations is a lack of communication. And, you know, the judge is talking to our attorneys, and they're not directly in communication with the board (of supervisors), and sometimes a lot is missed. And so I thought that it might be of some help," Jones said.

"And I don't know if it was any help or not. We really didn't discuss anything in any detail whatsoever. He would not go there," he said.

Jones said he has been in favor of giving the documents to the Record Searchlight, but he has voted against releasing the information because the County Counsel's Office has recommended against it.

On July 25, Jones and the rest of the board voted 4-0 to release some of the documents the newspaper has requested. But the supervisors decided not to relinquish what is known as the Ellis Report.

Supervisor Mary Rickert was absent during the vote.

Jones said he wants to release the report, but voted to withhold it because the county's attorneys warned board members that releasing the information and the names included in the report could open the county to possible legal liability.

"County Counsel continues to say that we must protect county workers and not have any legal issues with turning over information that could get the county sued," Jones said.

Baker ruled in April and again in May that the county must turn over the documents the Record Searchlight first requested in August 2021 under the California Public Records Act. After the county refused four times to relinquish the documents, the newspaper sued the county in July 2022, asking a judge to force the county to release the information.

The newspaper has requested copies of the Ellis Report, which consists of the results of an investigation during the spring of 2021 into the management of the sheriff's office while Eric Magrini was sheriff. Lieutenants and captains in the department had requested the investigation.

Note to readers: If you appreciate our effort to highlight critical issues in your community, please help power our local journalism. Subscribe to the Redding Record Searchlight.

The newspaper has also sought documents and communications among top county officials regarding Magrini's resignation and appointment as assistant county executive officer in June 2021.

On Monday, Baker ruled the county had 10 days to comply with his ruling to deliver the documents to the paper. As of Friday, the newspaper has not received the records.

The Record Searchlight's attorney, Walt McNeill, said he felt the county could not appeal Baker's ruling at this point because too much time has passed since he issued his order in May.

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: Top Shasta County official calls judge in records case to apologize