Shasta County Politics: Cronyism, Far-Right Takeover, and Public Health Mismanagement

Hypocrisy in “Local Control”

Kevin Crye has frequently promoted the idea of “local control” in campaign finance. However, publicly available campaign-finance filings suggest a more complicated picture. While local control, in principle, allows counties to set their own rules on contributions, the financial reality of Crye’s recall campaign included substantial support from outside Shasta County. Of approximately $266,000 reported as of February 2024, about $92,000—roughly 35%—came from local donors (Pierce, 2024).

Public data indicates that a significant portion of campaign funding—approximately $157,000—was associated with the Water Users Committee, a political action committee in which donor Reverge Anselmo has played a major role. An additional $16,000 reportedly came from donors across California and the United States. While such contributions are legally permissible, critics argue they raise questions about whether outside interests exert influence over local decision-making (Battaglia, 2022).

Redding Rancheria: Complex Policy Questions

The Board of Supervisors’ July 25, 2023 approval of a long-term casino and resort agreement with the Redding Rancheria has also prompted public debate. Critics contend that the Board’s decision-making process moved quickly and that certain legal and risk-management reviews may not have been prioritized, potentially limiting public oversight (Gardner, 2023; Intergovernmental Agreement, 2023).

While supporters view the development agreement as an economic opportunity, others—including some residents—expressed concern that community feedback and environmental considerations did not receive sufficient weight (Redding Rancheria, 2023; Robinson, 2022). These opposing viewpoints reflect ongoing tensions in balancing economic development with community consultation.

Jon Knight: Appointment Debate

The appointment of Jon Knight to the Shasta Mosquito and Vector Control District board has sparked debate regarding qualifications and selection criteria. Some observers interpreted the appointment as aligned with political affiliation rather than professional background (Schwaller, 2023). Media reporting has noted Knight’s public statements expressing controversial views and participation in the January 6 rally, which some community members found concerning (Branson-Potts & Garrison, 2023).

Knight was selected over Donnell Ewert, a retired epidemiologist with extensive public health experience. Crye stated that credentials alone should not determine suitability for public service; however, the decision has been viewed by some as prioritizing political alignment over technical expertise (Branson-Potts & Garrison, 2023; Chimenti, 2024).

Dr. James Mu: Public Health Leadership Controversy

Changes in Shasta County’s public health leadership have also drawn scrutiny. Former Public Health Officer Dr. Karen Ramstrom, who supported state COVID-19 policies, departed amid public tension and safety concerns (Gardner, 2022; Mangas, 2022). Following several unsuccessful recruitment efforts, the county ultimately appointed Dr. James Mu after revising qualification criteria (Approval of a revision to the Health Officer Classification Specification, 2023).

Reports indicate that Dr. Mu has publicly expressed skepticism regarding vaccines and masks, advocated for alternative COVID-19 treatments, and did not hold board certification at the time of his hiring (Branson-Potts, 2023; Vliet, 2022; Shasta County Appoints Dr. James Mu, 2023). Supporters view his appointment as reflective of community independence; critics view it as prioritizing ideology over experience.

Public Health Implications

Shasta County has faced significant public health challenges throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. The county has been noted for comparatively low vaccination rates and 690 COVID-19 deaths, equivalent to approximately 1 in 261 residents (Mangas, 2021; USAFacts, 2024; Shasta County, California Covid Case and Risk Tracker, 2021). Public health advocates argue that political polarization has complicated public trust and made effective policy-making more difficult.

Conclusion: Debate Over Governance Priorities

The record of public reporting suggests a pattern that some observers interpret as favoring certain donors, political allies, and ideological positions rather than emphasizing technical qualifications or broad community engagement. 

Supporters may view these actions as efforts to break from conventional governance and empower local voices. Critics contend they reflect a shift toward prioritizing political loyalty and outside influence, raising concerns about transparency, public participation, and institutional trust.