Ninja Coalition & Shasta County

---

Business Background and Transition to Public Office

Kevin Crye, founder of the Ninja Coalition—a youth-oriented fitness facility located in the Mount Shasta Mall, which launched in December 2019—has promoted a mission of encouraging children to set lifelong fitness goals (Williams, 2019). After winning the District 1 seat on the Shasta County Board of Supervisors in 2022, Crye also became Board Chair, giving him a prominent role in shaping county priorities and programs.

Some observers have questioned whether his business activities and public responsibilities occasionally overlap in ways that merit close public scrutiny. Although elected officials commonly engage with both public initiatives and private ventures, concerns have been raised about whether Crye’s dual roles require additional safeguards to avoid perceived conflicts.

The August 28, 2024 Meeting: Differing Expectations

On August 28, 2024, Crye met with Shasta County Schools Superintendent Mike Freeman. According to reports, Freeman anticipated a discussion about the Community Connect Program. This county service supports students and families with case management, mental health resources, housing support, and other key services (Benda, 2024). That expectation reportedly aligned with Crye’s public comments the previous day, expressing interest in the program.

However, accounts suggest that Crye instead used the meeting to discuss his private ASCEND program, a before- and after-school initiative that partners with public schools and is supported through public funding streams (ASCEND School Program, 2025; California Adventure Camps, 2025). Crye's personal assistant was reportedly present, which some interpreted as blurring the lines between personal and official functions.

The Board of Supervisors had delayed consideration of the Community Connect contract by one day. Crye, Jones, and Kellstrom voted to postpone the matter, which some community members and commentators viewed as potentially related to the contemporaneous discussion of ASCEND (Nowain, 2024). Supporters of the Board majority may argue that contract delays are not unusual and can be part of exercising fiscal oversight.

Allegations of Conflict Concerns

Reports citing Freeman and Board member Garman indicate that both perceived Crye as implying that county support for school-based services might be connected to possible ASCEND participation (Pierce, 2024). Garman stated in writing that he interpreted Crye's comments this way. Crye, for his part, has publicly denied attempting to link funding decisions with his business interests and has asserted that he is not motivated by personal profit (Benda, 2024).

While there is no judicial finding on the matter, the situation has prompted public discussions about ethics and the appearance of conflicts. Ethics scholars commonly note that the perception of impropriety alone can undermine confidence in public institutions—even where no legal violation is ultimately found.

Community Connect Program Impacts

The policy decision had tangible administrative consequences. By March 2025, the Anderson Union High School District had lost access to Community Connect services due to changes in contract terms and nonrenewal (Tedford, 2025a, 2025b). Freeman explained that the program previously provided support via four clinicians assisting local students, and that its interruption created challenges for families relying on those services.

At the same time, public records indicate ASCEND continued to receive state and county funding (ASCEND School Program, 2025). To some observers, this juxtaposition has raised questions about how program priorities are established and whether public processes ensure equal consideration of proposals from both the private and public sectors.

Broader Governance Concerns

Critics argue that the circumstances surrounding Community Connect and ASCEND reflect broader governance questions and highlight the importance of transparency, structured conflict safeguards, and a clear separation between public duties and private ventures. Supporters of Crye and the Board’s majority may counter that the actions reflect alternative policy priorities and efforts to promote innovative programs.

Regardless of perspective, the situation has generated community debate about ethics standards, public trust, and equitable access to services—issues fundamental to effective and credible county governance.

Conclusion

Crye’s tenure has sparked significant public discussion about striking a balance between private enterprise and public service, managing perceived conflicts of interest, and ensuring transparent decision-making. Some residents view recent events as raising legitimate questions about the government's integrity and priorities. In contrast, others believe the Board has pursued policy reforms and business partnerships consistent with its electoral mandate.

These debates underscore the need for clear ethical guidelines, proactive transparency, and continued public oversight to safeguard the interests of Shasta County’s children and families and maintain trust in local institutions.

HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE!! VOTE THEM OUT 2026!