Still dissatisfied with the conclusions of an administrative investigation into allegations that employees in the Shasta County District Attorney’s Office worked on Stephanie Bridgett’s 2022 reelection campaign, Patrick Jones filed a claim and is weighing whether to sue the county.
But Jones, who stepped down from being a supervisor in 2024 after losing his own reelection bid, said the county could avoid litigation.
“Ultimately, if she would step down, we could drop all of these matters,” Jones said Monday. “But I doubt she would do that. It’s up to her.”
So, on Tuesday, he attended the Board of Supervisors meeting to raise up his claims. Supervisors came out of closed session and announced a 4-1 vote to hire separate outside counsel for Bridgett and the county to defend against Jones’ claim. Board Chair Kevin Crye voted no.
“It wasn’t so much on the item of hiring outside counsel. I believe, as stated by Counsel (Joseph) Larmour in closed session, we are required to supply counsel for the district attorney in this instance and I agree with the board’s direction of that. The part I dissent on is how we are handling this in terms of closed session versus making this more public and giving people more access to the nearly three-year process this has undergone,” Crye said in defending his no vote.
An investigation, which was released last year, determined that Bridgett worked on her 2022 primary reelection campaign while she was in her office at work but found that she did not require employees to work on her campaign, nor did they “engage in campaign related activities during regular county work hours.”
Jones filed a complaint with the county on June 5, a step that for some is a prelude to filing a lawsuit.
Explaining his vote, Supervisor Chris Kelstrom, who is a friend of Jones, said the “law had our hands tied. There was no choice. We did not have a choice there, so that was my vote.” Harmon then said he agreed with Kelstrom.
Supervisor Allen Long told the Record Searchlight after the meeting that he believes Bridgett “was operating within the law and was entitled to defense.”
Plummer said after the meeting that the 4-1 vote reflected the board was following the law that requires the county to defend employees.
Bridgett on Monday in an email said she is dedicated to continuing to lead the county district attorney’s office.
“I remain committed to the exceptional work being done in my office to protect the citizens of Shasta County through fair, honest and ethical prosecution. This has been my mission since I began working as a prosecutor for Shasta County over twenty years ago and continues to be my focus as your District Attorney,” she said.
The investigation released last year also did not agree with an allegation that Bridgett acted unprofessionally toward an employee until that employee quit, referred to in the report as “constructive discharge.”
Jones on Monday said the investigation, based on a whistleblower report, was not thorough enough and is upset the county did not investigate his allegations, calling himself ‘whistleblower number two.”
“The county, in my opinion, feared the liability and did not perform that second investigation,” Jones said.
The investigation was conducted by the law firm of John Beiers of San Carlos and was dated Aug. 3, 2023. The Board of Supervisors voted 3-1 in May 2024 to release the attorney-client privilege restrictions on the 47-page report and make it available to the public.
Bridgett said Monday the Beiers report was the result of an independent outside investigation.
“It found all allegations that I required District Attorney staff to campaign inside the DA’s Office during regular county hours to not be true. The only true finding was that I used my personal cell phone and Chromebook to respond to campaign messages while standing inside of the office,” Bridgett wrote.
Jones alleges that the 2022 election had a negatively affected operations in the DA’s office.
“Normal operations of the District Attorney’s Office were not impacted by the 2022 elections. As the Beiers investigative report made clear, all employees were directed, by me, to not engage in campaign-related activities inside of the DA’s Office. The Beiers investigation concluded that I did not require, approve or implicitly authorize anyone in my office to work on my campaign during regular county hours,” Bridgett wrote.
The investigator noted in the report that the one allegation that was sustained was “de minimus and clearly not an intentional effort to flout policy. This investigator finds (redacted name) and DA Bridgett to be honest witnesses who used reasonable efforts to follow the legal prohibitions on campaign activities.”
This isn’t the first time Jones has questioned Bridgett’s performance as the DA.
Both Jones and Crye were critical of Bridgett in her handling of the Zogg Fire settlement. In August 2023 as chair of the board, Jones sent a letter to the California Attorney General’s Office asking for a review and potentially appointing a special counsel to look into it.
The Attorney General concluded that Bridgett did nothing wrong.
This article originally appeared on Redding Record Searchlight: Shasta ex-supervisor’s ongoing complaint against DA takes new turn after he files claim
Reporting by David Benda, Redding Record Searchlight / Redding Record Searchlight
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
