“I want no chance that the state – by any maneuvering, jockeying, dealings – will think that we want any part of this,” Shasta County Board Chair Kevin Crye said at the end of a tense special county meeting held today, Oct. 24.
He was talking about a grant proposal by a collaborative group hoping to gain $150 million in state Prop. 1 funding for a proposed regional behavioral health facility dubbed True North.
Crye called the special meeting just days before the state grant deadline for Prop. 1 funds, despite having known about the True North project for many months. By his own admission, the meeting was a last minute attempt to prevent a collaborative group from accessing state funding for the project.
As the board debated about whether to support, oppose or remain neutral on the project, Crye recounted a biblical story about killing one’s enemies, indicating that he opposes the project because he doesn’t want to “entertain what is evil, what is wrong.”
“If there’s any way, shape or form, any glimmer that we can kill this now — I don’t want to entertain it. I want to put it down. I want to put it down so it never infects our county,” Crye said emphatically as angry cries rang out from frustrated constituents in the crowd. Attendees included community leaders, healthcare providers and parents of those with significant mental health challenges some of whom spoke during the meeting.
The group hoping to access the state funds includes the nonprofit Arch Collaborative, the for profit behavioral healthcare provider Signature Healthcare Services and an advisory group of community health leaders known as SHARC – the Shasta Health and Redesign Collaborative.
According to a press release from the group last month, the money would be used to build a facility that would serve the North State area and provide, “rapid triage, crisis stabilization, detoxification, complex and urgent care beds for all ages,” as well as inpatient psychiatric care.
The county’s letter of opposition to the project was presented by Health and Human Services Agency Director Christy Coleman, whose public statements included a number of assertions that she did not back with data or documentation.
She frequently repeating a claim that her support was required in order for the collaboration to apply for the grant, something that publicly posted grant materials appear to contradict. Coleman also initially claimed that she had not been involved in the project before acknowledging in response to questioning that her team had been involved on her behalf for many months.
After hours of contentious comment and debate, the board voted 3/2 to release a letter of opposition to the project. Crye led the effort with Supervisor Chris Kelstrom questioning why the board could not remain neutral on the matter before agreeing to go along with the vote. While Supervisor Corkey Harmon barely spoke during the multi-hour meeting he also eventually voted to oppose the project.
It’s not yet clear whether Signature Healthcare will continue to move forward with an application for Prop. 1 funds given the recent opposition. Arch Collaborative said the private healthcare provider will announce its decision next Tuesday, Oct. 28, the day the grant proposal is due.
Matt Plummer is one of two supervisors who opposed today’s vote. He said he hopes Signature Healthcare Services will continue to stay engaged despite what happened this week.
“I’m embarrassed for Shasta County,” Plummer said, describing Crye’s actions as a “huge demonstration of disrespect.” After calling the meeting only days before the grant deadline, Plummer noted, the county didn’t even bother to notify the collaborative group behind the proposal that they were on the meeting agenda. In the case of Signature Healthcare Services, Plummer said, that meant leaving out a private behavioral health company willing to invest $50 million of its own funds to draw in an additional $150 in Prop. 1 funds to benefit Shasta County.
“And that to me,” Plummer told Shasta Scout after the meeting, his voice raw with emotion, “is kind of unimaginable in the level of dishonor and disrespect that that demonstrates. It sends a message that [organizations] can give… months to a project and then at the 11th hour we will try to undermine and submarine you.”
“This is a once in a generation opportunity where you have three things aligning,” Plummer said. “Massive amounts of state funding, one of the largest psychiatric providers in the country willing to come to Shasta County and invest their own money and a local organization and collective who had the capacity and ability to put together a compelling application.”
Plummer said HHSA appears to have “essentially relinquished its role in driving vision for the future of the behavioral health of the community.” He also expressed his concerns about the impact on other organizations considering projects in the county, including the nonprofit Amity Foundation which could launch an alternative custody facility.
In a conversation after the meeting, Supervisor Allen Long agreed with Plummer’s sentiments, saying that this week’s actions show the importance of choosing elected leaders wisely at the polls.
“The board makeup determines the decisions we make and I’m very concerned about that,” Long said. “I ran for that reason — to get back on track with real problem solving for our community. To me it’s common sense but we don’t seem to get there often. We go to ideological grandstanding and start talking about things we don’t have any jurisdiction over and we don’t seem to come up with solutions to real problems.”
“Elections matter,” Long said. “And future governance will continue if the board makeup stays the same.”
Do you have information or a correction to share? Email us here: editor@shastascout.org.
Source link