Board Recap: Nonprofit Accountability, Responsible AI, Local Measures & Transparency

It’s been a few weeks since my last Board recap, so I wanted to provide an update on several important actions the Board has taken over the last 2 months.

Strengthening Nonprofit Transparency & Due Diligence

One of the more important policy changes we approved over the past several weeks strengthens the County’s due diligence process when contracting with nonprofits.

Going forward, nonprofits seeking County contracts of $100,000 or more will be required to provide:

Their most recent IRS Form 990.
Documentation showing that at least one-third of their governing board consists of independent board members, as defined by the IRS (meaning they are not employees, family members, or individuals with a financial interest in the organization).

This is a common governance best practice and gives both the Board and the public greater confidence that organizations receiving taxpayer dollars have appropriate oversight and transparency.

Shasta County Adopts Responsible AI Resolution

The Board also unanimously adopted a resolution supporting the responsible use of artificial intelligence in County government.

The resolution recognizes AI as a tool that can help improve public service, support our workforce, and improve long-term fiscal sustainability while also establishing important guardrails.

Some of the key principles include:

AI should assist employees—not replace human judgment.
County employees remain responsible for decisions made on behalf of the public.
Privacy, security, and confidential information must be protected.
AI should be used thoughtfully, transparently, and in ways that improve public service.
A detailed employee policy governing approved tools and acceptable use is now being developed by our Information Technology Department.

I believe AI presents one of the biggest opportunities we’ve had in decades to improve government services, but only if it’s implemented responsibly. This resolution provides a starting point.

Measure E & Measure F Head to the Ballot

The Board also voted to place two county charter amendments on the November ballot.

Measure E would prohibit the County from using eminent domain to take property from one private owner for the purpose of transferring it to another private owner.

I voted three separate times against placing this measure on the ballot, primarily because California law already prohibits local governments from doing this, and voters considered essentially the same proposal just two years ago.

That said, now that it is on the ballot, I do support the underlying principle and intend to vote Yes.

Measure F is a different story.

I strongly support Measure F and worked with Supervisor Crye to help shape it.

Today, when an elected county office becomes vacant, the Board is required to appoint someone to fill the position. Measure F creates a better process.

If a regularly scheduled election is already occurring within 12 months of the vacancy, the position would automatically go before the voters rather than being filled by appointment.

If there is no election within 12 months, the Board would appoint someone—but only with a 4/5 vote, encouraging broader consensus rather than allowing a simple majority to make the decision.

I believe this creates a more balanced process that gives voters a greater voice whenever practical while encouraging compromise when appointments are necessary and minimizing cost to the County by avoiding a special election.

Looking at Public Records Requests Differently

Finally, the Board considered whether to support legislation – AB 1821 – related to the California Public Records Act.

The bill originally proposed significant restrictions to public records requests, but it was later narrowed substantially. In its amended form, it primarily provides public agencies with additional time to issue an initial response to requests.

While I appreciate the challenge caused by public records requests increasing from 265 in 2023 to 1,321 in 2025, I opposed sending a letter of support.

My concern isn’t the additional response time itself.

It’s that I believe we’re treating the symptom rather than the cause.

If residents increasingly feel the need to file public records requests, that often reflects a broader issue of trust and transparency. Rather than focusing primarily on making requests easier to manage, I believe we should also ask a different question:

What information could we proactively provide so residents don’t need to file the request in the first place?

Building trust through greater transparency ultimately reduces the need for public records requests. I believe that’s the more effective long-term solution.

As always, let me know if you have questions or feedback!