LAKEPORT, Calif. – The majority of a split Board of Supervisors on Tuesday voted to consider placing before Lake County voters a ballot measure to withdraw from the state of California and join the movement to create a 51st state.

The board voted 3-2 – with Anthony Farrington and Jim Steele dissenting – to move forward with support for forming the state of Jefferson.

There was, however, some confusion about the precise action the board took on Tuesday.

The motion, made by Supervisor Jim Comstock and seconded by Supervisor Rob Brown, stated, “Upon approval by the State Legislature of the petition for withdrawal from the state of California and to form the state of Jefferson, the Lake County Board of Supervisors will consider the measure for placement on the ballot of the next general election.”

However, when clarified later in the meeting, County Counsel Anita Grant raised issue with the motion's wording, suggesting that bringing it back to local voters after the approval of the State Legislature suggested a fait accompli.

In an effort to clarify the language, the board will bring it back for further discussion and action at 9:15 a.m. at its meeting on Tuesday, March 3.

Jefferson – a concept that began in the 1940s – would include Butte, Colusa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Glenn, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity and Yuba, and several Southern Oregon counties.

With Tuesday's action, Lake County becomes the seventh Northern California county to show some kind of official support for the idea.

Formal actions to support joining the Jefferson movement already have been made in Glenn, Modoc, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama and Yuba counties. Shasta and Plumas counties last year declined to take part.

Making the argument

The audience that filled the board chambers on Tuesday included a number of Jefferson proponents from other parts of the state, including Mendocino, Placer, Shasta, Siskiyou and Tehama counties.

During just under two hours of public comment, the board heard from people on both sides of the argument on whether to stay or to go.

Twenty-one people spoke in favor of the proposal, 16 others spoke against it or raised questions that indicated a lack of support. Eight of the speakers were not from Lake County.

Advocates argued that California is ungovernable, that the urban areas carry more sway and that regulations and taxation are unfair. They believe the business climate and job opportunities will improve.

Those against the Jefferson proposal argued that it was more important to try to fix what's wrong with California rather than create an impoverished new state that would require its own separate bureaucracy. They also raised issues related to loss of state universities and other social impacts, and lack of environmental regulations.

Among those who addressed the board was Mark Baird, spokesman for the Jefferson Declaration Committee.

“This is quite frankly about representation” – even more than about forming a new state, said Baird, who asserted that Northern California counties have no representation in state government. He pointed out that a majority of Lake County voters had supported a measure in 1992 to withdraw from the state

Baird cited a number of regulatory and governmental issues with California, including higher prices of some commodities – like eggs and gasoline – with the latter a result of what he and fellow advocates hold is the onerous regulations of the California Air Resources Board.

Should the Jefferson formation effort be ignored at the state level, Baird said supporters were fully prepared to sue the state for dilution of vote and lack of representation, adding that the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has a strong record on the voter dilution issue.

Kelseyville resident and county historian Ruby Glebe told the board that Jefferson was the last chance to gain back land and rights, and shed heavy tax burdens.

“What a future to hand our upcoming young people,” she said. “No wonder they flee front this state,” noting her granddaughter and other family members have left because opportunities were better in other states.

Glebe, who last year turned 100 years old, said she worked on the Jefferson movement in 1940, the first time it came around. “It looked as if it would go and then the war came,” she said, noting she supported it on its next go-round in 1951.

Jefferson advocate Sally Rapoza of Redding raised issues about state legislation – insurance, tax refunds and driver's licenses for undocumented workers; water bonds; anti-car bills – and the California Air Resources Board when explaining her support for leaving California.

She said Northern California has a tiny fraction of the government representation seen in the rest of the state. “If we don't have our own state we'll be living with what we have right now.”

Hidden Valley Lake resident David Jones said he was excited about the prospect of having more freedom.

Jones said it didn't make sense that the rural counties didn't have control of their timber and mining resources, and he believed the north's business climate would improve thanks to Jefferson.

Ken Delfino, a city councilman from Colfax, said he supported Jefferson due to lack of representation for rural areas. As an example, he shared about his city's inability to get a state parks grant to renovate its swimming pool on the basis of not being diverse enough.

Delfino – like others during the discussion – also would take issue with big state projects like the high speed rail plan.

Lake County resident Marcia Chauvin said it costs nothing to support the plan, adding that – like the original reason for the colonies breaking away from Great Britain – a key factor was taxation without representation.

Finley resident Phil Murphy said he was concerned with statements that strong environmental regulations, treating animals too humanely or protections for people who work in the agriculture industry are the problems. “I don't think there's much validity to those statements.”

While Murphy believes the northern counties could do better for themselves, “Until people demonstrate a clear plan for doing that, I've got some real reservations about joining this effort.”

Lower Lake resident Victoria Brandon said the board needed to look at everything the county would lose in the proposed split. That included access to higher education, the tax dollars from other parts of California that subsidize K-12 and other sources needed for a prosperous future.

Jefferson, she said, would not be a viable economic engine, and she questioned the idea of promoting economic growth by getting rid of environmental regulations. She said Lake County depends on protecting its environment for its future.

Several speakers – including Gillian Parrillo of Buckingham – asked for the county to complete a financial analysis before taking any such action. She pointed out that such an analysis had been mentioned the last time the board discussed the matter.

Farrington, the board chair, said that analysis hasn't been done. Parrillo held that taking such an action without the analysis to back it up, seemed irresponsible. “By you joining this petition, things are going to happen. It is not nonbinding.”

Clelia Baur, a former county planning commissioner who lives in Kelseyville, said she saw a lot of idealism in the discussion about Jefferson. She said it's an idealistic approach to think that all that has to be done to solve California's problems is to cut off a new state.

While acknowledging that California has long had a complicated management history due to the differences between north and south, Baur noted, “I'm idealistic, too,” seeing the potential in continuing to work together to make California stronger.

Carlos Negrete, a Middletown Rancheria council member and president of Callayomi Water District, asked the board not to support the Jefferson proposal.

“I don't think everyone really understands the repercussions of this,” he said, explaining that the region benefits from the larger economies around it.

Tom Jordan of Lakeport also emphasized the need for a thorough financial and policy analysis of the proposal. “It needs to be fully understood.”

Board members share perspectives

A Jefferson supporter told the board that a financial analysis of how the new state would work for the various counties is available at www.soj51.net .

That analysis, based on fiscal year 2014-15 numbers, concludes that Jefferson would have an operating budget of $3 billion, which supporters said proves it's viable.

Farrington noted that while he previously had asked staff for a separate financial analysis, it was a “gargantuan” task.

He said he'd looked at the financial feasibility that the Jefferson proponents had prepared, and called the analysis “problematic,” as he said it didn't take into consideration education issues, rural law enforcement monies, Medi-Cal funds provided to fire departments, state royalties for geothermal projects, many social services funded through realignment, court funding, money for game wardens and trapping, fire suppression and the prison system.

Farrington said he also found the Jefferson name problematic, as it was not as well branded as that of California. He said those who didn't believe him could ask people in agriculture, technology and tourism.

A Northern California state would be a different discussion, said Farrington.

Supervisor Jim Comstock said California's “one size fits all” approach to addressing problems led to the state's current situation. He said he wanted to create a viable place for his family, adding he wanted to put the matter before voters.

Steele said he felt the focus should be on the counties. “It's a geographical issue that's driving all of the problems.”

He added, “The state has not created all of the problems the county has.”

Steele said he would much rather stay part of California and try to address the problems. “Pulling out of the world's sixth largest economy seems counterintuitive to me and I just can't support that.”

Supervisor Jeff Smith said the emails he was getting from constituents were split down the middle on the matter.

He said there are many questions he has about the plan that he hasn't yet been able to answer.

Brown said he wanted the choice, ultimately, to be up to voters. “It's a huge decision.”

He said there is no way that the formation of Jefferson could happen in as short a time as a year, adding that he doubted that many of the people involved would see it in their lifetime.

Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.