Two dated statements about election considerations, in different contexts
At the February 14, 2023 Board meeting, Redman said that he had not requested a salary increase the previous year because it was an election year. The Board approved a separate 7% Sheriff salary adjustment in addition to the elected-official cost-of-living adjustment. In an August 2026 Nextdoor discussion about Flock cameras, Redman wrote that he did not make decisions based on getting elected. The salary request and the Flock policy position are different decisions; this comparison does not establish his motive for the Flock decision.
February 14, 2023: the salary discussion
Agenda item 5.c concerned requests to change elected officials’ salaries. Assessor James Rooney discussed cost-of-living adjustments and a separate request to increase the Sheriff’s salary. Redman said the sheriff’s base pay was about one percent below the undersheriff’s and described the 2022 election as a reason he had declined to seek the previous elected-official adjustment.
Redman on requesting a raise during an election year
In the user-supplied captions, Redman states that he was not going to seek an increase during the election year and says he did not think a smart person would do so. Punctuation and the immediate speaker transition in the auto-captions are uncertain; the original video is the authoritative source.
Source Original public meeting and County minutes, February 14, 2023
Watch the original meeting at about 58:55 and consult the official county minutes, salary item 5.c, page 4.
Open official Board minutes1:04:08: election-year timing discussed by a board member
A board member argued that elected officials generally avoided pursuing pay changes during an election year. Supervisor Oneto responded that the timing of an election should not determine whether an otherwise justified salary adjustment is requested. The auto-caption text alone does not establish the first speaker’s identity with enough confidence to publish a name.
The comment about an election-year raise being almost certain political defeat appears during this exchange; it is not attributed to Redman here.
What the Board approved
The recorded motion added a 7% adjustment to the Sheriff’s salary, in addition to the elected-official cost-of-living adjustment, to address the salary gap with the undersheriff. It was made retroactive to January 1, 2023, and passed 3–2. The county minutes list Axe, Forster and Crew voting yes and Oneto and Brown voting no.
Source Amador County Board minutes, page 4
The minutes document the 7% adjustment, retroactive date, reason stated in the motion and the recorded 3–2 vote.
View February 14 minutesAugust 2026: public Nextdoor statement about Flock
In the archived “Burglary Suspect Arrested” discussion, Redman replied to Rodney Muller, who had referred to the Grass Valley Police Department’s suspension of Flock cameras. The Sheriff described making public-safety decisions for the community and then wrote:
“Funny part is I don’t make decisions based on getting elected. Public safety first and that’s nonnegotiable with me.”
The statement is preserved in the previously archived Nextdoor transcript. This is a user-provided social-media archive, not an agency-produced document.
Source Archived Nextdoor discussion
The existing archived Nextdoor PDF preserves Redman’s response and the surrounding comments. The existing source-record page also explains the archive’s transcription and screenshot limitations.
Open Nextdoor source pageHow the statements compare
Election-year timing was a stated consideration
Redman said he had avoided requesting his own increase while the election was underway. He also cited his efforts to secure deputy raises.
A broader statement about election considerations
Redman said he did not base his public-safety decisions on getting elected, while defending his position on Flock cameras.
Interpretive limit: the two statements demonstrate that Redman cited electoral timing in one compensation decision, while later rejecting election-driven decision-making in a public-safety discussion. They do not establish that his Flock decision was made for electoral reasons.
Questions remaining
Whether the Board member’s election-year comments were accurately captured by the automatic captions and whether there were additional statements outside the excerpt should be checked against the recording. No inference about undisclosed personal motives is made here.