Shasta supervisors will revisit discussion on election official’s behavior, this time with public comment
A discussion about an allegation that Shasta’s election official misused public resources took place earlier this month without any public comment. This week the item has been brought back to allow the public to weigh in.
County officials made no mention of a California transparency law known as the Brown Act in the staff report for an agenda item that’s returning to supervisors this week. Only a single sentence on the report served as any indication of why the topic was coming back to supervisors for a second time.
“This item has been agendized to allow for public comment.”
An email to County Counsel Joe Larmour, CEO Dave Rickert and Board Chair Chris Kelstrom with queries on the agenda item remained unanswered. But the board’s decision to revisit the topic follows a letter from at least one community member asking the county to “cure” or fix an alleged Brown Act violation during the last discussion.
The item addresses concerns brought forward by Supervisor Allen Long about the behavior of Shasta’s election official, Clint Curtis during a tour at the county election office in January. The issue first came before supervisors on Feb. 10, when it was discussed only briefly and no public comment was allowed, raising shouts from the crowd. At the time county officials said because the topic was a “no vote” item, no public comment was required.
A subsequent letter sent to the board by community member Christian Gardinier issued a legal demand. Gardinier quoted from California’s Brown Act, which requires that the public be allowed to comment on every item on the regular agenda, making no exception for items on which no vote is taken.
He asked the board to correct an alleged violation of the act during the last meeting by acknowledging the error, placing the item back on a properly noticed agenda and allowing public comment during discussion of the item. Two of the three demands have already been met by the board or appear likely to be met this Tuesday. The third, a public acknowledgement, remains to be addressed.
The county’s lead attorney, Larmour, provides legal counsel to the board during meetings. His failure to remind the board chair of the requirement for public comment during the topic was one of two oversights during the a discussion on the agenda item earlier this month. The other was issuing a legal opinion based on an alleged fact that did not match actual events.
Larmour had been asked by the board to investigate whether county policy had been broken by Curtis’ actions during a tour in January. The attorney provided his opinion on that matter, telling the board that “based on the information that I was able to observe, all the allegations came from one comment.” He then said his legal advice was that the single comment by Curtis would be seen as “incidental,” or not significant under both county policy and state law. Satisfied by his assessment the board agreed to move on without further discussion.
Subsequent reporting from Shasta Scout documented that there were numerous similar remarks by Curtis during the tour. Community members have raised concerns that Curtis’ statements were akin to campaigning on county property —something forbidden by local policy and state law — because he alleged criminal actions by former election officials, including his opponent in the June 2026 primary.
In a mass email sent out last week, Supervisor Matt Plummer addressed Larmour’s legal counsel at the last meeting saying he went along with the statements made by the attorney because he hadn’t yet watched the recordings of the tour for himself at the time.
“I was disappointed to learn that the comments were actually quite extensive given the characterization during the board meeting,” Plummer said, adding that he’s still not sure that those remarks would have constituted campaigning.
This week, Plummer, Long or others on the board could ask Larmour to address the topic again or provide further legal advice given that Curtis’ statements on public property were more extensive than previously acknowledged.
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Author
Comments (15)
Leave a comment
Related Articles
Neighborhood association files legal challenge over land lease for Shasta custody expansion project
In a legal filing in February, the River Ranch Neighborhood Association said Redding inappropriately bypassed state environmental law when it leased property to Shasta to build an alternative custody facility.
Redding council approves city-wide efficiency study at request of new city manager
The study is intended to “increase efficiency and accountability while reducing waste,” according to the staff report. The council allocated up to $300,000 to hire a consulting firm — chosen by the new city manager — that will conduct the study.
Federal government allocates $40 million in preparation for potential Shasta Dam raise
One Big Beautiful Bill funding will be used to make progress towards raising the Shasta Dam, federal government officials announced today. The money allocated so far isn’t nearly enough to actually do so.
Thanks Shasta Scout.
Out of money. No talent. The daze of “lily white” low IQ racists running loco gov into the ground is close to finished… grift operators. Thank the “legitimate people” for there are no orange gods involved and Hey-seuss is MIA, period.
Hey Hard Line – you perfectly expressed what’s wrong with this f**king county –
– “The daze of “lily white” low IQ racists running loco gov into the ground is close to finished… grift operators.”
The lack of any action today at the board meeting confirms it. The CEO and Counsel Larmour show their loyalty to Crye to lead the rest of the pack of useless supervisors “sin cajones”
on down the road of useless decision making.
I attended this so-called tour. Trying to say it was anything other than a political event is mind-boggling.
https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/bonta-and-weber-cheer-as-states-top-court-rejects-huntington-beach-voter-id-appeal-rob-bonta-california
I hope the Supes who appointed him consider fact he may trigger a slander lawsuit from his opponent. He needs to be censured, a unanimous vote of no confidence and asked to resign. His partisan attacks have no place in an election office.
Contrary to Crye and Larmour’s miss information, Curtis is not an elected ROV, thus DOES NOT, and SHOULD Not be afforded the same protections as an elected ROV. Curtis needs to be Investigated by a neutral party and dismissed if the findings show a preponderance of evidence or hard evidence that he committed violations of the law. The SCBOS is openly biased towards trumpian actions and much of trump and his administration’s are openly illegal!
Lamour is a fraud. He’s not fit to serve as County Council. His job is to give the BOS sober and sound legal advice, not to provide disinformation to the BOS and run interference on behalf of the county’s MAGA loons.
.
One of the most breathtakingly stupid foundational beliefs of our local MAGA mouth-breathers is that Shasta County is sovereign and can do as it sees fit. Shasta County is an entity of the State of California and must follow state law. The idea that MAGA illegalities will be cured by Trump is mere fantasizing about top-down fascistic rule by their Divine Orange Savior. That’s their dream.
.
The blue wave is coming, Trump boot-polishers.
Public confidence in elections depends not only on outcomes, but on the conduct of those entrusted to administer them. In Shasta County, recent public discussion surrounding the actions and statements of the current elections leadership has raised legitimate questions about professional boundaries, adherence to policy, and respect for open-government principles. In such moments, the most democratic response is not defensiveness or personalization, but transparency—specifically, a structured, independent review of election administration practices grounded in law and public accountability.
Calls for an independent, non-partisan investigating commission do not presume wrongdoing by any individual, including incumbent Clerk-Registrar Clint Curtis. Rather, they reflect a well-established principle of public administration: when controversy implicates the integrity of an office, systemic review is preferable to informal explanations or political debate. Independent commissions—operating under the California Brown Act, the Public Records Act, and relevant provisions of the Elections Code—exist precisely to evaluate compliance, document best practices, and restore public trust without prosecutorial overreach.
Such a commission would focus on process, not personality. Its scope could include examination of workplace conduct policies, use of public facilities, communications protocols, and compliance with state and county rules governing election officials. Importantly, it would lack disciplinary or prosecutorial power; any findings suggesting legal violations would be referred to appropriate authorities, preserving due process and avoiding political retaliation. This approach aligns with California governance norms, where boards and commissions serve as advisory fact-finding bodies rather than instruments of punishment.
If elected, Joanna Francescut would not be obligated to pursue such a commission—but she would be well within her ethical and professional discretion to support it. Doing so would signal a commitment to institutional integrity over partisanship, and to transparency over silence. Crucially, any commission would be authorized not by the Clerk alone, but by the Shasta County Board of Supervisors, ensuring separation of powers and insulating the process from political misuse.
In a democratic system, accountability mechanisms are not admissions of failure; they are affirmations of responsibility. An independent investigating commission—properly constituted, narrowly scoped, and publicly accountable—offers Shasta County a lawful, measured path forward. Whether or not its findings reveal deficiencies, the act of review itself would reinforce the principle that election administration must always be beyond reproach. That principle, more than any campaign slogan, is what ultimately protects democracy.
Excellent.
Larmour needs to resign. He is incompetent and neglectful in preparing for his job- giving the Supes “legal” advice before, during and after the meetings. He also has flat-out lied about Curtis’ actions while trying to protect him. Maybe he didn’t know there was a recording of the event.
Then there is Curtis himself. This guy needs to go. Just his actions giving the community election crazies jobs should be enough to disqualify him but his campaigning while representing the ROV means he has to go. Yes, Mr Curtis- I am one of the “morons” (your words in Riverside) in Shasta County that has spent more than 50 years not being worried about my vote, until you and your cronies took over. Now, along with leaving the county if I can arrange it, I do not believe my Shasta County vote is safe.
These remarks by Curtis, coupled with his reported remarks made in Riverside earlier this month, constitute an underlying contempt of Shasta County residents, (“morons”) and members of Shasta County Board of Supervisors.
The BOS may be tolerant of such contemptuous behavior but, this “moron” is not. And wild, unsupported allegations of criminal behavior by prior staff does nothing to calm the public’s discontent.
We deserve a better Registrar of Voters… one who doesn’t play political games.
This is the kind of shenanigans this board is famous for, screwups! Hiring Curtis was a shit show from the start, unqualified and from Florida.
There are many issues here.
• First, support local media today! Without Shasta Scout and other excellent reporters at various local outlets, we would have been steamrolled by this board, some of whom call the local media fake news, just like their criminally convicted avatar and leader. No freedom of the press, no democracy!
• Second, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors (SCBOS) appears more focused on defending and covering for Clint Curtis and his allies, who all support court-proven false Trumpian conspiracy election theories, such as L. Hobbs, who is suing the county while working for Clint Curtis full-time, receiving pay and benefits from Shasta County taxpayers.
• Third, regarding the blatantly illegal Hobbs Ballot Initiative, Curtis, who calls the SCBOS “Idiots,” says he’s “not worried” about the initiative’s illegality because he expects actions by Trump, Congress, and/or the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, to override current California election law restrictions. Excuse me, Mr. Curtis, that’s crazy talk.
• Fourth, this is the same Curtis who violated a local news outlet’s First Amendment right and was admonished after finally being caught. He also reported in Shasta Scout and other media that he is providing Trump’s DOJ with information from the Registrar of Voters’ office, and to date, he has ignored three CPRA requests over the past six months to disclose that information, which the county says they have. And Mr. Curtis, FYI, it generally takes a valid federal subpoena or court order to release protected information to Trump’s or any administration. Show us a subpoena or court order!
• Fifth, California’s laws ensure that public resources (taxpayer-funded offices, staff, and equipment) are not used to give an unfair advantage to someone running for office. This is part of the Political Reform Act and other state provisions (e.g., Government Code § 8314 and § 54964) that restrict the use of public funds and facilities for campaign purposes.
• Sixth, the law appears quite clear. Government Code section 54954.3(a) requires that every agenda for a regular meeting include an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest within the body’s jurisdiction, either before or during the discussion of that item. The statute does not restrict this right to items that will be voted on. The public-comment requirement applies whenever the Board considers an agenda item. By denying the public the chance to speak on the scheduled item described above, the Board violated section 54954.3 of the Brown Act.
• And finally, it’s past time for the Shasta County Board of Supervisors to end their political cover-ups, become transparent, and follow the Brown Act!
Well said. The board need only look at what happened in Huntington Beach to understand this voter suppression measure is going nowhere fast.