Board won’t censure Shasta election official Clint Curtis despite investigation findings of threats of violence against staff
Two investigations have resulted in substantiated findings that the registrar of voters engaged in abusive conduct against staff. That conduct included violent threats, a county staffer said today, noting that a restraining order may be needed. The three supervisors who voted to appoint him last May were the same three who voted against censuring him. Two are running for reelection, along with Curtis, in an election he’ll oversee in June.
Shasta Board of Supervisors Chair Chris Kelstrom and Supervisors Kevin Crye and Corkey Harmon said they wouldn’t issue a vote of censure — essentially a formal rebuke — against Registrar of Voter Clint Curtis today.
The decision came after an account of substantiated findings against Curtis, shared by County Support Services Director Monica Fugitt during a special board meeting this morning. She said Curtis’ violent statements towards staff have included a threat to pull a staffer out of their office by their hair, as well as threats to slap or “throat punch” staffers.
Fugitt cited a preponderance of evidence documenting that Curtis has engaged in abusive conduct and retaliation, both of which violate county policy. She indicated that the latest report examining Curtis’ misconduct was done internally to ensure a speedy process given the seriousness of the accusation.
In a statement to the board Curtis denied any wrongdoing, accusing election staffers of attempting to sabotage the election.
Some supervisors and members of the public questioned the timing of the county’s findings, which come just weeks before the June primary in which Curtis, Crye and Kelstrom are all running to maintain their seats.
Fugitt explained that while investigations have been ongoing since last year, the most recent substantiated findings came in response to the threat to pull a staffer out of their office by their hair, something that was reported on March 27.
Crye said he was aware that the staffer impacted in that situation had asked personnel to drop the matter, speculating publicly that they’d probably laughed it off as Curtis’ attempt at a joke.
“I could just imagine the person rolling their eyes saying, ‘Oh, that guy’s ridiculous. Don’t worry about it. He doesn’t mean it,’” Crye said.
Supervisor Matt Plummer responded by pointing out that a request to drop an investigation into abuse is a common victim response to harm, saying the report also indicated that the staffer was shaking when they asked personnel to drop the matter. Supervisor Allen Long agreed — referencing his experience with victims as a former law enforcement officer.
“I was an investigator, criminal investigator, homicide investigator, sexual assault investigator, burglary investigator, and I know that people don’t come forward — because they’re intimidated,” Long said, emphasized the importance of standing behind staff, and saying a decision to respond to real threats of harm isn’t political.
“We need to go where the facts lead us, and we need to go where the truth leads us,” Long said, “and it has nothing to do … with a political motivation or a timing issue to say that we would not step in and try to protect employees.”
Advising that Curtis has already been put through remedial one-on-one supervisory training, Fugitt recommended the board censure Curtis while taking additional steps to protect employees.
“Given the pervasive, abusive conduct Curtis has exhibited towards staff, it is recommended that the board request Curtis separate himself from staff by working at a different physical location or remotely during the weeks leading up to and following the elections,” Fugitt said.
“When Curtis is required to be present to monitor elections processing,” she continued, “it is further recommended the board request a staff member, personnel or the county administrative office be physically present to facilitate communications with staff.
“Should Mr. Curtis’ behaviors continue, it may be necessary for the county to pursue a workplace restraining order to protect employees from continued harassment,” she said.
The majority of the board did not vote to take action on any of the recommendations. They follow two investigations, one that was conducted by an external firm and the other internally, by Fugitt.
A redacted version of the external investigations will be made public in the next 10-12 days, after supervisors voted unanimously to release attorney client privilege on the document, which was produced by the Oppenheimer Investigations Group. The internal investigation findings are already releasable under California public record law and will also be made available soon, CEO David Rickert indicated.
Curtis spoke to supervisors during the meeting denying the investigative findings, accusing his campaign opponent of hacking into county computer systems and thanking the board for releasing the investigative report — which he said he needs in order to sue staff members who’ve reported him for defamation. He also asked for those staff to be moved to another department, repeating unverified claims that those hired before his tenure are engaging in active sabotage of the upcoming June election.
While he’s claimed previously that long-term staff are the cause of problems at the elections office, Fugitt indicated that Curtis has not taken the formal steps required to document such claims of employee misconduct, something that would be required for the county to investigate their veracity.
As board members discussed how to proceed, Crye took issue with the investigation as a whole, referring to the process as a “witch hunt” against Curtis. Harmon took a different tack, saying he couldn’t be sure if the investigatory findings were true in a statement that seems to imply a he-said-she-said dilemma despite the county’s substantiated findings. Kelstrom took the matter more seriously, saying that if even 10% of what’s described in the reports is true, Curtis deserves a formal censure, something Harmon chimed in to support.
Plummer pointed out that the board already rebuked Curtis for misconduct related to a violation of the press’ First Amendment rights last year, reminding his fellow supervisors that they had agreed to pursue censure against Curtis if he engaged in further misconduct. But rather than making a disciplinary decision one way or another, Crye, Kelstrom and Harmon voted instead to delay a discussion of censure until after the election, something both Plummer and Long firmly opposed.
Despite their decision not to censure him today, Kelstrom and Crye both admonished Curtis, with Crye repeatedly asking him to “stop with the jokes” and behave more professionally.
Forty-two public commenters spoke during the board meeting, including multiple members of election staff hired by Curtis since his appointment. Those who spoke in his support included Patty Plumb and Laura Hobbs, both election activists who have repeatedly spoken out against election staff over recent years.
Kelstrom struggled to retain control of the meeting during a number of vocal disruptions, directing two members of the public to leave the room. A third, Jenny O’Connell-Nowain, was arrested by a sheriff’s deputy for failing to leave the room after two instructions to do so by Kelstrom. This is her second arrest during a board meeting. She was convicted of meeting disruption earlier this year and served a short sentence on house arrest.
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Authors
Comments (17)
Leave a comment
Related Articles
Commemorating a pivotal moment in history, the Sikh Centre in Anderson plans celebrations for Vaisakhi on May 2
Vaisakhi is an annual festival celebrated by both Hindus and Sikhs in Punjab, a region that straddles the border of India and Pakistan. On May 2, Shasta’s Sikh community is inviting everyone to enjoy devotional music, the reading of holy scripture and a community meal.
Staff, labor representatives allege hostile work environment at Shasta Elections Office
Interviews with multiple county staff members and labor representatives painted a picture of a work environment where staff have allegedly been subjected to the removal of job assignments, ongoing verbal abuse and threats of violence. Clint Curtis, the county’s appointed registrar of voters, did not respond to a request for comment.
In run up to June primary, election official Clint Curtis faces ‘substantiated findings of managerial misconduct’
With the primary just five weeks away, Shasta supervisors have called a special meeting to discuss whether or not to censure Curtis after a substantiated investigation by the county.
Interesting to see the votes come down for Curtis as the concocted evidence fell apart. Many think Monica should recuse as Clint’s investigation lead as she is friend / allied with Francescut We must now come together under one flag and leave high school friendships outside the election office
As an employee, I will guess that the actual behavior is worse than is being released to the public. Having watched the inability of County Personnel to take any action against other bad behavior, it must be pretty bad for them to be forced into taking action now.
SILENCE IS NO LONGER AN OPTION IN SHASTA COUNTY’S ELECTIONS CRISIS
Shasta County’s governing authorities are presiding over a mounting administrative scandal that can no longer be dismissed as personality conflict, political noise, or routine workplace friction. Reports describing a hostile environment inside the elections office, coupled with public refusal to impose even symbolic accountability after substantiated findings of misconduct, reveal something far more serious: a breakdown of managerial oversight in one of the county’s most sensitive institutions. When the office charged with administering democracy is itself mired in dysfunction, the crisis is no longer internal—it is civic.
The allegations reported are not trivial. They involve claims of intimidation, retaliation fears, morale collapse, and threats toward staff. In public-sector management, such conduct can implicate core duties of supervision, workplace safety, and compliance with anti-retaliation policies. When investigators reportedly find sufficient evidence under a preponderance-of-evidence standard, elected officials are placed on formal notice. At that point, inaction is not neutrality—it is acquiescence to risk.
The refusal of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors to censure Clint Curtis despite those reported findings is particularly troubling. Censure is not removal. It is not criminal punishment. It is a formal statement that standards matter. When even that modest accountability measure is rejected, the public is entitled to ask whether political loyalty has displaced fiduciary duty. Government bodies that ignore substantiated misconduct invite the appearance of arbitrariness and selective enforcement.
This failure carries real legal consequences. Counties that disregard documented management abuse can face exposure through labor grievances, whistleblower retaliation claims, constructive discharge allegations, negligence theories, and escalating personnel instability. Even when litigation never materializes, the operational damage is immediate: experienced employees leave, morale deteriorates, errors multiply, and public confidence erodes. In an elections office, these are not abstract harms—they threaten readiness, continuity, and trust in official processes.
Equally damaging is the message sent to rank-and-file employees: report misconduct and nothing may happen. That is the textbook formula for organizational decay. Administrative law and sound governance both recognize that institutions collapse not only because misconduct occurs, but because leadership normalizes it through passivity. A board that declines corrective action after being presented with findings risks becoming part of the problem it refuses to solve.
THIS MOMENT ALSO PLACES A DIRECT BURDEN ON JOANNA FRANCESCUT. A CANDIDATE SEEKING TO INHERIT THIS OFFICE CANNOT REASONABLY REMAIN VAGUE WHILE THE DEPARTMENT’S CREDIBILITY IS UNDER ACTIVE PUBLIC CHALLENGE. SILENCE MAY BE INTERPRETED BY VOTERS AS UNWILLINGNESS TO CONFRONT DYSFUNCTION; TEPID RESPONSES MAY BE READ AS MANAGERIAL WEAKNESS. NEITHER IMPRESSION HELPS A CANDIDATE ASKING THE PUBLIC TO ENTRUST HER WITH RESTORING ORDER.
Francescut should therefore issue a categorical and official statement calling for immediate corrective governance measures: an independent operational audit, external HR review, anti-retaliation protections for employees, preservation of records, and a transition plan for comprehensive departmental reorganization if elected. She need not prejudge any individual. She need only affirm the principles that matter most—lawful administration, professional management, staff safety, and public trust.
The stakes are larger than one officeholder or one election. Shasta County must decide whether standards still govern its institutions or whether accountability depends on political convenience. And Joanna Francescut must decide whether she seeks the office merely to occupy it, or to reform it. In moments of institutional disorder, leadership is measured not by caution, but by clarity. Now is the time for both.
I live in kelstrom’s district. He won’t be getting my vote.
With the exception of a woke pronoun, the article lists fully the issues with County Clerk and Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis. Supervisor Kelstrom, Supervisor Crye, and Supervisor Harmon are between the proverbial “rock and a hard place.” They cannot make candidate Joanna Francescut’s potential lawsuit against Mr. Curtis and the Shasta County Board of Supervisors stronger, and they cannot interfere with the upcoming election for County Clerk and Registrar of Voters. (Of course, two of the three have their own elections entwined in the matter.) My opinion is that the three did the best that they could do under the totality of the circumstances.
Also :
A formal investigation was conducted. . . . .
With a formal investigation the conduct and the person being investigated is informed of a complaint having been made, informed an investigation is to be conducted, is given warnings about communication, interactions and conduct that could be perceived as potential retaliation….. AND THEN an additional investigation occurs on a subsequent complaint- THAT WAS NOT DENIED, but excused as a joke in very poor form, delivery and substance….
Add to that the BOS members relaying they have read the reports from both investigations (and know the names of employees who made the complaints). IF AT ANY TIME ANY BOS member directly or indirectly indicated who those employees are to ANYONE outside of BOS, HR or County Counsel- They themselves are personally liable for any damages resulting from retaliation. Maybe that is why they are wanting the formal report released.. Maybe Curtis, “I will sue anyone for any reason with or without merit”, already does know the employee names but cannot file his slander lawsuits against them unless it is made public and the BOS realize he is 1/2 cocked & would likely file anyways so may as well release the report publicly, if they directly or indirectly shared confidential information, in order to protect their own Ass ets.
If it jokes like a vindictive, self-absorbed narcissist and talks like a vindictive, self-absorbed narcissist, and walks like a shirtless, vindictive, self-absorbed narcissist……..
Did Curtiss actually say he wants the report released so he can identify and sue the employee’s under him?
Did the Board acknowledge the concern of releasing reports without redacted names of complainants they are setting themselves up for any and all liability on damages related to whistleblower retaliation.
Can you imagine a department head suing an hourly employee & the County sitting back and saying “we dont want to interfere, lets let nature take its course-
But in the meantime- “we need you, Mr Curtis, to behave professionally”-
WTF – isn’t behaving in a professional manner a requirement of Department Heads?
LMFAO at the level of BS being tossed out while expecting citizens to think the BOS “did their job to the best of their ability”.
I guess Crye noticed that accountability is nonexistent in DC, so why not in Shasta too? The lawsuits are coming. Let’s not forget who made the coming payouts possible….
Mr. Curtis began his rebuttal stating none of the substantiated claims were true and threatening lawsuits.
If none of these incidents were true, why would the Board have stated they have repeatedly counseled Mr. Curtis in the proper way to lead and manage within the scope of Shasta County guidelines? If none of this was true, why did Mr. Crye and Mr. Kelstrom, both, firmly tell Mr. Curtis to stop with the jokes (that they are not funny) and behave more professionally? And, if none of this was true, why did both an independent outside investigator, a leading expert in their field of work, and an internal investigation find that there were enough substantiated claims to recommend censure and supervision of Mr. Curtis’ interactions with staff?
The Board of Supervisors has an OBLIGATION to keep their employees safe. Period.
Good. Keep that pos Johanna whatever her name is out! Her and her rainbow pins. Nowain is a lol clown. Only a man should be on this position.
The sexism of your last sentence is appalling! I hope that the sentiment reflects only a small minority of people.
Sexist much?? Ridiculous & ignorant statement. How about only a WOMAN should be in that position.
Mr. Travis James is perhaps being sarcastic.
Speechless.
They may not have passed a censure resolution, because they “don’t want to interfere with the election.” Right.
Voting 5-0 to have a public special meeting about a censure resolution and voting 5-0 to release a previously privileged report from an outside counsel’s investigation both send a very clear message about what the supervisors, including those who appointed him in the first place, think of the job Curtis is doing.
Who’s surprised the majority of the board voted no? No hand out there! This is no shocker. More lawsuits headed our way.
Why does this Boards refusal to take any action NOT surprise me. Shame on those 3. We Citizens need to rise up and VOTE – WE need a change – enough is enough!