County releases first investigation report documenting sustained findings against election official Clint Curtis
The document outlines a number of allegations, only some of which were sustained. Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis — who’s running to maintain his appointed position as county clerk — has denied the findings and says he’ll sue the county. A second investigative report with more serious findings is still pending release.
Shasta election official Clint Curtis says the question is not whether he’ll file a lawsuit against the county, it’s a matter of how many.
His comment was made in response to the release of the agenda for next week’s Shasta County Board of Supervisors meeting which includes a closed session item to allow board members to discuss a threat of litigation from Curtis.
His plan to sue county officials follows a public call-out of Curtis by the board earlier this week, after substantiated findings of managerial misconduct that include alleged threats of violence. The board voted Tuesday to release two investigation reports on Curtis’ managerial conduct. The first of those reports, an external investigation by Oppenheimer Investigations Group, was released this afternoon.
The heavily-redacted document outlines an investigative process that spanned seven months but has just come into the public eye in the last week, about a month before the June primary in which Curtis is a candidate. During the board meeting earlier this week a majority of supervisors declined to censure — or formally rebuke — Curtis, after some expressed concern that doing so might impact the election outcome.
The board did agree that the public should see the investigation reports into his conduct. The 170-page report released today includes the methodology used by Oppenheimer Investigations, along with the organization’s findings regarding Curtis — who has denied wrongdoing against his staff while accusing some of his employees of trying to sabotage the election process.
The external investigation is the first of two investigation reports regarding Curtis’ conduct in office. The findings are less significant than those of a second, internal, investigation that was presented during Tuesday’s board meeting. That document is still pending disclosure.
During a process that began in August 2025, Oppenheimer Investigations looked into a series of allegations from election staff and observers, interviewing 14 witnesses. The allegations fell into several categories, including that Curtis engaged in misuse of county resources for political campaigning, took hostile or retaliatory actions towards employees and made inappropriate, demeaning or threatening workplace comments.
The report includes a combination of substantiated, unsubstantiated and partially substantiated findings.
Most of the allegations regarding misuse of county resources for campaign activities were not sustained, although the investigation found that Curtis engaged in one or more campaign-related phone calls on county property.
The investigation sustained a finding that Curtis had restricted the public-facing duties of an employee after a disagreement, but did not support a finding that Curtis improperly delayed or controlled a reclassification or promotion.
Curtis was found to have engaged in inappropriate workplace commentary. The report said that the evidence supports a finding that Curtis engaged in a pattern of informal, exaggerated, and appearance-focused commentary that exceeded appropriate professional boundaries for a supervisory official. But the report did not sustain findings that he treated women differently than men.
The document includes statements by witnesses that Curtis frequently made comments referencing violence, including mentions of executing staff who were not doing a good job and killing people who didn’t follow instructions.
A summary of a witness statement documented in the Oppenheimer Investigations Group report.
Witness reports indicate that Shasta’s election official also referred to union representatives as the “mommies” of staff members, saying to some who might be scheduled to work on election night, “we have to get a letter from your mommy because you’re too scared to come to work.”
In totality, the report states, Curtis’ conduct contributed to an unprofessional workplace environment because his actions included inappropriate remarks involving violent imagery and infantilizing language, and because he imposed employment consequences after a policy disagreement with a staffer.
An email by an election staffer is part of one of the exhibits documented in the Oppenheimer Investigations Group report.
But the report also outlines that Curtis’ actions occurred as part of a broader workplace environment filled with tension. Curtis took charge of the election office last spring after a highly controversial vote by the board majority to appoint him — against the wishes of two other board members, along with those of many in the public. Stepping into the role, the election official inherited a group of staffers hired by his predecessors who are described in the report by Curtis and some witnesses as resistant to his leadership and ideas. Since then he’s also hired new staffers, the report indicates, that included people previously involved in concerning election-related incidents, along with other individuals who have a history of contentious interactions with election staff.
A section of the Oppenheimer Investigations report outlining the complex environment at the election office.
The first of two investigations
A second investigation into Curtis’ workplace conduct is still pending release. It’s the result of an internal investigation conducted by Support Services Director Monica Fugitt, who outlined the findings on Tuesday, noting that the second investigative report sustained threats of violence against staff.
Fugitt advised the board to recommend to Curtis that he should work at a different physical location from his staff. If he’s required to be present to monitor the elections process, Fugitt said, a member of personnel or the county administrative office should physically accompany him to facilitate communication with staff.
“Should Mr. Curtis’s behaviors continue,” Fugitt said, “it may be necessary for the county to pursue a workplace restraining order to protect employees from continued harassment.”
Curtis responded by refusing to work at a different location, saying some election staff should be moved to a new department instead. He referred to both investigative reports as “absolutely false, just made up, with no basis at all” while accusing his campaign opponent, a former election staffer, of hacking into election computer systems.
By text today, Curtis told a reporter that once he obtains documents related to the investigations, the matter will go to court. “We will let the jury make the final determination,” Curtis wrote.
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Author
Comments (31)
Leave a comment
Related Articles
Could forced treatment for substance use help stabilize the chronically homeless? One Shasta mother says it’s her best hope
California legislation now allows mandated treatment for people with substance use disorder so severe that it impacts their ability to care for themselves. For one Shasta mother, the law provides hope for temporary safety for her adult daughter. But both she and some experts warn the approach does little to address current gaps in care.
Nearly a year after being targeted by a violent hate crime, one far Northern California family remains displaced, with little support
Former Igo resident Timothy Ray Thompson was recently sentenced to 11 years in prison after opening fire on the Reyes family, including their children, last July. While no one was physically harmed, the family continues to be impacted. They said their efforts to apply for a U visa were an uphill battle due to delays by county law enforcement.
Anderson City Council advances censure effort against council member Susie Baugh
The allegations against Baugh stem from concerns raised by multiple council members about her participation in a project that solicited state and county funds for a youth behavioral health facility. Baugh pushed back, saying she’s innocent of any wrongdoing.
TIME FOR CLARITY, NOT CAUTION, IN SHASTA COUNTY’S ELECTIONS CRISIS
There comes a point in every public controversy when restraint ceases to be a virtue and becomes a liability. Shasta County has reached that point. With multiple investigations, sustained findings, allegations of workplace hostility, and mounting legal and administrative concerns surrounding the elections office, the situation has evolved into a full-blown governance crisis. At such a moment, candidates for leadership are no longer judged by how carefully they speak, but by how clearly they act.
Joanna Francescut has taken an important first step by publicly acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations and grounding her statements in substantiated findings. But the time for calibrated responses has passed. The voters of Shasta County are no longer asking whether problems exist—they are asking who has the resolve to fix them. Leadership now demands more than acknowledgment; it demands a decisive, forward-leaning position anchored in law, accountability, and administrative control.
The continued presence of controversy surrounding Clint Curtis, including documented investigative findings and public disputes over workplace conduct, has placed the elections office under a cloud of institutional uncertainty. This is no longer about campaign rhetoric—it is about whether the office charged with administering elections can operate within the bounds of neutrality, due process, and statutory compliance. When those foundations are in doubt, the response must be structural, not rhetorical.
Francescut must now “take the bull by the horns” and clearly articulate a comprehensive reform doctrine. That doctrine should include, at minimum: a commitment to an independent operational audit, a full administrative reorganization plan, implementation of anti-retaliation safeguards, and strict enforcement of the California Elections Code and Political Reform Act. These are not political weapons—they are governance necessities. Without them, any promise of restoring trust risks sounding hollow.
There is also a strategic reality that cannot be ignored. Campaigns are defined not only by their strengths, but by their willingness to draw contrasts. Francescut has the opportunity—indeed the obligation—to draw a clear and unequivocal distinction between professional, law-governed administration and the instability currently described in public reporting. Doing so does not require personal attacks; it requires precision, confidence, and an unambiguous commitment to institutional repair.
The role of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors in this matter further underscores the need for independent leadership. When governing bodies hesitate, decline censure, or fail to impose corrective measures after substantiated findings, the burden shifts to those seeking office to outline a path forward. Francescut must not wait for institutional consensus; she must help create it by defining the standards she intends to enforce.
Critically, this is not merely about winning an election—it is about inheriting a department that may require immediate stabilization upon day one. A candidate who does not clearly communicate a plan risks being overtaken by the very dysfunction she seeks to correct. Conversely, a candidate who speaks with clarity about audits, compliance, personnel restructuring, and lawful governance signals readiness to lead under pressure.
The moment has arrived for Joanna Francescut to move beyond careful positioning and into decisive leadership. Voters are not looking for hesitation; they are looking for assurance that the next Clerk/Registrar will restore order, enforce the law, and protect both staff and the public. In political terms, the path forward is unmistakable: clarity over caution, action over ambiguity, and leadership over reluctance.
Don’t bother to read this and similar comments on other articles. Fake attempts to blame Francescut for problems caused by corrupt Supervisors and Clerk.
Mr Turner, of all the people to take advice from, you should be one of the last people Joanna Francescut should listen to.
There are a lot of contracts for the Elections Office up for approval during tomorrow`s Board meeting.
The timing of these contracts going up to approval is suspect due to the urgency of need in order to meet the upcoming election deadlines. If denied, it places the election itself at risk. If approved, it not only approves the contracts but also relays a standard of acceptable management practice to place agreements onto the board agenda without sufficient time to address a critically time sensitive need to comply with mandates. That practice really becomes an artifical approval because the board is left with no alternative other than approval. Does this occur by design by the board as strategy or is it by design of the department head?
Questions to consider:
1) Are any of the contracts retroactive and include increases to budgeted costs?
2) Where alternative companies/vendors approached, considered or evaluated as an alternative during the development of the proposed agreement?
3) Do the new costs fall in line with what the County paid on previous agreements with any vendors /companies/entities that provided the services previously?
4) Have any newly established agreements have vendors/companies/entities been fully vetted for compliance with County contracting standards adherence to Federal, State and Local laws ?
At worst this could be construed as intentional malfeasance and dereliction of duty. At best it appears to be ineffective management and ineffective fiscal and program oversight.
The report doesn’t answer every question.
.
Example: Is Curtis a full-blown psychopath, or just a run-of-the-mill sociopath like Trump and half of his Cabinet and staff in the White House. My guess is sociopath, but he sure thinks the prospect of killing people and threatening violence is hilarious, so I could be wrong.
Rumor has it Brent Turner was called by HR and read his Miranda Rights. Might it have something to do with forging time cards?
Spreading rumors doesn’t make you look good without facts.
In my estimation, perpetuating the Big Lie has cost our county over $2 million, and counting. And you can’t put a price on the distrust created by Curtis in our elections with his unnecessary processes and hiring election deniers to handle our ballots.
I don’t understand how MAGA gets into this issue. Either the individual involved is qualified to continue in his role or he is not. The facts speak for themselves. To perpetuate this charade is beyond wise and will obviously lead to further disruptive and costly behavior in the Shasta County election process.
The problem is, if the BOS pulls the plug now, who w.ill they appoint to run the election? That’s the real problem they created for themselves. It’s commonly called a conundrum or a quagmire.
Wow. Please pass the popcorn.
On May 5, the Board will review law suits brought against Shasta County and County officials by Clint Curtis, item R12. Review to be private.
I am not an attorney, but AI research says, “Clint Curtis is currently working under an appointed status. As of this date, he has NOT been elected:
.
He does not need to be recalled by voters. He may actually be easier to remove administratively than an elected official, depending on county rules and employment status. BUT, under California law, a county official like Clint Curtis can potentially be removed for willful misconduct, even if he was appointed rather than elected.
.
California recognizes “willful or corrupt misconduct in office” as grounds for removal. This generally means:
.
Intentional wrongdoing (not just mistakes or bad judgment)
.
Abuse of official authority
.
Failure to perform a clear legal duty
.
It does not always require a separate criminal conviction, but the conduct must be serious and provable.
2. Mechanisms for removal
.
County administrative action: The Shasta County Board of Supervisors (or the County Executive Officer, depending on structure) may have authority to discipline or terminate an appointed ROV, especially if misconduct violates county policy or law.
Judicial removal (quo warranto / civil action).
.
The California Attorney General can authorize a quo warranto proceeding to challenge whether the official is lawfully holding office due to misconduct.
.
The Shasta County Grand Jury can investigate and issue findings.
.
The Shasta County District Attorney could pursue charges if the misconduct rises to a criminal level.
During the BOS meeting, Crye and Kelstrom kept saying that Curtis was an elected official. He was not elected; he was appointed and has not yet survived an election. They acted like hands off due to the fact he was elected.
That and because one person that was a victim of Curtis’ verbal attack said don’t worry about it, he is just kidding. As a victim at the hands of a County Director, I too said let it go. When he pulled the same stuff on my employees I stood up against the harassment.
The entire culture of our Elections Dept. has gone to hell in a handbasket since the BOS identify more with MAGA than with their own constituents.
Elect Joanna and then protect her from these MAGAlites.
Welp, Crye is an idiot and causing the taxpayers more money to fight a battle he created. We have to get the word out to all our friends to vote!!! Save this county and hope to God there is no illegal activity during election tabulation.
Sorry…. I meant the cost to run a BOS Meeting at around $ 2,000.00 per hour… I would guess the Election Committee would be around $1,000.
Shasta County’s elections office has now moved well beyond ordinary campaign-season controversy. Public reporting has described hostile workplace allegations, sustained investigative findings, legal disputes involving ballot measures, management concerns, and repeated questions about neutrality and internal controls. Whether each allegation is ultimately sustained, modified, or disputed is no longer the only issue. The larger issue is institutional credibility. In moments like this, candidates for public office are tested not by slogans, but by whether they are prepared to confront dysfunction directly.
That reality places a clear burden on Joanna Francescut. A candidate seeking to become the next County Clerk/Registrar cannot remain indefinitely in the safe harbor of cautious generalities while the office she seeks is under intense public scrutiny. Polite statements about professionalism and transparency are no longer sufficient. Voters deserve to know whether she recognizes the gravity of the situation and whether she is prepared to act decisively if entrusted with authority.
To be clear, decisive leadership does not require personal attacks against Clint Curtis or prejudgment of unresolved matters. Due process, evidentiary standards, and fairness must always apply. But there is a profound difference between respecting due process and avoiding hard truths. A candidate can acknowledge the presumption of fairness while also recognizing that multiple investigations, sustained findings, and operational controversies justify urgent corrective planning. Silence in the name of “political correctness” risks looking less like prudence and more like evasion.
Francescut should therefore publicly state that the County Clerk/Registrar’s Office requires immediate administrative stabilization. That means endorsing an independent operational audit, preservation of records, management review, and a transition assessment of personnel structure, training systems, compliance protocols, and internal reporting lines. These are not radical proposals. They are standard governance tools used when an agency’s internal controls appear compromised or public trust has materially eroded.
She should also affirm a zero-tolerance policy for retaliation, intimidation, or misuse of authority within the department. Any mission-critical public office depends on employees being able to report concerns without fear of reprisal. California public-sector management norms, labor protections, and whistleblower principles all point in the same direction: institutions deteriorate when staff are silenced. If morale is low and confidence shaken, rebuilding culture must begin on day one.
Politically, a firmer stance would not weaken Francescut—it would strengthen her. Many voters are not looking for theatrical conflict; they are looking for competence, steadiness, and moral clarity. A candidate who plainly states that reforms are necessary, accountability matters, and neutrality must be restored distinguishes herself as a serious administrator rather than a passive placeholder. In contrast, continued ambiguity risks allowing opponents or skeptics to define her as unprepared to manage a troubled department.
The Shasta County Board of Supervisors also needs to hear where Francescut stands. If elected, she would need to work with county leadership on budgets, staffing, audits, and institutional reforms. Signaling early that she expects cooperation on compliance, modernization, and lawful management would help establish expectations before inauguration rather than after crisis deepens.
This election is no longer simply about who occupies an office. It is about whether Shasta County chooses restoration over drift. Joanna Francescut should stop speaking only in safe abstractions and begin speaking with the clarity the moment demands. Respectful but unmistakable leadership is not political recklessness—it is administrative responsibility. If she wants to be the next Clerk/Registrar, now is the time to show she is ready to govern.
Many voters are not looking for theatrical conflict; they are looking for competence, steadiness, and moral clarity. A candidate who plainly states that reforms are necessary, accountability matters, and neutrality must be restored distinguishes themself as a serious administrator rather than a passive placeholder.
This is exactly what Clint Curtis brings to the office of ROV!
If this was another county employee not protected by the 3 they would be relieved of duty then fired.. end of story.
Clint Curtis is more than “weird” he is toxic and unqualified to work in the public sector
Vote the bum out and send this carpetbagger packing with his lacky
As I recall, you were shaming people a few days back for being too cowardly to use their real names. Change of heart?
.
You left transparency, honesty, and leadership off your list of ROV virtues. Curtis is neither transparent, personally accountable, or neutral. As a leader, two investigations have found him to be abusive and dishonest. To suggest he possesses any positive attributes listed above of is laughably ignorant of the meaning of the terms and the evidence at hand. It’s willful ignorance in service of MAGA partisanship.
.
Nobody is surprised.
So the Frankenstein created by the Three Stooges is now rampaging through their little village, threatening to cost taxpayers still more thousands of dollars in legal fees? Mel Brooks would be proud. Also, the fact that they would try to sweep it under the rug is no surprise. Remember the letter exonerating Stephanie Bridgett?
Selah
Two independent investigations over 7 or 8 months, both finding substantiated “managerial misconduct” that could possibly be found in court as violations of the following:
.
Threats of violence toward staff under (California Penal Code § 422 (Criminal threats) and threatening subordinates, which equals abuse of authority + misconduct, even without criminal charges of willful or corrupt misconduct in office under California Government Code § 3060, Civil.
.
Workplace harassment / hostile environment, gender-based comments or intimidation, and repeated demeaning or aggressive behavior under California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Gov. Code § 12940.
.
Retaliation against employees, punishing employees for reporting misconduct or participating in investigations under Gov. Code § 12940(h) (FEHA retaliation) and California Labor Code § 1102.5 (whistleblower retaliation)).
.
Abusive/unprofessional management, misconduct in office under Gov. Code § 3060–3075, and if there are Elections-specific implications under California Elections Code § 12300.
Campaigning while on duty, blatant partisan political advocacy, misuse of public resources, see California Government Code § 8314.
.
Openly advocating for Measure B, a clear violation of California and Federal election law, and asking the Shasta County Board of Supervisors to defend breaking the law with Measure B in court because, quoting Curtis, “Referenda are ‘illegal’ until they pass—that’s the point.” Really? Is the point to break the law?
.
But just as egregious, if not more so, is the possible willful managerial misconduct and failure by Supervisors Crye, Kelstorm, and Corky to protect Shasta County Workers and Shasta County Fair elections by intentionally doing nothing about the two independent investigations that found “managerial misconduct.” By doing nothing, they could be seen as willfully disregarding (or suspending) substantiated wrongdoing found in the two investigations and openly protecting, if not openly electioneering for, Mr. Curtis! After all, Crye, Kelstorm, and Corky put Clint Curtis in power (Curtis WAS APPOINTED, NOT ELECTED), and they are openly demonstrating they will protect their preferred candidate for ROV over the other candidate (who Curtis fired immediately after taking office). So much for their duty to the law, codes, the protection of the Shasta County workforce, and the protection of free and fair elections in Shasta County.
.
Mr. Curtis’s response is very Trumpian, and he is joined by his favorite employee, L. Hobbs, all the Hobbs-Ladd crew, and co-election detail conspirator, Patric Jones, who all indicate that Curtis’s opponent for ROV in the coming election (who has been out of office for a year) is the one breaking the law and needs to be investigated! And, as both Hobbs and Jones appear to enjoy doing, he intends to sue Shasta County!
.
It’s way past time to pack up the tent and send the clowns on down the road.
Stand by.. I’m told by County folks more lawsuits to drop next week..
Thanks again to Crye, Kelstrom, and what can only be described as ignorant, Corky..
Corky.. just why is it being alleged that your emails are being read by a non-county worker .. because as you apparently have stated.. “Im too busy to read them” Corky..don’t you know this grossly violates confidentiality of county citizens” Your self appointed “secretary” can blab to whomever she wants… which is why on controversial subjects I will never write you..
Instead I will contact Mary Rickert who will actually do something about an issue
The agenda is out and R12 is the board preparing for litigation from Clint Curtis. This fiasco is going to cost our county a pile of money. Thanks board majority. Yet again your pet projects are bleeding out our county resources.
And the funny thing is, that it was really no surprise at all that he would do this.
.
Hey Shasta county, maybe vote in some board of supervisors who have some actual discernment.
The findings within the report are a result of an independent investigation that interviewed and collected evidence from both sides.
As the defenders of either side comment on individual pieces of listed evidence and accusations, an unbiased professional investigative analysis with no dog in the fight made a conclusion with findings. The investigation was paid for by our tax dollars.
The finding was:
“recognizing Curtis’s heightened influence as a department head, the evidence supports a finding that certain of his conduct materially contributed to an unprofessional workplace environment, even though broader political and organizational tensions also played a significant role. Accordingly, this allegation is sustained.”
This is a clear view into the MAGA blueprint to seize control of our nation and Crye is likely still getting coached by the, ‘Pillow Idiot’, Mike Lindell.
I am very disturbed that 3 BoS members would chose to hold this over until after the election, under the guise of not allowing it to affect it.
Ummm….Don’t you think this is EXACTLY the kind of information voters would want to know about a potential candidate?!?
By doing this, if anybody is election tampering, it’s these 3 BoS members!
And Mr. Curtis’ “threats” would more than likely be immediately dismissed under Anti-SLAPP law.
The reason all this is happening is because these people are firmly convinced the public is either too stupid to believe anything other than what they tell them, or too intimidated and/or frightened at the prospect of a legal battle costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Two of the BoS members in question and Mr. Curtis are up for re-election next month.
Vote. Them. Out.
Then order investigations into each and every thing they did while in office, and if justified, prosecute them to the fullest extent the law allows. Let this serve as a message to other would be petty despots and tyrants: NO MORE.
Ummmm,….
So far his comments have been shown to be false. Quite simply, at that.
.
Forget this drama queen trying to bring it to attention in the media. Let’s go ahead and bring it to court where it’s tried by facts.
.
Time to get it over and done with.
This is going to cost taxpayers bigly in the form of huge payouts for attorneys to defend county from multiple lawsuits. What a hot mess created by Crye, Kelstrom, Harmon and Curtis. We can do better by voting 3 of the 4 out come June.
Brad, your comment got me thinking…. Over the years, how much money do you think Shasta County taxpayers have shelled out in election related isues because of the extreme far-right MAGA takeover of the BOS, and ROV, not even counting the hundreds of hours (at a cost of around $200.00 an hour) spent wasting time, money and county employee resources in BOS meetings promoting election lies -covid lies – and chemtrail nonsense by Curtis-Crye-Jones, and people in the ignorent poorly educated Hobbs Ladd crew? You would think that, if anything, most taxpayers would care about money simply flushed down the drain.
Attaching this to some MAGA generated activity simply muddies the real issue. I’m MAGA and I, like many of my conservative fellow MAGA folks, want NO PART of this Cint Curtis or the rest of the folks that have been appointed by this Board.
JCK CKC are not MAGA, nor are they balanced in any fashion whatsoever.
I will vote for Joanna because she is most qualified and most deserving.
Christian, as far as you citing the law I have already gone over them in detail with several people who comment on here showing their applicability or lack thereof. While I appreciate your research and thoughts you are mistaken as to the applicability of several of them in this instance
I have suggested, and believe, a TRO against Curtis would be sustained for several of the women in this case by a judge. That might help curtail some of Curtis’s disgusting and potentially violent rhetoric. The man has no business anywhere near a government job.
If this was a law enforcement officer or other county worker they would have been fired. Remember this when you vote for a Board of Supervisor… vote out Crye and Kelstrom… and as far as Gallardo.. ask him why he was fired from CalFIRE.. how about hell no…
Vote all these bums OUT.. return sanity to our county/
I would counter that you’re MAGA-adjacent at most. Clint, Chris, Corky, and Kevin are absolutely MAGA. What comes with the MAGA territory is the demand for absolute fealty to the party line. They would have you removed from MAGA membership for your betrayal of Curtis, much as MTG has been tossed overboard for criticizing Orange Jesus, M.D.