Editorial: Public Officials Must Transparently Serve the Public’s Good
Elections Commissioner Bev Gray has made detailed verbal claims of election fraud during her ongoing reports to the Commission. She responded to a public records request for documentation to back those claims by saying she has none.
Elections commissioners are public officials who are entrusted with the public’s good. As such, commissioners are subject to the California Public Records Act (CPRA), which allows the press, and other members of the public, to access most if not all of the Commission’s source documentation, by request.
During a March 11 Elections Commission meeting, Commissioner Bev Gray reported to the public, among many other allegations, that Shasta County’s voter rolls “include 20,000 voters that should be removed and over 30,000 inactive voters that should be canceled.”
As with all Gray’s ad hoc committee reports, her presentation was made orally and was not accompanied by source documentation. Asked that day by her fellow, now former, Commissioner Susanne Baremore to provide sources for her claim about the voter rolls, Gray said she was getting the information from three sources and would provide it to Baremore in the future.
Intrigued, Shasta Scout filed a public records request, asking to see documentation backing this particular claim as well as numerous other claims made by Gray during her ad hoc committee reports for the Commission over recent months.
But Gray responded to Shasta Scout‘s request for documentation by saying that no responsive records exist.
The stunning admission means one of two things. Either, that Gray has presented claims of election fraud without the documented evidence she claimed to have. Or that she is violating the California Public Records Act by denying the public access to the documentation she has gathered in her official role.
The records Gray has publicly cited in the course of her Commission work should be accessible to the public. The CPRA defines a “public record” as “any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.” A “local agency” includes, among other things, a “county” or any related “board, commission, or agency.”
Furthermore, according to City of San Jose v. Superior Court, documents retained on both personal and public devices may be subject to the CPRA if they used as part of the public’s official business.
David Loy, legal director for the nonprofit First Amendment Coalition, told Shasta Scout by email that the court’s decision would apply to appointed volunteer elections commissioners, just as much as it would to paid county staff and or elected officials.
“I don’t see why the San Jose decision wouldn’t apply to a county commission,” Loy wrote, “just because the commissioners are appointed volunteers instead of elected officials or paid employees. In either case, they are acting for & on behalf of the agency & therefore their communications should be public records if they relate to the conduct of public business.”
The Commission has a current annual fiscal year budget of $55,000. The funds are meant to ensure its meetings are held in compliance with California’s transparency laws and include necessary legal support. It’s money that’s meant to serve the public’s good.
Whether Gray has actively worked to destroy trust in elections by making undocumented claims of fraud, or is choosing to withhold source documentation that could prove elections fraud exists, her actions have wasted public funds, harmed the public’s trust, and require a quick response from county staff and elected officials.
The county’s response to Gray should serve as a warning to other public officials, including her fellow commissioners, that repetition of rumors or undocumented allegations have no place in the public’s business.
In particular, Supervisor Patrick Jones, who appointed Gray to the Commission, should clarify for the public whether the variety of claims of elections misconduct and voter roll issues Gray has made numerous times during Elections Commission meetings are backed by any source documentation.
Jones has announced Gray’s resignation, which becomes official today, April 22. But her statements as a Commissioner remain part of the public record even after her time on the Commission ends. Accordingly, her duty to retract those claims or provide the public with the appropriate documentation to back them, continues.
“People say there is no (election) fraud,” Gray said during the March 11 Elections Commission meeting, “but not only do they not want to hear it, they don’t want to see it!”
She’s wrong. Shasta Scout wanted to see proof of her claims . . but we’re still waiting.
We have opened comments on this post to allow the public to provide feedback on this editorial piece. Please ensure your comments comply with our community guidelines. Want to reach us directly? Email editor@shastascout.org.
Author
Comments (9)
Comments are closed.
Related Articles
Editorial: Here’s What Fascism Is, and What It Isn’t
Today’s usage muddies the political meaning of the word, confusing an advancing threat of fascism both in the United States and globally.
Bravo! Demanding proof of these allegations is what is needed to expose these people for the tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist these people are. They want to stir up divisions and create chaos and confusion just to propagate their agenda to the detriment of our community. And still this commission is a huge waste of time and money. I have full confidence in our election’s office and the integrity of our local elections. Keep at your truth finding mission! Much appreciated!
I have personally been witness to the professionalism and hard work the election office employees do. They make every effort to make sure that all votes are accurate and honest. It angers me that people who are full of conspiracy theories sit on this commission and spew lies to the public! I hope you demand the proof that they can never provide because none of it is true.
The other aspect of this that not many people are talking about is how irresponsible (and possibly illegal) the County’s records request system is. You mean to tell me that all the Clerk of the Board does is just ASK the individual in question for respondent records? Such a system is just asking for corruption and abuse.
Exactly! The county needs to implement a policy immediately that any and all county employees, agents, commissioners, supervisors etc are REQUIRED to supply all documentation requested in a PRA, or be subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. Lying when asked for records should carry a monetary penalty as well. We know Jones did this when the recipient of his “Drop dead” email requested that email and was told there wasn’t anything. This isn’t ok. It’s allowing our county officials to be liars hide their misdeeds.
Great work here! Yes, we are all waiting to see the “proof.” One thing that occurred to me while reading this, was a possible loophole contained in your records request. Your request asked for documents In Bev Gray’s possession”. Is it possible that there are/were records that are no longer in her possession? She had a group of non appointed people helping her collect “evidence”. Is it possible the records are in someone else’s possession or have been turned over to Counsel and are now protected under attorney-client privilege?
Dawn: I also considered this. However as a public official serving on an active, open, ad hoc committee, it’s hard to imagine Gray has no access to any source documentation to support her work.
Yes hard to imagine. What’s easy to imagine is these people exploiting and possible loophole (real or perceived) in order to keep their false narrative going.
I can easily imagine that these “facts” came from a conversation with PHJ or a person of similar reliability, or were heard on a radio show or podcast or were read on social media. In such a case there would be no relevant public records, unless Ms. Gray took notes, a screenshot, etc.
Thank you Scout the comprehensive report. And today, the J.C.K. Cartel continues our local representation of the BUG LIE, dismissed in countless court cases, with L. Hobbs testifying with her ream of hokey pokey nonsense. So far, this Supervisor Jones’s created toothless scam, called the “Elections Commission” has proven from its inception to be a partisan propaganda MAGAphone, costing Shasta County taxpayers tens of thousands of waste (over 65,000 so far). The County Council’s office alone collects somewhere in the neighborhood of $600 an hour for their services. And ironically, the Shasta County Council will be defending the people of Shasta County against the Jones/Hobbs lawsuit. The extreme right partisan Election Commission must disband now as it is but a laughable, yet costly pathetic for hard right extremism and their conspiracy-based lies.