Elections Commission Chair Condones Radio Ad By Fellow Commissioner During Fiery Public Meeting

March 12, 2024: At 10:38 we updated the article to correct information about payment for the ad. At 12:32 we updated the article to include comment from the California Secretary of State press office.

Anger exploded on Monday, March 11, as members of the Shasta County Elections Commission vigorously debated whether or not a radio ad voiced by Commissioner Bev Gray was appropriate. The ad was pulled from the air by the radio station, KQMS, shortly after it began running in early March.

In the ad, Gray identified herself as a Shasta County Elections Commissioner and asked people to call or text a private phone number to report issues with ballots. Gray’s actions could be a violation of laws against falsely impersonating an elections official. If the ad led to Gray taking custody of ballots belonging to other members of the public, that could also have legal ramifications. 

The discussion about the radio ad was not on the Commission’s agenda, but the topic came up multiple times throughout the meeting, both in response to numerous public comments and during a discussion related to the work of an ad hoc committee that’s looking into the accuracy of Shasta County’s voter rolls. 

Gray defended her decision to voice and place the radio ad and said she had received three phone calls in response to it. She emphasized that she neither requested ballots from members of the public nor received any and that she did not place any expectation on the public that they needed to provide her with information related to their elections information.

Commission Chair Ronnean Lund responded to public comments on the topic by saying she was aware of the radio ad before it was placed and that she “condoned” it as part of Gray’s work to examine voter rolls for the Commission. Lund is Gray’s fellow member on an ad hoc committee approved by the Commission in December for that purpose.

“As part of that committee, Ms. Gray has been gathering data and information,” Lund said. “And at our last meeting, in passing, she said I’m going to put an ad out. Because she has heard . . . people have been calling her . . . about oddities and irregularities related to the ballots, which are tied to the voter rolls.”

“So ” Lund continued, describing Gray’s words, “She said I’m going to put an ad out telling people to call me so I can document more cases. And I said great. So she apparently did that. I was not involved on any level. But my understanding is that it was her idea. I condoned it. It’s part of an ad hoc committee for this Commission. Honestly, I didn’t hear the ad so I don’t even know what was said, but I’ve heard through the grapevine that she identified herself as a Commission member. So you know, those are the facts as they are.”

Her words stood in stark contrast to an official message from Shasta County released last week saying that the radio ad which directed Shasta County residents to report election mail and voting materials that don’t belong to a member of their household to a specific private citizen’s number  was “not from, nor approved by the Shasta County Registrar of Voters, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors, or the Shasta County Elections Commission.”

“According to California law,” the county’s press release emphasized, “voter registration information is confidential and not considered public information accessible to all members of the public.”

Acting County Counsel Alan Cox emphasized during the meeting that the ad was not placed by the Commission saying placing such an ad in an official capacity would have required a legal review by the Commission’s legal counsel.

“Any ad that the commission would want to take out,” Cox told Commissioners, “should be approved by Counsel. So with that said, the ad that you’re discussing was not something that was approved by Counsel.”

A member of the public who identified herself as “Debbie” shared a recording of the radio ad during the meeting, saying she is usually very private but found it important to speak up on this topic. She attempted to place a phone call to the number included in the ad during her public comment time but the line was disconnected. 

While multiple members of the public asked Gray to resign from her office because her actions were not in line with the conduct expected from a public official, Susanne Baremore was the only Commissioner present at the meeting who expressed similar concerns. Baremore asked Gray a series of questions during the meeting, including whether she would reveal publicly who had paid for the ad.

Gray answered sharply, saying “No. You can find out for yourself.”

Chair Lund pushed back on Baremore’s insistent questions, saying, “We’re not going to try this today as a court of law.”

“I’m not trying to,” Baremore responded. “I’m trying to get to the bottom of this. Based on what we moved and approved, which was to have a subcommittee to go through the voter rolls . . . is taking out an ad using a personal phone number (essentially) exercising authority from this dais, from this Commission, to collect that data that normally should be going through the ROV’s Office, is that within the confines of what we agreed to do? I don’t think it is.”

Lund responded, laughingly saying, “You didn’t vote to have this subcommittee anyway.” 

The motion to form the ad hoc committee passed by the Commission during a December meeting states that its purpose is to “examine the voter rolls and prepare draft recommendations” for possible submission to the county board.

Gray asked if Acting Counsel Cox if he could tell her what was wrong with the ad, to which he responded, “I’m not going to discuss that here.”

Baremore made a recommendation that the Commission continue to discuss the matter in a future closed session meeting with legal counsel present, to which Gray asked how that would work “if they only represent one side, there’s not both sides being represented?”

Baremore briefly responded to ask, “What ‘sides’ are you referring to?” before Commissioner Lisa Michaud interjected, saying almost as an aside to Gray, “It’s okay, we would just hear from the county’s legal counsel. That’s what the purpose of the closed session would be.”

Commission Chair Lund then directed Clerk of the Board Stephanie Blankenship to place the matter on the Commission’s next agenda. 

KQMS, the radio station that briefly ran the ad before removing it from the air, reported yesterday March 11, that the ad has led to an investigation by California’s Secretary of State (SOS). The SOS’s press office responded to a request for confirmation from Shasta Scout by saying, “it’s our office’s general policy to neither confirm or deny investigations.”

According to KQMS, Shasta County Supervisor Patrick Jones accompanied Gray when she placed the radio ad. Jones appointed Gray to the Shasta Elections Commission last fall and was present at the meeting yesterday. Reporting from the station indicates that the ad was billed to Jones Fort, a business owned Jones family although Shasta Scout has not confirmed this. The station said the ad was not filed as a political ad, which would have triggered a public disclosure.

Today, March 12, the Board of Supervisors will discuss two of the Commission’s recommendations to the Board. One is a recommendation to pass an ordinance mandating hand counting of Shasta County’s votes, despite a state law making that illegal. The other recommendation from the Commission before the board today relates to ballot boxes. 

Information related to Shasta County’s Elections Commission can be found here.

Have questions, concerns, or comments you’d like to share with us directly? Reach out: editor@shastascout.org.