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.
In the thick of election season, Shasta County’s registrar of voters — who both runs the elections office and is running for office himself — could be censured. On Friday, the county announced that supervisors will hold a special meeting Tuesday, April 28 at 9 a.m., to discuss disciplining chief election official Clint Curtis for “substantiated findings of managerial misconduct.”
The findings follow an investigation, the county said in a staff report, although no details of that investigation are included for supervisors to review during the open session meeting where they’ll discuss the topic. A draft resolution indicates the misconduct involved abusive conduct by Curtis towards employees. Curtis did not respond to a request for comment late yesterday.
The board’s agenda packet outlines the definition of what constitutes abusive conduct, as well as the process that the board may take in response. Under county personnel rules, abusive conduct is defined as:
- Infliction of verbal abuse, such as the use of derogatory remarks, insults, and epithets
- Physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening, intimidating, or humiliating
- Gratuitous sabotage or intentional interference with a person’s work or work performance
- Conduct or actions that a reasonable person would find offensive
- Inappropriate conduct or behavior that is pervasive or severe
The agenda notes that retaliation is also prohibited.
The board was informed of the substantiated allegations on April 21, the resolution says, and will vote about whether to discipline Curtis through censure, which is essentially a coordinated verbal rebuke. The action would communicate to the public that supervisors strongly disapprove of Curtis’ behavior, a step that might have greater impact given the timing of the board’s meeting date, just weeks before the June primary he hopes to win.
Curtis, a former public defense lawyer based in Florida, was appointed to the position of Shasta’s chief election official last April despite lacking any experience in election management. He’s running to maintain his position as ROV on June 2 against former-assistant ROV Joanna Francescut — a long-term election staffer whom he fired — allegedly without explanation — just days after taking on his new role.
Three supervisors who voted to appoint Curtis will be considering his censure next week along with two that strongly opposed his appoitnment. Those who supported hiring him last April include Supervisors Kevin Crye, Chris Kelstrom and Corkey Harmon. They expressed hope that he could change the way elections were conducted in a way that might have statewide or even national impact — even though, as Crye noted, Shasta wasn’t experiencing any significant issues with elections at the time.
Since then, Curtis has introduced new procedures, such as livestreaming parts of ballot processing, something he claims increases transparency. He’s also come under public scrutiny for a variety of reasons some of which have included his treatment of poll workers and his treatment of the media, an action that earned him a unanimous rebuke — and the threat of possible future censure — from supervisors last fall.
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Authors
Comments (26)
Leave a comment
Related Articles
Redding Police Chief Brian Barner announces September retirement
Barner has been chief of police for about three years and an RPD employee for 34.
Emotions run high at tense candidate forum featuring ROV hopefuls Clint Curtis and Joanna Francescut
Candidates responded to questions as basic as their willingness to comply with state and federal law while each claimed they were the person to maintain the public’s trust in the election process.
Redding Chamber to host business-focused candidate forum for board of supervisors positions up for election
The forum will be held on Monday, April 27 beginning at 5:30, with the first hour dedicated to District 5 candidates and the second to those of District 1.
The fact that Anselmo’s errand boys are even considering this matter indicates that Curtis’ conduct is too egregious to ignore. They are afraid that if they ignore it, and it becomes public, it will boomerang on them. Hire a clown, get a circus.
Selah
It was nice to hear Joanna this morning on Nick’s radio show straighten him out on all his baseless conspiracy theories concerning our elections. Joanna confirmed dumping Dominion cost us millions, election laws do not allow filming 100% of ballot processing as stated by Curtis, the ballot count discrepancy oft quoted by Nick and his election denier friends is due to provisional ballots not being included in tabulator counts, reducing drop boxes costs taxpayers money by increasing postage costs, counting ballots at polling places would require poll workers to work nearly a day straight without sleep, the bars installed in election office were recommended by county to keep public from directly accessing secure areas off limits by law due to public for security reasons and she will not be political or partisan unlike Clint Curtis. Funny how Nick hung up on first caller then did not allow any other calls from listeners. Plus he didn’t talk about special Supervisor meeting called for Tuesday to vote on censure of Curtis due to results of investigation of his actions in Election Office. Why Nick?
Thank You for being a listener! Rent Free I tell You Rent Free!
First and last time I will listen to your propaganda hour. Glad Joanna thoroughly educated you on election laws.
Nor did he ever play any of the recordings he and the co hist would reference, instead continuing to just talk because they were having such a great back snd forth. Nick knew if he played them Joanna would squash those lies just like she did with everyone Nick and Co. brought up.
Nick if you don’t feel like a complete Moron after that interview then really there’s no other hope for you. Keep wearing that tinfoil hat.
From what little I could stomach, Joanna demonstrated class. When side kick insisted that the position of county clerk is inherently political I had to switch channels. I try to listen to these extreme right wing radio shows because I want to figure out why they think the way they do. But I can only take so much. It seems so over the top fake, like parody.
(Charlotte de Saint Germain) “When a public office charged with administering elections becomes the subject of substantiated findings of managerial misconduct, the issue is no longer episodic—it is institutional.”. Unless Curtis can validate his claims of, “managerial misconduct”, with credible evidence(something allowable in a court room)he is guilty of slander and the BOS must understand the consequence of allowing Curtis to get away with spreading blatant lies under their watch.
In California, official misconduct is sometimes referred to as “misconduct in office” or “willful misconduct.” The charge is generally used to remove an official from his or her position, and the misconduct can be an act that, by itself, is not a crime. Therefore, a finding of willful misconduct does not require a showing of criminal intent, just that the misconduct was performed willingly. California courts have held that misconduct in office includes any willful malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance. (Cornal University Law School)
It is always foolish to seek a job that you do not know how to do. Mr. Clinton Curtis did seek a job that he did not know how to do: the job of County Clerk & Registrar of Voters. Mr. Curtis is now learning the high cost of that foolishness.
Remember, Mr. Curtis has allegedly slandered Joanna Francescut, the former assistant registrar of voters and assistant county clerk on numerous occasions. I have no doubt that she will best Mr. Curtis by a humiliating margin in the June election for the office of Shasta County Clerk and Registrar of Voters. Then, we will need to wait to learn if Ms. Francescut files a civil action against Mr. Curtis for slander with the County of Shasta as a co-defendant for vicarious liability and negligent appointment–of Mr. Curtis.
People who are concerned about how Francest has been trashed talked by our local MAGA – BIG LIE Election Conspiracists might want to look into when several speakers at the Trinity County Board of Supervisors’ Meeting Oct 10, 25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp7YrPL56cA&list=PLW5acVKbJinnM7WF7CyZMAgKv8OY39sKX&index=8
.
About 8 min in, Patrict Jones said Joanna Franciscott had “violated election laws and election codes” in Shasta County and was ultimately fired there.
Several other speakers, including Litigation Happy Dan Ladd of the Shasta County Election Integrity Task Force and local community members, echoed those concerns and made unsubstantiated allegations that have been proven false, they said occurred in Shasta County’s past elections.
Clint Curtis is a purposefully created Trumpian Big-Lie propagator, a Frankenstein created by “Those who supported hiring him last April include Supervisors Kevin Crye, Chris Kelstrom, and Corkey Harmon,” as Shasta Scout notes. I’ll add P. Jones, L. Hobbs, P. Plumb, D. Ladd, the “Shasta Five,” etc. “They expressed hope that he could change the way elections were conducted in a way that might have a statewide or even a national impact.” Curtis was only doing their far-right, Trumpian election lying extremist bidding, under the delusion of Trump’s Big Lie and, as Jones stated, “because this (Shasta County) may be the case that changes the entire country.” Their intent:
.
No mail-in ballots, same-day in-person voting, proof of ID, creating an “Election Commission” to try to illegally access and scrub voter rolls, changing election law in Shasta County, and threatening to file a lawsuit against AB 969, while now trying to pass a completely illegal voter Measure B, written by Curtis’s new employee-sidekick Hobbs (an election-denier-liar who tried to sue Shasta County, was thrown out of court, and, of course, lost a run for supervisor, alleging “multiple counts of fraud”). And if the Frankenstein Hobbs / Curtis creation called Measure B passes and ends up in court, our county will risk millions defending an illegal measure… and will lose.
.
Meanwhile, Curtis, who tried to get the county to hire Peter Ticken, the attorney for convicted election felon Tinia Petters, to defend Measure B, called the Shasta County Supervisors “IDIOTS” for not doing his bidding and threatened to sue Shasta County.
.
Curtis has also written to Trump and the DOJ, made false, unsubstantiated allegations (lies) about past Shasta County election officials (one of whom is his current opponent in the upcoming ROV election), met with the FBI at least twice at taxpayer expense, and asked the FBI to raid Shasta County, “just like they did in Georgia.”
.
Curtis then went to Riverside to help the Riverside Election Integrity Team (a group similar to the L. Hobbs Shasta 5) and far-right extremist Sheriff Chad Bianco “seize” the county’s election ballots. The California Supreme Court stopped this idiocy, and court-ordered records show no election fraud! AND if you don’t agree with Curtis that there’s mass election fraud in Riverside or Shasta County, you might not be able to work for the Hobbs-Curtis team!
.
Curtis was recently condemned by the Shasta County Supervisors for violating Shasta Scouts’ constitutional rights, and now his demand for election staff to endorse his lying voter-fraud claims as fact has been substantiated as managerial misconduct.
.
It’s time to help fold the circus tent and send Clown Curtis on down the road. Enough is enough!
WHY SHASTA COUNTY NEEDS AN INDEPENDENT AUDIT BEFORE A NEW CLERK TAKES OFFICE
When a public office charged with administering elections becomes the subject of substantiated findings of managerial misconduct, the issue is no longer episodic—it is institutional. The integrity of election administration depends not only on lawful outcomes but on the credibility of the systems that produce them. In this context, Shasta County faces a clear governance imperative: before any transition of leadership occurs, the operations of the County Clerk/Registrar’s Office should be subjected to a comprehensive, independent audit grounded in administrative law, compliance standards, and evidentiary review.
FOR JOANNA FRANCESCUT, IF ELECTED, THIS IS NOT MERELY A STRATEGIC OPTION—IT IS A MATTER OF FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY. A newly elected official inherits not only statutory duties under the California Elections Code but also potential liabilities embedded in prior administrative practices. Without a formal audit, any deficiencies in procedure, recordkeeping, or compliance could persist into the next administration, exposing the county to litigation risk, regulatory scrutiny, and due process challenges. Entering office without a verified baseline would amount to assuming control without knowing the condition of the institution.
An independent audit—authorized in coordination with the Shasta County Board of Supervisors—would serve a narrowly defined but critical function. It would examine adherence to the Elections Code, the Political Reform Act, county personnel policies, and open-government requirements such as the Brown Act and the Public Records Act. The objective would not be to assign personal blame but to establish a documented record of compliance, deficiencies, and risk exposure. In administrative law, such audits are standard mechanisms for restoring institutional clarity when internal controls are in question.
Timing is essential. Conducting the audit before the swearing-in of a new Clerk/Registrar ensures that any findings are not conflated with the incoming administration. This preserves procedural fairness and protects the new officeholder from inheriting unresolved issues without documentation. It also prevents the erosion or loss of records that could occur during a transition period, safeguarding evidentiary integrity and maintaining continuity in compliance review. In legal terms, it establishes a clean demarcation between prior and future administrative responsibility.
Critically, an independent audit functions as both a protective and corrective instrument. It protects the incoming administration by identifying structural vulnerabilities—whether in staffing configurations, training protocols, or policy enforcement—and it provides a lawful basis for any subsequent reorganization or disciplinary action. Without such a foundation, even well-intentioned reforms risk being challenged as arbitrary or lacking evidentiary support. With it, corrective measures can be implemented under the principles of just cause, proportionality, and due process.
Shasta County does not have the luxury of ambiguity at this juncture. The combination of substantiated misconduct findings, ongoing public controversy, and legal scrutiny demands a response that is methodical, transparent, and grounded in law. FOR JOANNA FRANCESCUT, REQUIRING AN INDEPENDENT AUDIT BEFORE ASSUMING OFFICE WOULD SIGNAL A COMMITMENT TO INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY OVER EXPEDIENCY. It would ensure that the transition is not merely a change in leadership, but a reset anchored in accountability, legality, and public trust—the very foundations upon which election administration must stand.
1. Mr Turner, I thought that you wanted everyone to go by their real name when they post.
2. You’re not being incognito as you think, it is very clear to people who pay attention who you are.
Living rent free I am
Nah. People just aren’t afraid to call you out for the damage that you are doing to our community.
Slander – Defamation
On 4/26/2006 Sunday on KQMS radio station radio show Redding California “Poke the Hornets Nest” 9 to 10 am a caller to that show was quickly hung up on and identified as me.
Using my full first and last name, Chris Solberg, on the air, and said I was a member of ANTIFA ……. ON THE AIR.
I dont appreciate that kind of slander going out over your air waves Nic Gardner , I by no means am a member of Antifa, or affiliated with that group
I wonder what you are going to do to rectify the problem?
Of course what I am telling folks what you said can easily be verified, as podcasts are recorded here
Podcasts – KQMS
Chris Solberg
Why would they not include his second in command as well? As much as some former and some current BOS members have criticized select county department heads as well as their subordinate line staff for posting on social media sites during normal business hours or for perceived campaigning during normal business hours…. I have noticed that Curtis’ second in command and die-hard social media defender has a long history of posting on this site between 8am and 5 pm on weekdays instead of focusing on the tasks specific to the role he was hired for. Either it is or it isnt appropriate. It has to be the same for all County employees and elected heads – not just the ones you want to replace with friends, political supporters or personal minions.
Nick, if you can’t see a pattern at this point you may consider stepping away from the windex. Over exposure may be effecting your basic cognitive skills.
The fact that they would even entertain the idea of doing this right before an election is very significant. There is no way this would have been brought forward unless there was substantial support for the claim of Mr Curtis’s misconduct.
.
It will be interesting to see if he actually gets censured or not. If he does get censured then it looks bad politically for the people who appointed him.
.
However, there are enough people who are sick of the BS in this county where voting NOT to censor him would be very bad for one politically.
.
Let’s see how you squirm out of this one, Crye.
Curious how given enough time people like Curtis always manage to hang themselves.
Agreed 100%.
Time and truth go hand in hand.
Can’t wait for his supporters to tell us all why we should vote for a guy who has repeatedly lied, broken the law and now, exposing Shasta County taxpayers to potentially damaging lawsuits. Go ahead Nick, twist yourself into a pretzel telling us exactly why Curtis is the best choice for ROV.
Lil Nicky you’re the next contestant to spin the Wheel o’ Excuses! Will it be the Libs? Trans kids? Brown folks? Or our perennial favorite, Biden??? Tune in to find out!
My money is on Biden + Drag Queens!
That these allegations have garnered the attention of the BOS is indicative of some substance in them. It will be interesting to see how the BOS which appointed him handles the matter.