Personnel will deploy county staffers to Shasta election offices starting Monday
Staff from Shasta County’s personnel and administrative departments will be on site at both the Market and Court Street election offices beginning Monday, May 11. They’re being deployed to mediate conflict and facilitate communication in the wake of findings of abusive conduct by appointed Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis.
Shasta County Support Services Director Monica Fugitt informed election staff by email late last week that one staff member from county personnel and another from the county administrative office would be on site at each of Shasta’s two elections offices beginning Monday, May 11.
Personnel and administrative staff will be present at the election offices, Fugitt wrote, to mediate issues between election staff, facilitate open communications with leadership and coworkers and provide any additional support needed. They will be at both sites during normal working hours, and will also be present during the night of the June 2 election at the Market Street location where ballots are counted.
The staffers’ presence at the offices will continue until further notice, Fugitt said, explaining that personnel and administrative staff have been advised not to become involved with the work of the election office beyond issues related to personnel.
“These employees have been advised that they are not to interfere with election processing or operational activities/decisions,” Fugitt emphasized.
She added that Curtis, “is aware and has agreed to allow their presence at both locations.” He did not respond to a request for comment today.
The decision to deploy additional county staff to elections offices for mediation purposes comes after an internal investigation by the county substantiated findings of abusive conduct by Curtis against some of his staff. That conduct, the county has said, included threats that he would “throat punch” a staffer and pull a staffer out of their office by their hair.
The public is still awaiting the release of that internal investigation to the public, pending redactions. County Counsel Joseph Larmour told Shasta Scout on April 28 that the report would be released within 12 days, which would have been today, May 10. An external investigation outlining other, less serious managerial misconduct including verbal abuse and retaliation has already been released to the public.
Curtis, who’s running to maintain his appointed seat in the upcoming June primary, has denied all allegations and disagreed with the county’s findings. He’s also said he’ll sue the election staffers who reported his actions to personnel. In response, county supervisors voted unanimously last week to represent any election staffers who might be named in a lawsuit by Curtis in connection with the county’s investigation.
When the investigative findings about Curtis became public late last month, Fugitt recommended that he should be advised to work in a different location than his staff, something he said he wouldn’t do. She added that if threats against staff continue it might be necessary for the county to request a restraining order against Curtis. That’s not yet occurred.
On Friday a spokesperson for Shasta said the county had no additional comment on the decision to deploy staff to the election offices.
The first Shasta ballots were scheduled to be mailed out to Shasta County voters on May 4. The county will begin processing those ballots as they return to the election office over approximately the next month.
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Author
Comments (22)
Comments are closed.
Related Articles
A coalition of state and local advocacy groups are backing California’s suit against Measure B
A legal document in support of California’s lawsuit against Measure B was filed last week. Advocates say implementation of Shasta’s new election law would disenfranchise voters.
Update: Hill Fire holding at 15 acres after prompting evacuations near Anderson
A vegetation fire off Happy Hills Road in a rural area outside Anderson has prompted evacuations.
A majority of Redding council seats will appear on ballots this fall. Four candidates have announced their intent to run
Business owner and former Caltrans employee Christina Prosperi and incumbent council member Jack Munns have filed for candidacy for the November election, along with planning commissioner and engineer Russ Wenham. Council member Tenessa Audette said she’d also be running for reelection.
Mr Curtis is sue happy just like his mega buddy in the White House. Let’s vote the pompous jerk out .Vote for Joanna and no on measure B
SHASTA COUNTY’S ELECTIONS OFFICE HAS REACHED A POINT OF ADMINISTRATIVE INTERVENTION — JOANNA FRANCESCUT MUST RESPOND ACCORDINGLY
The latest developments inside the Shasta County elections office mark a profound escalation in what has become one of the county’s most consequential governance controversies in recent memory. The decision to deploy county personnel staff directly into the elections offices in order to facilitate communication, support employees, and monitor workplace conditions is not a routine administrative adjustment. It is an extraordinary institutional response that strongly suggests county leadership believes normal managerial controls are no longer functioning adequately. In public administration, such intervention is generally reserved for environments perceived as operationally unstable or legally vulnerable.
This reality fundamentally changes the expectations placed upon Joanna Francescut. A candidate seeking to become the next County Clerk/Registrar can no longer approach the situation with cautious generalities or broad appeals to professionalism alone. The issue has evolved beyond political controversy and now implicates core principles of workplace governance, supervisory accountability, employee protection, and institutional continuity. In legal and administrative terms, the department appears to be operating under conditions approaching crisis management.
The deployment of outside county personnel carries unmistakable implications. It signals concern over possible failures in internal communication structures, breakdowns in supervisory relationships, and heightened liability exposure. California public employers possess a non-delegable duty to maintain a safe and functional workplace. When county personnel officials deem it necessary to embed staff within another department for mediation and support purposes, the message is unmistakable: the county is actively attempting to mitigate institutional risk before conditions deteriorate further.
For Francescut, this moment demands not merely criticism of the current situation, but the articulation of a comprehensive recovery framework. She should publicly commit to commissioning an independent operational audit immediately upon election, focused on personnel practices, compliance systems, internal controls, chain-of-command procedures, and adherence to the California Elections Code. Such an audit would establish an evidentiary baseline necessary for lawful administrative reform and would protect both the county and incoming leadership from inheriting unresolved structural deficiencies.
Equally important, Francescut should announce support for a formal workplace stabilization initiative within the department. This should include anti-retaliation protections, independent HR oversight during the transition period, mandatory supervisory training, and implementation of clearly documented grievance procedures. Public confidence in election administration cannot exist if employees themselves lack confidence in the environment in which they work. Organizational legitimacy begins internally before it can be restored externally.
The broader political implications are equally significant. Voters are no longer witnessing isolated disputes or campaign rhetoric; they are observing the county itself intervene operationally inside the elections office. That distinction matters enormously. Once a government institution effectively signals that extraordinary oversight measures are necessary, the debate shifts from personalities to governance capacity. Francescut must recognize that voters are now evaluating not only her temperament, but her readiness to assume command of a department under visible institutional strain.
The Shasta County Board of Supervisors also bears responsibility in this moment. Its earlier reluctance to impose meaningful accountability now stands in stark contrast to the extraordinary personnel measures being implemented. That contradiction underscores the need for independent leadership capable of restoring consistency between findings, policy responses, and administrative standards. Francescut should not hesitate to state plainly that institutional repair requires more than temporary containment measures—it requires durable structural reform.
Ultimately, this moment presents Joanna Francescut with a defining choice. She can continue speaking in cautious political language while events continue to escalate around her, or she can step forward as a candidate prepared to restore lawful governance, managerial discipline, and professional credibility to the elections office. The circumstances no longer call for passive observation. They demand decisive leadership grounded in administrative law, operational competence, and the unwavering principle that public institutions must function with integrity, safety, and accountability.
More pretentious blathering placing all responsibility on Francescut. The Board majority and Curtis created the mess and Francescut is expected to move heaven and earth cleaning it up while the boys do nothing. Always a new fake name but the same old lies.
This rant is simply silly. One canadate has 17 years of experience, is steady, calm and honestly she does not need to do anything for you, period.
.
The other has no experience (other than a claim he can rig an election) doesn’t have a friggin clue other than what P. Jones, L. Hobbs and a handful of conspiracy theory nut jobs tell him to do, and that’s run Shasta County into the ground.
.
People in both sides of the political aisle are simply tired of all the Clint Curtis Chaos Drama Show and frankly an experienced, steady, calm nonpartisan hand at the helm is a refreshing breath of fresh air.
Nope. Best thing Joanna can do is let the Supe majority and Curtis lie in the bed they made.
This is absurd! Fire the guy!!!!!
This doesn’t end well, we can anticipate the lawsuit(s) to be filed and the cost to defend will further deplete an already “poor” county.
As stupid as it sounds, along with legal and technical hurdles, the advent of body worn cameras by all ROV employees has probably been considered and only further exacerbates a growing issue with the county
This should be the last nail in the coffin, but I fear Shasta’s Covid brained minions will still vote for this hoser. See how well it has gone for just one of their leaders – Lindell.
How many will vote for a man that requires babysitters to prevent workplace abuse?
Great move by County Personnel. Too bad it had to come to this. Too bad the BOS has effectively tried to wash its hands of its own dirty laundry. The failure to take the bull by the horns speaks volumes. We all make mistakes; it’s how we deal with them that separates the men from the boys.
I love that the observers have been told that they are they are not to interfere with election processing or operational activities/decisions. Their designated role is limited to mediating issues between election staff and ROV leadership. Those marching orders almost presuppose that they’re likely to witness fuckery most foul but shouldn’t try to intervene to prevent or correct it.
.
Nevertheless, the mediators represent eyes and ears of County administration (other than the ROV and his lackeys) in the election facilities between now and the election. That’ll make it harder for Curtis and his co-conspirators to jack with the election process and outcome, at least within the walls of those facilities.
.
By the way, has consideration been given to putting tails on Laura Hobbs and Rich Gallardo if they’re sent out to collect drop boxes? I don’t trust either of those yahoos as far as I can drop-kick them.
Thank goodness, Shasta County Support Services is stepping up to protect Shasta County employees from Supervisors Kelstorm, Harmon, and Crye, chosen candidate Clint Curtis, because the three extreme far-right election-denying lying supervisors have shown they won’t. They are willing to do just about anything to protect Curtis, including a demonstrated failure to protect Shasta County employees. Why? Because Clint Curtis and his crew represent Kelstorm, Harmon, and Crye’s political agenda articulated by their good friend, disgraced losers, extreme far-right election–denying, lying Patrick Jones and Laura Hobbs.
.
Jones and Hobbs, now both employed by Clint Curtis, tried to decertify the elections, but they lost after claiming voter fraud. Of course, local courts and the Shasta County Grand Jury said there wasn’t, and the supervisors really have no choice in the matter of certification. So, Jones and Hobbs got their good buddies Snowflakes Crye and Kelstrom to snivel about certifying the election, only certifying under duress.
.
Mr. “Drop Dead Jones” had no problem rejecting free and fair elections, just as he had no problem letting a white nationalist use the word n—er multiple times in a supervisor’s meeting! If I worked at the ROV office, I would be very concerned about Jones and the potential for harassment! And here’s a great example of Jones’ potential for harassment. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp7YrPL56cA&t=27s, about 8 minutes in!
.
Kelstorm, a good buddy of Jones, showed up at a Free Tina Peters rally (Peters, a criminal convicted of 7 counts of election tampering, 4 of them felonies) put on by his friends, the Shasta County Election Task Force, at the Shasta County Courthouse on January 6, 2025. This is the same Kelstorm who called Safe and Sane Republicans a bunch of RINOS during a debate and stormed out. And remember, Clint Curtis tried to get the board of supervisors to hire Peters’ attorney, Trumper Peter Ticktin, to defend Measure B!
.
Then there’s Mr. Pillow’s sycophantic supervisor, Crye, a friend of the disgraced election liar Kari Lake, who openly defends Curtis. In fact, I wonder whether Mr. Pillow instructed Crye to seat Curtis as the temporary ROV from the outset. Crye says, “I’m not saying those reports did or didn’t happen…” No, Mr. Crye, your poor attempt to twist reality is a joke. The reports DID HAPPEN, and both substantiated reports found that your candidate for ROV, Shasta election official Clint Curtis, engaged in abusive conduct against staff.
.
The bluntly open effort by the far-right election liars now working for Mr. Curtis, and the publicly exposed failure to protect our elections by Supervisors Kelstorm, Harmon, and Crye, are very concerning. I hope the CA Secretary of State will be here once again to keep an eye on these people whose lying bias should disqualify them from even being in the ROV office!
I think it’s fair to assume the CA Sect. of State will have monitors overseeing our grifting, abusive ROV and his newly hired staff of MAGA clowns on Election Day. That said, I’ll be sending the SoS an email requesting monitoring (and if needed, supervision) as a reminder.
Voters can fix this problem in three weeks. Vote out Clint Curtis and correct the mistake made (twice) by Crye and Kelstrom when they appointed unqualified candidates for purely political reasons.
The BOS is hoping we’ll do just that, so that they don’t have to deal with the issue. It’s called “shuck and duck.”
This is another of the many compelling reasons why it is absolutely necessary to vote out Curtis, Kelstrom and Crye. Too bad Corkey’s not up for re-election too. We need to get competent people in office who actually care about Shasta County citizens, not just their own personal aggrandizement.
We were told this was authorized by the County Executive Officer.
I hate to say it, but I know many others share the same concern: our ROV office feels like a ticking time bomb. No employee should have to work under those conditions — period. The current environment reflects a serious failure in leadership, professionalism, and accountability.
Many people had reservations from the beginning about bringing Clint Curtis into this position, and unfortunately those concerns now appear justified. Even more troubling is the apparent lack of accountability afterward. For the three board members who supported this decision and then failed to address actions taken against employees you publicly claim to value, it only reinforces what many in this county already believe: that political agendas and personal victories are being prioritized over the well-being of the people affected.
It is deeply disappointing to watch good people in this county continue to suffer while trust in local leadership continues to erode. The damage being done to morale, public confidence, and the reputation of this county is significant. At some point, leadership must be measured not by words, but by actions and accountability.
Dear Shasta County – Why is Clint Curtis still serving as ROV? One external and one internal investigation reached similar conclusions that Curtis engaged in abusive conduct contributing to a unprofessional and hostile workplace environment . He has publicly refused to follow the county’s recommendations and publicly threatened employees with a law suit for reporting workplace concerns. This is the exact misconduct staff is reporting. It’s retaliation, intimidation, interference with whistleblower protections. Now us tax payers have to pay to have 4 administrators on site, in two separate locations, to mediate issues between this man and the election denier employees and the long term staffers? I get a legal process needs to be followed for litigation risk management, but the fact we’re even put in this position due to this man’s unhinged behavior is ridiculous.
Curtis, though appointed, holds the office of an elected official. He can’t be fired except by the voters in either a recall or general election. California’s constitution includes an impeachment process, but it only applies to statewide officials, judges, and board of equalization (tax commission) members.
.
If our POS ROV survives the upcoming election in spite of being an evil grinning shitbird and carpetbagger, I’ll have to conclude that Shasta County has the stupidest voters in California and is irredeemable. I have cautious faith that they’re not that stupid. My evidence? Patrick Jones is no longer on the Board of Supervisors, and the vote to shit-can him wasn’t even close. Counter-evidence? Shameless grifter Kevin Crye survived his recall, and mouth-breather Corky Harmon defeated Mary Rickert.
Did the Board vote to authorize this action or was it a decision by administration? If so, credit to the administrator. Also, Curtis threatens to sue any subordinate who reports his bad behavior. These threats give credibility to any complaints against him. If he were innocent, he would prove so in court. Curtis is showing himself to be dirty and desperate.
Steve: This was county personnel’s suggestion, not voted on by the board.
Register your concerns with the state. Enough complaints will make the state have an oversight officer present
I am worried about my vote. The crazies in the office that might see it..and ehst thry might do with that information…we have already bern targeted by jck…now ckc…in subtle ways..lack of funding…all hard to prove
Clint curtis is toxic and need to be soundly defeated
Vote…and let’s get rid of him once and for all and send a clear message to ckc