Second investigation report into conduct by election official Clint Curtis is released by Shasta County 

Slapping, throat punching and hair pulling are the physical threats listed in a second investigation report into allegations of abusive conduct by Shasta County Clerk and Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis.

The heavily redacted report, which was released yesterday, includes findings that Curtis has physically threatened, verbally abused and retaliated against staff in the course of his work over the last two months at the Shasta County Elections Office. 

Curtis categorically denied all findings during a statement to county supervisors on April 28. This morning, he responded to a request for comment by saying that he plans to give “the other side of the story” on Thursday at 6 p.m. during a press conference outside the elections office.

Yesterday’s investigation report is the second that’s been released by the county over the last month. The first report shared findings of an investigation that began in August 2025 and was conducted by Oppenheimer Investigations Group. That report substantiated findings that Curtis had engaged in both retaliation and verbal abuse against staff. 

A second investigation was launched in early April and conducted internally by Shasta County’s Support Services Department. The second report substantiated findings of threats of violence, verbal abuse and relation.

The county’s internal investigation began after a report of a threat of physical violence that was made just one day after findings from the first investigation report were shared with Curtis. Those findings were shared on March 26, the most recent report says. 

On March 27, a staffer reported via the county’s whistleblower system that Curtis had threatened to pull someone out of their office by their hair. The submission was received by the county auditor’s office and was forwarded to county personnel by Auditor Nolda Short on April 7. In an email to Support Services Director Monica Fugitt, Short said she was forwarding the allegation quickly due to the severity of the allegation.

Details included in the newly-released investigation report indicates that Curtis had requested an election staffer to run a report to provide contact information for community members who voted in person at the polls during the last election. The staffer delayed in running the report during which time the threat of hair pulling occurred, according to multiple witness statements.

Fugitt’s report substantiates a finding that Curtis made the physical threat, along with another finding that the threat appeared to be an act of workplace retaliation related to the first investigation.

Her report also documents that Curtis threatened to slap, punch and “throat punch” staffers, writing that witnesses believe he was unlikely to follow through on the threats. Fugitt’s analysis concluded that Curtis “makes these types of comments generally when he is frustrated or not getting something he needs.” 

Verbal abuse against staff was also substantiated in the second report. While the first report had already substantiated similar findings, the second report indicates that there had been instances of this conduct since the findings from the first report were released to Curtis. 

Exhibits included in the report include dozens of pages of email and teams communications, some of which reveal ongoing tension at the office between Curtis and election staff, at times over concerns about the legality of sharing personal information about voters.

Fugitt wrote that while Curtis has expressed his belief that some staff have engaged in delays as a way of trying to “sabotage” him, any unprofessional behavior by staff should result in him implementing professional supervision and would not give license to abusive conduct.

---

Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.