Shasta Board Majority Used Questions Focused on Ideology, Not Expertise, to Choose Top Elections Official
On the second day of public interviews, two of the top candidates, former prosecutor Tom Toller and current elections official Joanna Francescut, faced vastly different questions.
Last week, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors chose former Deputy District Attorney Tom Toller to fill the role of County Clerk and Registrar of Voters. The decision was made by a three-to-two vote of supervisors.
Toller is a semi-retired attorney who’s never worked in an elections office or volunteered as a poll worker. He told the Board he didn’t even observe elections processes during the March 5 primary.
Nevertheless, Toller told Board members that he’d be able to bring more transparency and increased public outreach to the elections process. Asked how he’d manage to pull off running a presidential election with no experience, in less than five months, Toller said, “well, it’s got to be run so I’ll begin captaining the ship.”
Asked what made him think he could do that better than Assistant County Clerk Joanna Francescut, who’s currently running the office and has worked there for sixteen years, Toller acknowledged that she was the more qualified candidate when it comes to running elections.
But, he told the board, Francescut’s training and experience have made her “a disciple of the process.” That’s what’s caused a “lack of confidence from the public” he said, which is the “root of the problem.”
Francescut has helped oversee thirty elections and been part of processing more than 1.3 million votes. She was widely expected to be chosen as the county’s top elections official. The seat was recently vacated by the mid-term retirement of the County’s long-term elected ROV, Cathy Darling Allen necessitating an appointment by the Board.
The county registrar of voters position is a role which utilizes in-depth expertise in elections law, ongoing collaboration with the California Secretary of State’s Office, and strong adherence to complex elections regulations, policies and procedures.
But the metrics by which the Board majority — Kevin Crye, Patrick Jones and Chris Kelstrom — ultimately chose the county’s top election official were not related to knowledge or expertise in elections. Instead, the Board focused on the candidates’ adherence to an ideology that they believe is best for the county, without using any data showing that’s what the people want.
The first day of interviews for candidates included uniform, pre-determined questions. But a vote by the Board at the beginning of the second day of interviews empowered each supervisor to ask whatever they wanted for approximately six minutes per candidate. Questions asked by the board majority varied widely between candidates.
During his second-day interview, Toller was asked to share how he “feels” as a prosecutorial attorney, about ballot drop boxes, hand counting, election machines, and “restoring trust.”
On ballot drop boxes, which are required by California law, Toller said he “doesn’t like them personally.” On voting machines, which are required by federal and state law, Toller said he’s “not a big fan.” On election law which provides the framework for a safe and secure democratic process, Toller said he’s downloaded it on his smartphone and is “reading it every night for homework” and “already starting to think about things.”
A section of Tom Toller’s Second Interview with the Shasta County Board
You can view the full interview here.
During her second-day interview, Francescut also faced ideological questions, many of which revisited issues that have repeatedly come up in public meetings over the last year and which have also been previously answered by Francescut.
Supervisors referenced political talking points that have been brought up by a very small but highly vocal group of community members who speak at both Board and Elections Commission meetings.
“Would you tear down the wall?” Supervisor Kelstrom asked Francescut at one point, invoking a Trump political slogan in reference to a wrought iron gate that was installed in the local Elections Office last year.
Opponents of Francescut and Darling Allen have falsely claimed the security gate was put up to keep observers out of the Elections Office. Francescut has already clarified for the public that the gate was installed for security reasons as part of a facility reorganization needed to prepare for the hand-counting process that Kelstrom and others voted for last year.
Multiple supervisors also asked Francescut about whether she would retain specific ballot materials if asked. Just as she told supervisors in April, Francescut said she would follow the law on document destruction timelines, as advised by the California Secretary of State and County Counsel.
“I’m not making these decisions alone,” Francescut explained. “I’m working with attorneys and the Counsel . . . “
She also noted the criminal penalties she would face if she violated those law. Kelstrom said she shouldn’t worry about that.
“I don’t think this board would ever ask you to break the law,” Kelstrom told Francescut, “by any means.”
But within a few minutes, Crye appeared poised to do just that, pushing Francescut on the issue by asking her if the fines for breaking the law on document destruction were, “only $1,000.”
“There’s a fine along with a misdemeanor or felony,” Francescut responded, “and I don’t want that on my record.”
Many of Crye’s questions for Francescut read like a laundry list of specific grievances from his last eighteen months in office. He rehashed his concern with how she had handled an issue regarding county clerk notary fees and complained that she, not Darling Allen, had attended a state hearing on AB 969, the law that outlawed hand counting in Shasta County.
Crye also wanted to know if Francescut would agree that using the term “vote-by-mail ballots” to refer to ballots that are mailed out to voters but later returned by hand to polling places is “severely misleading.”
“I’m using terms according to the law,” Francescut responded. “That’s a definition in the code book . . . and (how) I am by law required to report to the Secretary of State. So if that’s something you want changed, we need to advocate for that law, to change the language.”
Her response frustrated Crye, who said he wanted to know if Francescut would be willing to advocate for the changes he said that he knows she in her heart believes.
“My biggest question, and this is what I’m trying to understand, is are you willing to fight for things that you ideologically believe in and are you willing to die on that cross for it?”
Francescut responded by saying that she may have different political opinions than Crye at times, but this is a nonpartisan office and she is committed to advocating for the nonpartisan needs of all Shasta County voters.
She didn’t get the opportunity to answer a single question from Supervisor Jones, who used his six minutes not to interview her, but to offer a rebuke suggesting that she’s broken the law. He offered no evidence.
In contrast, Jones posed four questions to Toller, telling him he likes his way of thinking and asking for his thoughts on voting machines and why the state of California passed a law that prevents hand counting. Voting machines are required by federal and state laws, including the one Jones was referencing, AB 969, so the questions did not appear to have practical application.
Jones also asked Toller if he thought it was the “responsibility” of an elections official to “restore trust.” Toller did not answer the question directly, saying instead that he would work to restore trust through community education and public transparency.
As Francescut pointed out in her response to a similar question, working to build trust through accurate, transparent and educational processes is really all an elections official can do. The rest is up to elected officials and the people they serve.
“The biggest thing that we need to do as a community is heal,” Francescut said. “We need to work together. We need to collaborate . . . and ensure the public is building their trust in this process.”
Author
Comments (23)
Comments are closed.
Related Articles
New vote totals show leads holding for chief election role, both supervisor seats and Measure B
While candidates Joanna Francescut and Erin Resner have both reached the critical more than 50% totals needed to win a primary, Gallagher remains just shy.
Redding Rancheria makes last-minute investment into District 1 race, donating to Crye
The Redding Rancheria made the maximum-allowed payment of $5,900. It was received by Supervisor Kevin Crye on Election Day. He’s one of only two local candidates the Rancheria supported in this election. A donation to Supervisor Chris Kelstrom for the county’s District 5 race was made two months ago.
Shasta County calls special weekend board meeting
The board’s agenda includes only one closed session item related to anticipated litigation.
I think Tolers lack of experience is being overemphasized by critics of the appointment. In a previous county I lived in, the job of county clerk came open and a local city council person applied for the job and was appointed He did a great job for 17 years. When he retired a termed out assemblyman applied for the open county clerk and elections job. Even though both guys lacked experience everything worked fine out fine. Elections are not rocket science. I also think Tolers legal experience is a real plus. As stated previously the former County Clerk was an English major in college. Her training in Shakespeare or poetry or English Lit had no relevance whatsoever to the position of County Clerk. Toler’s training in the law has quite a bit of relevance to this job, he will be able to pick up election law fast.
Rich, I agree
This is a pattern. Kevin Crye is taking a page from his bestie Laura Burch. Hire loyalist with no competence or experience.
The solution to the problem of Voting machine versus hand counting can be resolved for the November 5 election.
1) Use the voting machine per California state legislator rules of a 1000 Residence or more.
VS.
2) Back it up with hand counting after cleaning up the voter registration rolls.
The state legislators cannot tell Shasta County not double check with hand counting.
Who cares about the extra money spent on elections .At least we know we can double check and challenge the questionable voting machines.
Lololol.
Who cares about extra money?? You mean that money that could be spent on providing health services, mental health services, or maybe even possibly a jail?
Too rich.
Yet it is people like you who will complain if a dime is overspent on anything that you don’t believe in.
BTW, I am a fiscal conservative.
That’s why we need a temporary sales tax. to take care of all the things you mentioned
You are insuating that there is fraud and malfeasance and misconduct in our elections department. Don’t pretend that you are not.
But again, other than hearsay, there is NO proof or evidence. Just your (not so sly) false accusations and links to questionable sources.
No laughing matter indeed.
@Stewart
Stewart H…do I smell a bit of Russian/Chinese Hacking Syndrome in your comment ? If you want to believe the November 5 election will come off in a secure, AI Free, manner, why don’t you volunteer to be on alert to this possibility ? Where do you think the Democrats fear might be stemming from….the 2 countries mentioned above, or the GOP ? Take you choice.
I did offer to volunteer in 2022 and was enthusiastically encouraged by the county office because I speak multiple languages. I did not ultimately receive an email notification for the mandatory training.
I want people to know that I don’t disrespect others here by saying I’m laughing at someone’s comments nor am I sarcastic Frank. Too much is at stake.
Well you know Stewart, I’ve seen all these accusations of election fraud, and yet not a single iota of evidence to support that there’s any type of fraud. But all of these false accusations have been enough for people to threaten and try to intimidate anyone related to an elections whether it is poll workers or election staff.
I have met and know several of the poll workers here and you know what? They come from all walks of life, young and old, different ethnicities, different sexes, and different religions, yet they all volunteer without trying to push any type of agenda because they feel it is their civic duty.
You on the other hand, are clearly trying to push an agenda without any type of proof. Why are you then surprised that you didn’t get selected for a non-partisan position??
So in terms of laughing at comments, sure why not? What about freedom of speech and all that? Why not laugh at the comments that consist purely of hearsay and have no factual basis in them? Why not laugh at the ridiculousness of it all?
And in terms of disrespect, pot meet kettle. It is the most disrespectful to accuse people falsely without any type of evidence. You know you’re not supposed to bear false witness against people.
And by the way, that Hobbs case against the elections department? Thrown out due to lack of evidence? The judge found that the election staff was competent and was doing their job? Maybe you should read what the judge decided and that will help to give you some perspective on this whole matter.
You should read my comment again more carefully. I did not say anything about election fraud in 2020. I referred to a report by CISA with the title so readers could check it out for themselves.
I also provided a video link of Democrat politicians voicing concerns about the vulnerability of computer voting machines being hacked long before 2020. I agree with them. Computers can be hacked. You may find that a laughing matter, I do not.
Omg Stewart. You should totally read the link that Bob posted above.
It refutes your whole dominion talking point and makes it moot.
So that leaves two possibilities: either you were ignorant of that response from the Secretary of State, or you were being dishonest.
Which was it?
I believe our new ROV should work to restore trust in the county voting systems. I wrote the previous ROV long before the 2022 election asking her to address the issues raised by report: “CISA – Cyber Security and Infrastructure Security Agency
ICS ADVISORY – Vulnerabilities Affecting Dominion Voting Systems ImageCast X
Last Revised June 03, 2021”
I wanted to know what the county was doing to mitigate those vulnerabilities if they were applicable to Shasta Co. I never got a response and nothing was posted on the county website that I am aware. Democrats have been warning us about these issues for years. Don’t take my word for it listen to what they have said.
Democrats Fears About Hacking Voting Machines
https://rumble.com/v2qchfm-democrats-fears-about-hacking-voting-machines.html?e9s=rel_v1_b
Our new ROV should provide a list of the principle ways the voting systems we will use in the next election can subverted and the steps he is taking to guard against those things from happening. This would serve to educate the citizens as well so we can all be on the lookout. See something say something.
Many informed citizens feel there were no problems with past elections and/or that it is only ideologues who discuss election security issues. Of course the video link above demonstrates both parties are aware of and are concerned about machine vulnerabilities from long before 2020.
I ask the board members add voter confidence and ways that can be addressed to the list of responsibilities of the new ROV.
Stewart, I believe you haven’t found a single iota of evidence for any type of election fraud other than what you make up in your head.
I believe you too have made me laugh this day. 🙂
Stewart:
The Dominion equipment that was the subject of that CISA advisory was never certified by the Secretary of State for use in California. And the Secretary of State issued an advisory to counties regarding this issue. You can read it at:
https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ccrov/2022/june/22131sl.pdf
Bob, thank you very much for posting this link.
This absolutely refute’s Stewart’s talking point 100%.
Bob:
I did say ….’ if they were applicable to Shasta Co.’ So good they were not.
Wow.
Nice of you to have that little disclaimer.
So you don’t think that you are trying to spread unwarranted fear?
Stewart you have an agenda. And it’s causing real harm to real people.
The board chose Tom Toller has the ROV. It does not make a difference, which supervisors chose or desented for or against Tom Toller
It does not make a difference what the media thinks.
It does not make a difference what the sore losers think.
Toller was chosen to help clean up our election system. PERIOD!
The case is closed. Let’s get on with the next election.
“Getting on with the next election”, which takes place less than 5 months from now, will be a complex assignment. It calls for an in-depth understanding of the applicable laws and regulations, with many steps that need to be handled in advance of the actual voting. Choosing a ROV with absolutely no experience for this position over a candidate who already possesses demonstrable skills and abilities performing these tasks is, in my opinion, a sign of extremely poor judgement on the part of 3 members of our Board of Supervisors.
Well-informed and sane citizens in Shasta County don’t think there is a need “to help clean up our election system”, and people who do believe there’s such a need have failed to present any credible evidence of problems with the system.
So I think media attention
on this situation DOES matter, and I very much appreciate Shasta Scout’s even-handed presentation in this article.
Oh Happy Citizen, me doth not think you are actually a very happy citizen as you want a non-experienced individual to make it all good and happy on November 5.
I believe, correct me, that you want drop boxes closed, the wall down, hand counting and get rid of all the experienced staff and replace them with MAGA-like happy folks, right ?
Me suggests the current staff take a months worth of sick leave, or time off, somewhere around September 15 and let Mr. Toller wallow in his homework. Sorry, I’m not ‘very happy’ with the 3 BoS selection of Mr. Toller, irresponsible is the kind word.
Oh yeah, where is all that proof of election fraud again?? Can you provide any proof? Any?
Even the Hobbs case was thrown out due to lack of evidence of any fraud or malfeasance.
So clean up…what, exactly?
Lol, thanks for the chuckles.