Shasta County Board Releases Emails Connected to Elections Grant Process
The more-than-200 pages released by the Board of Supervisors last week appear to document typical communications between elections officials and a county attorney over the specifics of grant wording.
Shasta County Supervisors voted four to one on Thursday, November 14, to release a series of email communications between elections officials, a former county attorney, and others.
The emails relate to concerns by Supervisors Patrick Jones and Kevin Crye that current and former elections officials somehow “circumvented” or “usurped” the Board’s authority in the process of seeking the Board’s approval for a $1.5 million grant from the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL).
The more-than-200 page document includes a series of messages from 2023 in which former Shasta County Registrar of Voters Cathy Darling Allen and current Assistant ROV Joanna Francescut discuss with former County Counsel Jim Ross how to appropriately follow County policy in order to accept that grant and an associated membership.
In April 2024, long after the recently-released emails were written, supervisors chose to accept the funds from CTCL and directed elections officials exactly how those funds could be used. It’s not clear from the now-public emails, and an accompanying summary, how the messages could be interpreted as an attempt to “circumvent” the will of the Board. Crye did not respond to a request from Shasta Scout to explain how he believes the Board’s authority was undermined, or what he specifically took issue with in the emails.
Releasing the messages required a Board majority to vote to waive attorney-client privilege for the redacted documents. The only dissenting vote was from Supervisor Tim Garman who said he hadn’t yet been able to review the redacted version.
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Author
Comments (14)
Comments are closed.
Related Articles
Appeal court pauses Shasta judge’s ruling in election ballot measure case
Election staffer Laura Hobbs has successfully appealed a temporary restraining order, allowing a controversial ballot measure she helped champion to move forward. If approved by Shasta voters, the measure would amend the county’s charter to implement local election practices that would violate state and national law.
Flight school official says multiple international students have withdrawn enrollments after Chinese espionage claims by Anderson council member
After advocacy by IASCO Flight Training Operations Manager Miranda Vorhis, the Anderson city council adopted a social media policy Tuesday night. But she said there’s already been measurable harm inflicted upon the school.
Council defers decision on REU rate increases; approves open alcohol containers during Kool April Nights Cruise
The council agreed to honor a request from REU to take more time for more public outreach, given low attendance at recent workshops used to explain the rate increase.
How much has this cost us?
Incoming barrage of buzzwords from Crye about saving the children, transparency, and accountability. Cue standard boiler plate, “Crye Gaslighting #217.”
I read the emails.
In what universe is this “circumventing” or “usurping” the board’s will?
Well the board approved a grant for land, building, and/or furnishings only and the ROV clearly used the grant for purposes expressly opposed by the board.
Specifically Cathy Darling-Allen used CTCL to gain membership to “consulting groups” that had “been a very powerful learning tool for (her) in the past.” County council initially saw no problem, but then corrected himself and said any new membership would have to be approved by the board. Darling-Allen countered that only memberships requiring dues payments need to go before the board. County council initially agreed and said that since no fees were being incurred, this could be treated as a “scholarship” and not go to the board. CDA and council went back and forth over the section of the membership application that had a checkbox for payment of dues.
Later council corrected himself and clarified that membership would have to go before the board regardless of dues, citing section 2.4.2 of policy 6-101. Cathy Darling-Allen acknowledged this email, but then ignored it – getting the organization to change the application form to make clear there would be no payment.
She never did get approval for this membership despite it being very very clear that the board of supervisors was skeptical/hostile to CTCL’s various programs (which many believe to be biased toward increasing turnout for Democrats).
The ROV was trying to join the US Alliance for Elections Excellence, which the Honest Elections Projects describes as:
“nothing more than a dark money-fueled scheme to push liberal voting policies and influence election administration in key states and localities.”
Mahmoud: The Honest Elections Project is is worth looking at more closely. As one example: https://www.npr.org/2022/08/12/1111606448/supreme-court-independent-state-legislature-theory-honest-elections-project
@Darwish: This is absolutely not true.
No money was ever received or spent until the board approved a spending plan.
These emails were discussions with county counsel before a penny was ever received.
The ROV still needed, and failed, to get board approval to join the Alliance (according to county council’s interpretation of 2.4.2 6-101)
Darwish, You do know that 6-101 is the county policy about spending? No money was spent on joining them.
A membership discussed is not money spent.
So if no money was spent on the membership, how was the “will of the board” circumvented?
Don’t take my word for it. County spending is public info. There was no money from the elections department spent on such a membership. Especially since this grant money wasn’t even received until after the board voted on and passed a spending plan.
You do know that this grant was brought back before the board the final time because it was sponsored by Kevin Crye?
Look up that board meeting where the spending plan was approved. It’s all public info. Crye wanted this brought back and sponsored that agenda item.
No money was received or spent before hand.
Again old discussions with county counsel prior to receiving a cent.
Mahmoud: This is not what the emails say. The emails say that the ROV did not need the Board’s approval to join the Alliance because it did not require using county funds.
This whole email thing is a joke.; it’s loser Jones (who was investigated for election fraud in one case, and then, in another case, had to pay thousands for election violations he admitted to) flailing around trying to create chaos, decision, and damage before his sorry — is out of office.
Read the emails all you want, Darwish, but the delusional pattern of the BIG LIE conspiracy will only be seen by you and your Cartel buddies; in short, it is wishful thinking. The fact is that the supervisors, the C.E.O., and the county council all approved this deal. The truth is, this false flag email B.S. is just another extreme hard-right MAGA J.C.K. Cartel and their little nationalist militia’s assault on Shasta County elections; put it in the same burn pile that the miserable failed Hobbs-Jones assault on the R.O.V. Hell, the Cartel doesn’t even believe that our elections are “constitutional,” therefore must be rejected and not certified. And this is the kind of crap people like Darwish and his Cartel buddies defend? Wow.
But, like all the other Cartel attacks on our elections based on delusional tinfoil-hat-BIG-LIE conspiracies, this B.S. cost taxpayers money! In fact, add up the per-hour cost of the silly email s— show from the last BOS meeting, and we’ll see that about $2500.00 alone was spent by the J.C.K. Cartel and C.E.O. sniveling and attacking what they and the county’s legal counsel approved. Throw in the J.C.K. Cartel’s letter to the U.S. Attorney General to “investigate Shasta County elections,” and the taxpayer-paid s— shoe really gets extreme. Basically, it’s a delusional, Hail Mary attempt by the J.C.K. Cartel to get Matt Gaetz (who allegedly brags about snorting Viagra so he can go all night with underage minors) to charge into Shasta County and join the J.C.K. Cartel-State-Of Jefferson-militia attack on Shasta County and California. What a joke. Do you think Getz will be our next Attorney General? Wow…
What’s not funny about the J.C.K. Cartel’s attack on our Free and Fair elections and their attack on the R.O.V., is the economic-social cost the J.C.K./militia / State of Jefferson Cartel and their buddies like Darwish have saddled Shasta County Taxpayers with… millions! Wouldn’t that money be better spent on raises for L.E. and First Responders?
Is the J.C.K. Cartel Patriotic? Nope. It’s Pathetic.
Mahmoud: If the Board didn’t want CTCL funds they should have simply voted not to take them, wouldn’t you say?
Mr. Darwash, if you think you have a case, why not take it to court? I didn’t think so…
Doesnt need BOS approval for the membership. THEY HAVE ZERO AUTHORITY OR JURISDICTION OVER IT. An ELECTED Department Head does not need Board approval. The BOS ONLY has jurisdiction over the budget. Since funding for the membership was not included in the previously approved and adopted budget, it had to go to the board to APPROVE or REJECT the request for budget addition. When the scholarship became available, the result was a zero impact to the budget. At that point the BOS has NO authority and NO jurisdiction to approve or reject. The ELECTED Department Head only needs to ensure the membership confirms to County Administrative Policy. From the emails provided, County Counsel gave their findings of it being appropriate & concluded correctly it did not need to go to the BOS. It would have been a negligent waste of taxpayer money to include it for BOS discussion to approve or reject when they do not have jurisdiction to do so. Yet again the Don Quixote`s of the BOS are raising their broom handle swords to fight off the imagined willful disobedience of an invisible enemy.