Toller Appointed, Pinkney Rejected and a Charter Amendment: Elections Issues Dominate Another County Board Meeting
The Shasta County Elections Office is officially in new hands with Tom Toller appointed as Registrar of Voters. Meanwhile the Elections Commission continues to limp along with only three of its five seats filled after the Board failed to approve Nathan Pinkney for the role. Plus, Shasta County’s charter might be amended before it’s even become official.
7/3/24 12:11 pm and 2:21 pm: We have updated the article with a few wording clarifications, minor corrections and additions, thanks to reader suggestions.
Yesterday, July 2, the Shasta County Board officially appointed former prosecutor Tom Toller as Shasta County’s new Registrar of Voters (ROV), now that his background check has cleared. He was appointed by a three-to-two vote, with Supervisors Tim Garman and Mary Rickert opposing.
Toller is the first new ROV Shasta County has had in twenty years. He was appointed to the role after the mid-term retirement of Shasta County’s long-term elected ROV, Cathy Darling Allen, who stepped down for health reasons. Darling Allen was elected to the role in 2004 after serving as Assistant County Clerk and Registrar of Voters.
The current Assistant County Clerk and Registrar of Voters, Joanna Francescut, was passed over for appointment to the role of ROV, despite strong support from the public. She’s worked in the Elections Office for sixteen years and has said she’ll continue in her role at least through the next election, to help ensure a smooth election process. Francescut sat beside Toller at today’s Board meeting, at times stepping to the dais to respond to supervisors’ questions on elections, while Toller watched from his seat.
In contrast to Francescut, Toller has no experience in elections. Speaking to Shasta Scout yesterday, Crye downplayed the importance of experience in the ROV role, saying it would take the new appointee “all of five minutes” to get up to speed on election law. Referring to Toller as a “decorated” prosecutor, Crye said, without offering a reason for his claim, that the newly appointed elections official is “clearly more intelligent” than former ROV Darling Allen.
Now that he’s been appointed, Toller takes on the authority of an elected official. That means he doesn’t have to take direction from the Board except when it comes to matters dictated by budget, which supervisors approve. Like other elected officials, Toller will also be eligible for recall after ninety days in office.
Nathan Pinkney Fails to Gain Seat on Election Commission
During yesterday’s meeting, the Board also discussed the potential appointment of political activist Nathan Pinkney to the Shasta County Election Commission, a controversial volunteer citizen advisory group formed by the Board last year. The Commission currently just barely holds a quorum with two of its five seats remaining vacant. Nearly every seat on the Commission has turned over since it was formed last fall.
Pinkney’s potential appointment drew intense discussion from both the public and the Board. He’s well known in the community for his political activism, which he accomplishes partly through biting critiques of politicians and other community members as part of satirical social media posts. Pinkney was escorted out of a board meeting last year after he loudly protested Supervisor Patrick Jones’ failure to push back on a racial slur made during public comment.
Supervisor Garman nominated Pinkney to serve on the Commission. His original appointee, Dawn Duckett, stepped down several months ago, saying she believed the Commission is a waste of time and resources. Garman agreed at the time, telling the public he intended to leave his designated seat on the Commission vacant for the same reason.
But last week, after Toller was chosen by the Board as the county’s new top elections official, Garman changed his mind and announced his nomination of Pinkney for the role, saying he wanted someone on the Commission who could keep a watchful eye on the new ROV.
Garman told the public yesterday that he’s worried that the new ROV might share confidential election materials with Supervisor Kevin Crye. Under state law, signatures of those who sign petitions for recall are confidential, but Garman worries about how Toller might interpret that law. Toller told the Board during his interviews that some laws can be interpreted broadly and others narrowly, saying he would not follow the directions of California’s top election official, the Secretary of State, “as if they were Holy Writ.”
Speaking directly to Toller, who sat in the audience, Garman said Crye has long wanted to see the signatures of those who petitioned for his recall. He cautioned Toller that he could face charges from California’s Attorney General if he allowed Crye to view those materials.
“I don’t know if you guys had some deal in place or whatever,” Garman said. “But . . . if I find out later that one of our county employees gets fired or loses their position and they . . . signed that petition, I’m going to be pushing for an investigation into that.”
Crye denied the allegation that he wished to see petition signatures, becoming visibly angry. A few minutes later, Crye was one of three supervisors who voted against Pinkney’s appointment. He made the decision, he said, because he had reviewed the qualifications for election commissioners and does not believe that Pinkney satisfies them. Based on his own communications with Pinkney, Crye said, he does not believe him to be “of good character.”
The decision was a change from his earlier public stance on Pinkney’s appointment. Speaking to Shasta Scout the day before the vote, Crye said he would support the appointment of Pinkney saying, “I refuse to take away the voice of a supervisor.”
“I think every supervisor if you have a chance to make a direct appointment appointment you get to make that,” Crye said at the time. “It’s about my beliefs. I’m not going to become what I rail against. I’m not going to take Tim Garman’s voice away just because I’m on a ‘majority.'”
Crye apparently changed his beliefs overnight. His pivot on the vote didn’t surprise Garman, who referred to Crye as a “well-known liar”, drawing cheers of support from some in the crowd.
Pinkney’s appointment failed, three-to-two, with Garman and Rickert offering the only affirmative votes. After the vote, Pinkney circulated pictures on social media of a text conversation between a former elected City of Shasta Lake Council member Delores Lucero, who was recalled in 2012, and Supervisor Kelstrom. The messages document Kelstrom alluding to Crye’s ability to view recall petition signatures.
Kelstorm confirmed for Shasta Scout today, July 3, that the photos are accurate depictions of messages between him and Lucero shortly after signatures for Crye’s recall were approved by the Elections Office. Ironically, Kelstrom said, the texts occurred in response to Lucero’s suggestion that Crye had a right to see the signatures. He said he shared the information about how to file a subpoena for signatures with Crye who, as far as he knows, did not act on that information.
Crye told Shasta Scout today that he was, and remains, uninterested in reviewing recall petition signatures, despite requests by some Elections Commissioners that he should attempt to do so. He said he did have an interest at that time of Kelstrom’s texts in comparing and contrasting the procedures followed by the Elections Office in his recall with those followed during the recall of Supervisor Leonard Moty, because, Crye said, of a significant difference in the percentage of signatures that were rejected in each case.
“But,” Crye said, “my windshield is much bigger than my rearview mirror. I’ve moved on.”
Procedural Mistakes During ROV Appointment
Crye told the public that his change of heart on approving Pinkney for the Election Commission came after a reporter from Shasta Scout notified him Monday, July 1, that he may not have followed appropriate policies and procedures during the process for choosing the new ROV. Crye said the conversation made him want to be sure he followed the appropriate procedure for appointing an election commissioner.
Although he carefully examined procedure on appointing Pinkney to the Election Commission, Crye did not make a similar attempt to publicly address the procedural issues that occurred during the board’s process of choosing a new ROV. Crye was among four of the five supervisors who did not turn in the required rankings sheet after interviews for the ROV position concluded on the second day. Only Rickert turned in a rankings sheet.
According to the Board’s approved procedure for choosing a new ROV, all five supervisors should have filled out a ranking sheet listing how their top four candidates during the interview process. Those ranking sheets should have been submitted to the County Executive Officer, David Rickert, so he could announce the top three candidates for the board’s consideration.
The staff report says: “Each Supervisor will submit to the County Executive Officer their three top candidates. The County Executive Officer will report the three candidates and the ranking of each which will result in a hiring eligible list.”
Instead, Crye, as board chair, moved directly from interviews to board discussions and a vote, without asking supervisors to fill out their ranking sheets or submit them to the CEO. As a result four candidates, not three, were considered by the Board. That came into play when Crye negotiated with Kelstrom and Jones in attempts to get them to support his top pick.
Crye was one of two supervisors who also did not score the candidates, making it impossible to know, after the fact, how he would have ranked them. Crye did partially fill out a rating sheet, twice, first listing what appeared to be initials and numbers on the bottom of the page then scribbling them out and filling in numbers without names on the lines above.
Jones didn’t turn in any documentation at all, leaving both his rating and ranking sheets blank.
Toller was ranked last in Supervisor Chris Kelstrom’s list, and third on Rickert and Garman’s lists. Without ratings or rankings from Crye and Jones, it’s not clear whether Toller would have been ranked within the top three candidates, thereby qualifying him to be voted on by the Board. County Counsel did not respond to a request for comment regarding whether this procedural error should affect the result of the Board’s vote on the topic.
Asked about his failure to rank the candidate, Crye told Shasta Scout he might have made a mistake in the process, but his intent was clear. And if it wasn’t clear to the public, Crye indicated, it was certainly clear in his own mind.
“I think I was pretty clear on how I ranked them . . . ” Crye said. “But maybe I didn’t say it in open session.”
“I feel like no good deed goes unpunished,” Crye continued, apparently referencing his decision to appoint Toller. “I can’t believe that as open as this process was, things are still coming up.”
And There’s More — Amendment to Shasta County Charter
The Board also voted to continue to move towards placing an election-related amendment to Shasta County’s charter on voters’ ballots in November.
Shasta was approved to become a charter county during the March 5 primary, a decision that will become official in January 2025. The original charter that was approved by voters this spring addresses only one issue, allowing the county to fill a vacancy created by a recall through a special election.
Currently, unless they result from a recall, vacancies in elected positions such as the ROV must be filled by Board appointment. The amendment proposed by Supervisor Kevin Crye this week would allow any elected county positions that are vacated mid-term to be filled by either appointment until the end of the official term, or to the next election, or by a special election. Under the amendment, supervisors would choose which path to pursue.
Crye said it’s important to leave the option of appointment open to supervisors in case there is only one clearly appropriate appointment for the role, saying in such cases it wouldn’t make sense to “spend a million dollars” on a special election when an appointment would allow the Board to fill the role for free.
At County Counsel Joseph Larmour’s request, Francescut stepped to the podium to clarify that when it becomes clear that a vacancy for an office only has one candidate, the law does not require an election.
Kelstrom asked for that information to be clarified in the ballot amendment before it’s presented to the public, something supervisors agreed to. They did not consider changing the wording of the amendment itself, to exclude the option of making an appointment which could last either through the next election or until the end of the original official’s term, whichever is sooner.
Do you have a correction to this story? You can submit it here. Do you have information to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org
Through December 31, NewsMatch is matching donations dollar-for-dollar up to $18,000, giving us the chance to double that amount for local journalism in Shasta County. Don't wait — the time to give is now!
Support Scout, and multiply your gift
Author
Comments (22)
Comments are closed.
Related Articles
A group of community members are hoping to start a new medical school in Shasta. Here’s what we know
Redding Vice Mayor Dr. Paul Dhanuka and Simpson University President Dr. Norm Hall are some of the leading figures behind the plan.
With more rain ahead, Redding officials explain flooding, urge caution
This weekend, the city’s stormwater infrastructure became clogged with debris due to the speed and volume of rain, officials said, leading to serious flooding in parts of Redding.
The Redding Public Market opened about a month ago. Here’s how it’s going
The CEO of the development company that owns the market said the venue, which is serving around 2,000 people a day, is revitalizing downtown.
All you Pro-MAGA people, tell me one thing.
How on earth can you defend ANYTHING MAGA is doing when they put up something like Project 2025 as their playbook?
If you haven’t read it, you need to, NOW.
This is some scary stuff folks.
To quote Ronald Reagan, ““If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.””
Project 2025 will completely decimate any notion of the United States as being a free, democratic republic.
Oh, on a side note, anybody notice all the MAGA who were screaming for the Epstein records to be released have gone radio silent now that it’s become known that Trump has been found to frequent his parties (among other NSFW things)?
I guess it’s OK to be one of those “P” words as long as you’re rich.
Hi! In The Know,
Can you tell me more information about this Project 2025?
Just asking for future knowledge before I vote Maga 2024.
I love being called a cannibalistic jackal, in search of MAGA power. What doesn’t the idea of running a cadaver for president not speak to wanting to not let power go? And, jill is another piece of work, that keeps spurring joe on. Hell, he can’t do anything after 8 p.m. It isn’t the work, it is THE POWER!
I love being called a cannibalistic jackal in search of MAGA power. What doesn’t the idea of running a cadaver for president not speak to wanting not let power go? And, jill is another piece of work, that keeps spurring joe on. Hell, he can’t do anything after 8 p.m. It isn’t the work, it is THE POWER!
Hi Happy. When you say we “can’t depend on the Dem CA SOS” do you mean that Shasta County officials should decide for themselves how to run elections, including local elections with state candidates on the ballot? That’s against state law currently. Do you think the courts should decide that or is it justified for local officials to simply break state law if they feel its unconstitutional?
Sorry Annelise for late response,
I’m saying use the AI Voting Machines per CA SOS law.
But before you put ballots in the AI Voting Machines.
Hand/Audit and count the ballot first before you slip it in AI Voting Machine.
Shasta County will be following CA state law and also addressing Shasta County amended law at the same time.
Shasta County won’t be breaking State law. Shasta County would only be
adding an additional county law to hand/audit and count election ballots
Counties all the time add amendments to state law to address their local concerns. We citizens in Shasta County are able to hand/Audit and count 120,000 voters.
Is CA State law telling Shasta County citizens are not smart enough to count more than a 1,000 ballots accurately?
Is CA State law eliminating our free civil rights of free and fair elections?
The idea tha Supervisor Crye believes Mr. Toller is “more intelligent” than Kathy Darling Allen is simply disgustingly mysoginystic. Also his belief that one could learn the itricacies of California’s election code in 5 minutes is appealing and arrogant. I look forward to the new term when Mr. Crye is no longer in the majority so his partisan vindictive policies may be corrected.
The hypocrisy of Jones and Crye not following the rules they set up for themselves when appointing ROV Toller but in the same breath claiming the election’s department does not follow guidelines is a new level of madness.
Right! Surely, since they give zero shits about the law, well that means nobody else does either! They truly believe they are the moral and ethical compass that EVERYONE will follow. The magnitude of their hubris is astounding.
So let me get this straight….they expect no issues with county-wide hand counted votes but can’t get the voting process right in their own house with 5 total votes…the irony, oh, the irony…it runs rampant with this lot
Well, we wouldn’t want anybody who has the facts about election operations actually being involved in the running of our elections would we? I hope that Joaana is able to deal with the idiocy around her now. Also hope that Yoller isn’t dumb enough to fire her as one of his first acts. Based on all of the other dumb stuff this Board majority has done re: elections, I am certainly not optimistic about that.
Also, I guess that as long as Crye is clear in his own mind about things, that’s all the transparency he needs, and we should expect.
Toller. Sorry./
So, what I’m reading is; it’s Annelise’s fault Nathan wasn’t appointed because she dared to point out that Crye wasn’t following protocol. Well, he sure showed you who was boss by following protocol to the letter of the law! Take that, Liberal Media!! Maybe you’ll think twice next time before doing your journalistic duty!
Every procedure right…well, except for that pesky rank voting…but you pick and choose…just like Kevin:)
Anyone who really believes that you can be fully informed with elections laws within five minutes is more than full of hot air.
Hey, let the newly appointed ROV, or Crye, challenge SOS and CA Election Codes…that’s the quickest way they’ll be removed by the CA AG. But of course after 90 days, that’s about the end of September, we the public can decide if we want to go the Recall Route. Sounds, again, like Kelstrom has thrown Crye under the bus…Repubs eating Repubs, yum yum.
Hey, let the newly appointed ROV, or Crye, challenge SOS and CA Election Codes…that’s the quickest way they’ll be removed by the CA AG. But of course after 90 days, that’s about the end of September, we the public can decide if we want to go the Recall Route. Sounds, again, like Kelstrom has thrown Crye under the bus…Repubs eating Repubs, yum yum.
PS Not approving Nathan Pinkney, smacks, to me at least, of some kind of racism.
Seriously! Look at what’s happening in the UK right now to the conservative majority that has been in power for 14 years, massive landslide victories for the progressive party, not because people are changing, but because they’re tired of the circus and the infighting that has plagued that party for years. Republicans will definitely need to rebrand as it’s officially MAGA Cult now. They’re all cannibalistic jackals who would literally push their own mothers in front of a bus if it meant even a little tidbit of that sweet sweet power! I’m beginning to think, maybe save my energy and not fight so hard, they’ll implode on their own and then that’s when we swoop!
Open letter to Kevin Crye-
Congratulations on selecting and manipulating the votes to appoint Tom Toller as the new ROV. It is encouraging to see you do not discriminate hiring an individual of advanced or senior age, lack of experience in the election field or have concerns about his BMI and health for this position. It certainly makes sense you would select a male candidate who as a former prosecutor also dislikes current DA Bridgett – something you two have in common. You should work well together.
I see Laura Hobbs mentioned your lack of support for your “base“ in public comments regarding not choosing Clint Curtis. I wonder what she was referring to as you seemed to object to this comment.
You also referenced that Joanna Francescut having only 16 years experience still needs two more years under her belt to be considered. It certainly shows you recognize women are not as intelligent as a man with no experience. Toller is clearly more intelligent in your estimation and work experience is not needed in the field of elections.
Your wisdom is astounding. If there has ever been a chairman of the board that has shown more bias towards their own political goals and aspirations for a non-partisan position you top the bill.
Again congratulations on playing Jones and Kelstrom in the vote. You’ve turned into the slimy dirty politician you claimed never to be seeking total local control.
Ann,
The juvenile actions of Cyre, an ignorant politician who publicly stated he didn’t even know what the Board Of Supervisors was until he decided to run for supervisor, mimic the real Chair of the SCBOS, Jones. Jones gives orders and directions to Crye, and Crye does as told. Both of them are under investigation for possible violations of crime(s).
King Jones still calls the shots for the JCK Cartel and their fan club, their base, continue to show the intentions, use Shasta County as a MAGA Propaganda machine, skirting laws, codes, morals, and ethics, to institute their sexist-racist MAGA agenda that cost taxpayers millions of dollars and at a cost this county’s reputation.
Crye’s little collection of low-education, brain-washed tRump-Drunks that make up his base are delusional. This 33% of Shasta County voters still think they will:
1. Prove that Hobbs and Jones won.
2. Instatute a hand-count system in California.
3. Turn Shasta County into the State Of Jefferson or something like that.
4. Use Shasta County Taxpayers to conduct lawsuits or court actions against the State of California on many issues they have endorsed.
5. Believe they have a “Constitutional Right” to violate any law they disagree with.
This is MAGA gone wild, as reported by Shasta Scout, A News Cafe, The Redding Record Searchlight, and numerous national and even international news outlets. Crye and Jones love it! The losers get on Newsmax or Fox and tell the nation that Shasta County is the spear-tip of the new revolution that will change the United States of America, and their fan-club base, as well as loser Mr. Pillow and Kari Lake, cheer them on.
In working with mentally ill patients, clinicians are directed not to endorse what is coldly called “Crazy Talk.” Clinicians endorse client rights that all of us have, but Crazy Talk only exasperates mental illness and grows the delusions and illness, creating more problems for the client and the people who interact with them, like friends, families, and communities. In fact, part of the treatment of mentally challenged clients is to confront them by asking for evidence-based facts if they have enough ego strength to be challenged. The unhealthy JCK Cartel MAGA lies, and other social-political delusions will only change if the People Of Shasta County say enough is enough and vote for Safe and Sane people of all political perspectives whose agenda is to serve the people, not a delusional or unfit moral agenda for themselves or their fan-club base.
Greetings Annelise.
Thank you so much for your consistent and fair reporting of the political and social issues here in Shasta County.
Although it may be a minor point, I did want to mention that I do not think that Crye actually completed a “ranking” document when conducting interviews for the ROV position. You referenced that he partially completed a ranking sheet (required for the interview process), but what was provided both in your news article and when the records were requested was a “rating” sheet, which are not required for the interview process. As I understand it, the optional rating sheets merely allow each member of the interview panel to assign points for each candidate’s answers to help them complete the required ranking sheets. The total points each candidate is awarded by each interviewer do not necessarily determine the top three candidates and instead, the more subjective rankings determine which candidates are recommended for the position. My school district follows very similar interview procedures.
I also wanted to mention that I think how the board majority handled their decision to not re-appoint Dr. Judy Menoher to the Health Board was despicable and reeks of vindictive retribution. Jones and Crye pretty much came right out and stated they would not reappoint her solely based on her participation in the Recall Kevin Crye efforts. There was no discussion about her actions as a long-standing member of the Health Board. I think they crossed the line in using their power to punish Dr. Menoher based solely on her exercising her constitutional rights.
Thank you,
Diane
Hi Diane. You’re right on Crye not completing a ranking sheet, that was a mistype on my part which I have corrected. Thank you! I agree that the rating sheet is not required while the ranking sheet was. Thanks for the heads up on Dr. Menoher . . .