Board Votes to Release Investigative Report to the Public and Defer Vote on Censure Until After the June 2 Election
- Elisa Ballard
- 2 hours ago
- 11 min read
A special meeting of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors was held Tuesday morning, April 28, 2026, to consider censuring Registrar of Voters (ROV) Clint Curtis over alleged substantiated findings of managerial misconduct following an investigation. Clint Curtis firmly denied the allegations, stating they are completely false.
Monica Fugitt, Director of Support Services for Shasta County, spoke about an “incident” that allegedly occurred on October 3, 2025, and investigations that were concluded recently. On April 8, Curtis was given remedial training. Fugitt recommended that Curtis be kept away from his staff.
District 2 Supervisor Allen Long stated he did not wish to identify any employee but noted there were two different investigative reports: 1) the Oppenheimer Investigation (subject to attorney-client privilege), and 2) the internal investigation (subject to Public Records requests).
Long made a motion to consider waiving the attorney-client privilege so the information could be released to the public.
Long asked Fugitt if her investigation revealed that Mr. Curtis had threatened the life of any employee or made statements about slapping or punching county employees. Fugitt stated that Curtis made a threat to have an employee pulled out of their office by their hair by Human Resources.
Curtis was asked whether he would waive the attorney-client privilege, and he agreed to do so.
Chair Chris Kelstrom (District 5 Supervisor) seconded Long’s motion to drop the attorney-client privilege. Supervisor Matt Plummer (District 4) asked County Counsel Joseph Larmour for clarification. A vote was taken, and all supervisors voted in favor of dropping the attorney-client privilege.
Curtis then defended himself at the podium, stating that both allegations are absolutely false. He brought forth serious statements, stating that employees in the office are in constant contact with Joanna Francescut (a candidate for ROV and former Assistant ROV). He stated that on October 7, 2025, two unauthorized and unknown users gained access to the interoffice communication system. He noted a “blue dot” for one of the users that had dropped off, then came back on with Francescut’s name and picture. The other was only identified as "Unknown User". Curtis sent this to staff, saying, “She hacked in. They are desperate because they are losing.” He added that he had taken a polygraph test regarding his statement.
Curtis, who used to work for domestic violence nonprofits, called these serious allegations. He related an encounter he had with a Francescut supporter shortly after he was appointed as ROV. He asked the supporter why they cared as long as it was a fair election. The supporter replied, “If we don’t have Francescut, we will never win another election.” Curtis plans to file a lawsuit because that will clear the record and restore integrity. He stated, “I’m always about showing everything. I’m really irritated now. I tried to overlook the threats, including the carved threats on my car, but this can get people killed.”
Curtis said the employees who had worked under Francescut are slowing things down. He had to contact the Secretary of State to find out which reports had not been filed because employees were failing to perform their duties and not notifying him. “This is a Federal Election, therefore these are federal crimes, and I have talked to the DOJ,” he said. “They are creating a toxic work environment. I moved to the Market St. office to get away from them, but the rest of the new people asked if they could move over with me, too.” He stated he doesn’t yell and added, “I don’t talk to them other than for quick business matters.” Curtis is requesting that the uncooperative employees be transferred to another department. He stated, “This is insane. I have never seen anything like this. I have 24-hour cameras everywhere.”
Long asked again about any threats of violence in the reports. Rather than answer the question directly, Larmour stated that there are 1,000s of pages and that he could have the reports available next week with redactions.
Fugitt stated the allegations were sustained based on the “preponderance of the evidence", but did not provide proof or details about her statement. Allegations about campaigning on county time were not supported.
Public Comments: Kelstrom opened the public comment period, allowing only 2 minutes per speaker due to approximately 40 requests. Many of the commenters were Election Office staff, and two were former Shasta County Supervisors. Twenty-two public commenters spoke in favor of Curtis and the work he has done in the office; 15 spoke against Curtis and called for him to be censured and/or removed from office; three commenters spoke about the need for more investigation and due diligence before voting on the matter, citing the suspiciously politically motivated timing.
Notable commenters included Assistant Registrar of Voters Brent Turner, who said he has a law degree and has known Curtis for 25 years. Although his politics are “severely misguided” (Curtis being a Republican and Turner a Democrat from San Francisco), Turner said, “Our duty is to Uncle Sam, and I changed my life to be here. Curtis has brought transparency to the Election Office.”
Jennifer Katske, a citizen activist who recently brought a failed lawsuit against the County to try to stop Measure B from being placed on the ballot, stated that Curtis aligns himself with partisan advocacy groups and has caused a breakdown in election processes. She stated, “I have brought legal action against this board, and I will do it again.”
Mike Hernandez of Cali Red News said he has never given public comment before but believes this is politically motivated and that the allegations are unfounded, brought by disgruntled employees who do not support Curtis’ appointment.
Ron Plumb said he has been investigating the election process for 6 years, since 2020, and that he applied for and was hired to work the 2025 election. He has business degrees and managerial experience and witnessed the peaceful flow of ballot processing, the calm strength and guidance exhibited by Curtis, and the resistance of long-time employees.
Marjorie Andrews, a current Election Office worker hired as extra help in 2024 under ROV Toller, stated that Tommy T. was helpful at that time. But then, in August 2025, under ROV Curtis, she witnessed Tommy being difficult and stonewalling, saying “That’s not my job” or “I don’t know,” rather than how nice he had been previously.
Jenny O'Connell-Nowain stated, “I observed both elections. The one under Curtis was disorganized… It’s time to go to the Grand Jury; censuring is a little late — time to remove him from office.” Note: Jenny was arrested later during the meeting.
Citizens who spoke as election observers in the 2024 election described the inability to observe signature verification, ballot duplication, and ballot tabulation under Francescut, along with the great improvements in transparency under Curtis.
Kim Moore stated that Long should be ashamed of himself. She said she would bet her life on Curtis’s integrity and challenged Long to take a polygraph test.
Steve Kahn gave his opinion that the reason why polygraphs aren’t used in court is that they are not reliable.
Lori Jones, who worked for several months during the last elections doing every job, including running the Agilis machine, said Dorothy was asked by Curtis to show her how to use the machine. Dorothy was not pleased at first, but over time, they got along well, and Dorothy later asked that she (Jones) be put on the machine with her again. Jones stated she saw aggressive behavior from Janae, who threw large stacks of paper aggressively toward a trash can next to Patty Plumb, hitting her.
Francescut herself spoke, saying the Board should be “focusing on facts and not the distractions here.” She added, “Our community needs experienced staff,” and that she is “proud of staff members.”
Kari Chilson, speaking as a concerned citizen, said she spent dozens of hours as an election observer and witnessed staff under Francescut’s administration blocking transparency, rushing ballot signature verifications, and falsifying numbers on logs. She said this amounts to “retaliation” by employees loyal to Francescut.
Laura Hobbs, a current Election Office employee and proponent of Measure B (election reforms, including voter ID requirements), said Curtis is a jovial boss who uses self-deprecating humor. She has witnessed “insubordination and intentional dereliction of duty.” She also witnessed an Election Manager barricade herself in an office because she didn’t want to train Laura. Curtis wanted her to move out to a cubicle. She said she believes that this manager made a report to cause the maximum damage to Curtis.
Board of Supervisors candidate for District 5, Gary Oxley, stated that decisions should not be made when tempers are heightened.
Joyce Lively, an applicant to serve as a poll worker, said she had a disagreement with Curtis during a poll worker training session. She said he was discussing an issue about ballots in Riverside County, which she viewed as "political", and she objected. He then said, “You are dismissed.” She said he also dismissed another woman, and Curtis later claimed they knew each other, but that was not true. Note: Two people who spoke with Shasta Unfiltered witnessed this incident and both stated that the woman (Ms. Lively) seemed to want to control the training class with her comment. Witnesses said Curtis was simply stating the importance of being accurate in election duties to avoid a similar situation. When Curtis politely dismissed her, she angrily walked out. Another woman was thanking Ms. Lively for speaking up, so Marjorie, who was helping Curtis with the training class, went to the back of the room where she was sitting and said politely, "You can go if you want to." So that woman also left the training class.
Patty Plumb, a full-time employee in the Elections Office, stated that Janae Wheaton, an Election Office manager, refused to meet with her and was physically aggressive toward her. Because of what is happening today, poll worker training had to be canceled.
Nick Gardner, host of the “Poke the Hornet’s Nest” radio show on KQMS 105.7 FM/1670 AM, asked why no one was censured for lying to the board about the "Zuckerbucks". He stated he interviewed Francescut last Sunday and she lied, taking credit for all of the transparency in the office. He said he will refute her claims tomorrow on Mountaintop Media and will have Curtis on the radio show Sunday from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
Former Supervisor Mary Rickert said the board would be in dereliction of duty if it didn’t censure Curtis.
Nelda Johnson, a current Election Office worker, described this as a “witch hunt.” She said she has never seen Curtis raise his voice in the office and that he is “very jovial.” She has witnessed the workers loyal to Francescut acting aggressively toward newer workers and engaging in stonewalling, and believes one of those employees should be fired.
Leslie Sawyer, California State Legislative Chair for Moms for Liberty, called it a media circus and said, “This Kevin Crye derangement syndrome needs to stop.”
Former Supervisor Patrick Jones stated that a few people in the Election Office are insubordinate, but the vast majority are hard workers. He is “disappointed in the Board for putting this on the agenda. Some investigations never happen, some have sustained allegations that never see the light of day.” He stated to Joe (Larmour) and Dave (Rickert), “I am ashamed.”
Terry Rapoza, host of “Jefferson State of Mine” on KCNR Radio 96.5 FM / 1460 AM, stated that the timing of this item is suspect. “We don’t even know what the allegations are. When the Zuckerbucks incident happened, nothing was done (against ROV Allen or Assistant ROV Francescut).”
Discussion: A discussion among the supervisors took place. Kelstrom stated this was not a political stunt. There are 1,000 pages of reports, but he acknowledged that the timing is horrific. He also stated he won’t be voting for censure. Long stated that it’s important to understand that each supervisor reviewed files prepared by two investigators, who found most of the allegations to be sustained.
When Patrick Jones was speaking in support of Clint Curtis, Jenny O’Connell-Nowain stood up in front of the whole chamber, creating a distraction away from Jones and the speakers after him. Chair Kelstrom finally asked her to sit down after about 8 minutes of distraction. She refused. Kelstrom then asked her to leave. She refused and asked to be arrested. Note: This is Jenny’s third incident of significantly disrupting a Board meeting. She stopped the proceedings, refused to end her disruption, and caused a major scene, leading to her arrest. In the previous two incidents, all members of the public were required to leave the chamber for an extended period while police were called. She had been convicted by a jury of a similar disruption on December 18, 2025, and sentenced to house arrest on January 28, 2026.
As this was happening, Kari Chilson, in the media section, yelled out that Nowain should not be allowed to return to these meetings. Kelstrom asked Chilson to leave, and Chilson complied.
Plummer stated that the supervisors voted 5-0 to bring the item to the meeting. He asked Fugitt what the procedure should be for a department head who has problematic employees. She stated that he should engage with the HR Department. He then asked Fugitt if any formal disciplinary action had been taken against Election Office employees. She stated that yes, he has engaged with HR regarding concerns in general, but has taken no action to complete the write-up process. Plummer said it’s unfortunate, but this has been building over the year, and Curtis has been warned. Plummer made a motion to censure Curtis. Long seconded the motion.
Crye stated that Plummer had made public a vote that was taken in closed session and made a motion to allow discussion of the closed session. This was seconded by Plummer and voted on by the Supervisors, with all voting in favor to open the discussion except Long.
Crye stated that “Clint Curtis is a very eclectic individual.” He has made changes to the election process to make it transparent and has cleaned the voter rolls — “he executed on that.” After he was first appointed by the Board, there were 8 to 10 straight days that his (Crye’s) place of business, which caters to children, was picketed by black-clad people intimidating customers and playing profane music. At this point, Christian Garnier yelled out in the audience and was told by Kelstrom to leave the meeting.
Crye continued, saying he has “been through hostile groups. I didn’t want to bring this forward at first and hadn’t had a chance to read the report. But I voted in the end to bring it forward for transparency.” The individual who made the allegations later said, “Let it go — it’s not a big deal.” Crye stated that the allegation was that Curtis said he would have someone pulled out of their office by their hair. Crye said, “I don’t think it is OK to say that.” But when they ran to the HR office… He stated he is not a fan of censure — it’s toothless and a waste of time. He said some people, as Supervisors, have said things that would subject them to censure, but he let it go. He then warned Curtis that “the jokes are not funny — you have to rein that in. Some people find that offensive.”
Long asked Larmour a question about workplace violence or threats to do physical harm in a work environment. Larmour did not answer the question, stating that he would not answer a legal question.
Supervisor Corkey Harmon (District 3) asked Fugitt if there was video of the incident. She answered that she does not know. Harmon then stated, “With all due respect, there is not enough evidence, and I cannot vote to censure.”
Kelstrom stated that if 10% of the allegations are true, you deserve a censure. He told Curtis, “Please stop the jokes and have a witness in the room.”
Plummer asked Fugitt to confirm that she had given the Board the option to have Curtis removed from the location. She said she has discussed this with him personally, but he has not agreed to it.
Curtis responded that “They would sabotage the work, and it would be better to move them out of the department. They are dropping the ball on purpose.”
Larmour stopped further discussion, stating, “This is not on the agenda.”
Plummer reiterated that “We have gone through the process. There is sufficient evidence. There is no effort to change his behavior.”
Long asked Fugitt whether the investigation had been delivered to Curtis. She responded that the closure notice was delivered on March 26 and that the findings were included. On April 7, a new complaint was submitted about an incident on March 27.
CEO Dave Rickert stated the public can stop by the office to pick up these documents, and they will not require a PRA.
Kelstrom motioned to take a vote to censure Curtis until after the election. The motion was seconded by Crye. The Board voted 3-2 to postpone the vote until after the election, with Plummer and Long voting no. The Board then adjourned to closed session. There was nothing to report after they returned from the closed session.
The public can view the entire video on the Shasta County Board of Supervisors' website: