Kelstrom Silences Relevant Comment at Shasta County Special Meeting on “Anticipated Litigation”
- Elisa Ballard
- 1 day ago
- 3 min read
Shasta County, CA — On Saturday, June 6, 2026, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors held a special meeting featuring a closed session on vaguely worded “anticipated litigation.” The public soon learned the item stemmed from a June 4 incident at the Elections Department, possibly triggered by insubordinate conduct by one supervisory employee. Clerk/Registrar Clint Curtis had reportedly been trying to obtain needed information from that employee to complete critical reconciliation paperwork.
During public comment, Laura Hobbs — a Shasta County Elections Department employee and vocal Measure B proponent — attempted to address the clear link between the closed session and ongoing elections office issues. Chair Chris Kelstrom promptly shut her down, ordering her to “stick to the topic” of anticipated litigation. When Hobbs persisted within her allotted three minutes, Kelstrom had her microphone cut and threatened to have her arrested for disrupting the meeting and disturbing the peace.
Kelstrom did not silence other public commenters by cutting off their microphones, even though many speculated about the subject of the anticipated litigation in their comments. Kelstrom stated that he alone, out of the five supervisors, knew the topic of the anticipated litigation. He knew full well that Hobbs was correct in her speculation about the anticipated litigation.
Just days later, the County’s public statement confirmed the closed session concerned early vote reconciliation discrepancies at 1643 Market Street on June 4. It described how additional ballots may have been handed out prematurely by one employee, with working documents removed, copied, and provided to Clerk Curtis — precisely the type of elections integrity matters Hobbs was raising. The Secretary of State's Office has jurisdiction over the matter.
Ongoing Office Tensions
This confrontation did not occur in a vacuum. In a sworn declaration dated May 19, 2026, that Hobbs has provided to the County's personnel department (Support Services) and to Shasta Unfiltered, Hobbs described being harassed by one supervisory employee who confronted her for “telling people what to do, going over his head, and giving out assignments.” The incident followed Hobbs’ good-faith efforts to help streamline operations: after struggling to locate a voter’s precinct, she printed and distributed a concise one-page reference list for workstations to assist colleagues. She immediately requested mediation by the personnel monitor to resolve the conflict.
The declaration highlights a troubling pattern in which a supervisory employee exhibited insubordination toward Clerk Curtis while targeting a dedicated staff member who was attempting to improve efficiency in the Elections Department.
The Board’s opaque agenda description left the public guessing about the closed session. Yet when an informed insider like Hobbs tried to comment on the actual subject — one that the County itself later confirmed — she was aggressively silenced and threatened with arrest. County Counsel Joseph Larmour contacted law enforcement even though Hobbs eventually sat down and soon left the meeting to return to her election duties at the Elections Office. Sheriff's deputies arrived after she had left.
This heavy-handed tactic raises serious concerns about Brown Act public comment rights and First Amendment protections. Silencing relevant, good-faith speculation on a deliberately vague “anticipated litigation” item, especially from someone directly familiar with Elections Department dynamics, only further erodes public trust. Shasta County voters deserve transparency and open government — not gag orders when employees or citizens dare to speak truth to power on matters affecting election integrity.
To watch the entire meeting, filmed by Robert Exter, go to the following link:
