Shasta County Personnel Office Ignoring Some Complaints While Spending Thousands to Investigate Others Doesn’t Smell Right
- Elisa Ballard
- 14 hours ago
- 4 min read
OPINION
If a personnel department is doing its job properly, I would think that any employee complaints would be investigated, that bad behavior would be noted, and that offending employees would be warned. Since January, sources inside the Election Office have indicated that complaints were made about entrenched employees’ harassment of new employees and insubordination toward Clint Curtis, the new Registrar of Voters, and it doesn’t appear that the Personnel (Support Services) Department took any action. At least four such reports were made by multiple new employees over a period of a few months. Yet, when an insubordinate middle manager who refused to come out of her office and train a newer worker on how to run a report, filed a complaint against Curtis, the Personnel Department suddenly called in the cavalry and spent thousands to hire an outside investigator who cherry-picked evidence and discounted other evidence to frame Curtis for harassment. The Personnel Department appears to have completely ignored the insubordinate behavior that was at the core of the issue.
Most recently, Dr. Laura Hobbs, who has been working as one of the new hires in the Elections Office, called into Nick Gardner’s May 24th radio show “Poke the Hornet’s Nest” (KQMS - 1670 AM/105.7FM) and spoke about her own experience with the Director of the County’s Support Services, Monica Fugitt. On May 4, Fugitt allegedly sent out an email to all employees which said “Chapter 22 of the Shasta County Personnel Rules, Policy Against Discrimination, Harassment, Abusive Conduct, and Retaliation, defines prohibited behaviors, and provides that any employee who is subject to, or witness to, such behaviors, may report their concerns at either an informal level to their Department or at a formal level to Personnel.” Hobbs had been documenting a hostile work environment created by one of the entrenched employees to the point that she felt it was necessary to report it to Fugitt and to the whistle-blower hotline on May 19, 2026. Instead of taking appropriate steps, Fugitt responded to Hobbs on May 21, acknowledging receipt of her email but advising her to contact Curtis and stating that anything that happens after that, if Curtis decides to contact the Personnel Department about the behavior, will be confidential. Do you think this is an appropriate response after Fugitt has targeted Curtis for harassment with the two investigations (internal personnel investigation and external Oppenheimer investigation)? Shouldn’t Hobbs’ complaint directly to Personnel be taken up and investigated by them immediately?
There seems to be a double standard used by Fugitt, and it appears as though she isn’t being fair to the new employees in the Elections’ Office. In my opinion, she seems intent on smearing Curtis over questionable allegations. The internal investigation against Curtis, as well as the Oppenheimer investigation ignored testimony from the new employees in their reports. (Oppenheimer is being sued over a deeply flawed investigation it conducted against a teacher in the Bay Area.) Hobbs stated that she presented a signed statement under penalty of perjury stating that she was a witness to the incident that was the main subject of the Oppenheimer investigation and that the allegations against Curtis were completely false. It does not appear that other statements in the two reports were made under penalty of perjury, and much of the material in the reports was hearsay.
Curtis stated that he asked the Personnel Department to send someone to the Elections Office to monitor the situation, and that after they did so, the offending employees' behavior improved.
Curtis gave a press conference on May 21, to refute the findings of the two reports. Several employees spoke defending Curtis; however, a rude supporter of Joanna Francescut, Dolores Lucero, shouted into a bullhorn throughout the press conference, making it difficult to hear. To see the video of the press conference, go to:
Or if you prefer to read about the press conference, go to the link below for the May 22, 2026, article “Shasta County Elections Chief Clint Curtis Holds Press Conference Amid Harassment Allegations.”
This is a follow-up to our other articles on this subject:
On April 26, 2026, Shasta Unfiltered reported in the article “Investigation Yields Bombshell Revelations About Alleged Election Interference - Shasta County Board of Supervisors to Consider Censuring Curtis at Special Meeting on Tuesday”.
Excerpt: Multiple anonymous sources inside the Elections Office echoed these concerns, telling Shasta Unfiltered that two longtime employees—previously under Francescut, who is now a candidate for Curtis’s position—are allegedly sabotaging workflows to undermine the current Registrar. Sources described the behavior as passive-aggressive, uncooperative, and unprofessional, including incidents of harassment against newer workers. One newer employee reportedly received incomplete information that sent her “on a wild goose chase,” while others witnessed a veteran employee yelling at and harassing a colleague. Disturbing incidents included strong-smelling white balls placed in a closed cabinet above a worker’s computer (which she linked to unexplained headaches) and a crocheted bomb with the letter F on it placed on her chair inside her office cubicle.
On April 28, 2026, Shasta Unfiltered reported that “Board Votes to Release Investigative Report to the Public and Defer Vote on Censure Until After the June 2 Election”.
On May 1, 2026, Shasta Unfiltered reported “Shasta-County-Hired Investigator Faces Lawsuit Over Deeply Flawed Bay Area Probe - Parallels Drawn to Local Case Against Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis”.
