Shasta County opens public recruitment for clerk/registrar of voters; ad hoc panel to screen applicants

The Shasta County Board of Supervisors voted 4-0 on March 27 to begin a public recruitment for the vacant County Clerk and Registrar of Voters position, directing staff to advertise the opening, apply minimum qualifications related to management and election experience, and have an ad hoc committee of supervisors screen applicants and bring a small pool of finalists back for interviews.

The board’s decision follows extensive public comment. Several residents urged the board to appoint the current acting registrar, Joanna Francesca, pointing to a recent nine‑month recruitment that produced finalists; other speakers asked the board to run an open, transparent process and to limit county spending. County CEO Dave Rickert, County Counsel Joseph Barmer and Clerk of the Board Stephanie Blankenship were present for the discussion and process overview.

Staff framed two options: a direct appointment to fill the remainder of the term, or a competitive recruitment and screening process. Staff described how past interim and appointed elected‑office fills had been handled and offered a sample recruitment workflow that would include advertising the vacancy, screening applications against statutory minimums and any additional qualifications the board sets, and conducting interviews of finalists. The slides presented to the board noted a prior recruitment about nine months earlier that produced roughly 39 applicants and ended with a list of finalists that included Joanna Francesca and Tom Toller.

After discussion, the board approved a motion to proceed with an open recruitment. The board also: instructed staff to advertise the job with minimum qualifications emphasizing managerial or leadership experience and experience related to elections or county election office operations; formed an ad hoc screening committee of two supervisors to work with human resources to reduce applicants to a pool of roughly three to five finalists; and directed staff to bring those finalists back for a single day of public interviews. The vote to open recruitment passed 4-0 (one supervisor was absent).

Board members and staff discussed timing. Staff noted an illustrative application period of March 28 to April 20 and interview dates around April 30 to May 2; the board voted to allow the CEO to adjust those dates within the parameters discussed. Members also directed that the screening process be public-facing and that the board avoid a multi‑round interview structure unless necessary.

Public commenters repeatedly argued both for and against a new recruitment. A sizeable group of speakers urged appointment of the incumbent acting registrar, citing her recent experience administering elections under difficult circumstances; others warned against appointing from within and urged an open search to ensure transparency and public confidence. Several commenters raised cost concerns and asked the board to minimize county expense by considering the recent applicant pool.

The board’s action does not change statutory deadlines for filling vacancies; staff noted the county must comply with the applicable provisions of the government code and that the statute requires filling vacancies within a reasonable time but does not prescribe a specific calendar. The board’s recruitment instructions direct staff to return with the screened finalists and scheduling for the public interviews and final appointment vote.

Next steps: staff will advertise the vacancy, operate the screening process with the two‑supervisor ad hoc committee and return finalists to the full board for a public interview and appointment vote. The CEO was given authority to adjust application and interview dates within the motion’s parameters.