Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Consultant Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters press Trinity County to revisit consultant contract after speakers raise election integrity concerns
Summary
Members of the public urged the Trinity County Board of Supervisors to re‑open discussion of a consent‑calendar contract for a consultant tied to election administration, saying prior problems in another county merit fuller review. A motion to suspend the rules and re‑agendize the item failed on a four‑fifths 'forklift' vote.
Several speakers at the Trinity County Board of Supervisors’ Oct. 7 meeting urged the board to reconsider — and publicly review — a consent‑calendar contract the board approved earlier for a consultant involved in election operations.
Patrick Jones, a former Shasta County supervisor and former mayor of Redding, said Joanna Franciscott (named in meeting comments as a consultant hired under a consent item) had “violated election laws and election codes” in Shasta County and was ultimately fired there. “Putting it on consent and approving it on consent did not give anybody the opportunity to discuss what her performance was like,” Jones told supervisors. He asked the board to bring the item back for public discussion.
Several other speakers, including Dan Ladd of the Shasta County Election Integrity Task Force and local community members, echoed those concerns and described specific problems they said occurred in Shasta County’s past elections. Ladd said the supervisors in Shasta had certified an election “under duress” and that reporting of variances had been mischaracterized during a prior election.
Supervisor Cox attempted to bring the contract back for discussion at the Oct. 7 meeting by moving to suspend the rules and then to re‑agendize the consent item (item D9). That action required a four‑fifths “forklift” vote. The board took a roll call and the motion failed to reach the required four‑fifths threshold: the forklift motion did not pass, so the board did not consider the item on Tuesday.
During public comment, several speakers urged the board to hold a formal discussion of the contract and to allow people with first‑hand experience in Shasta County to speak at a scheduled agenda item. The board chair and staff clarified that items listed on the consent calendar are ordinarily considered routine and approved by a single roll‑call vote unless a board member requests separate consideration.
The contract at issue remains as approved on the consent calendar; supervisors who wished to open it for discussion could still seek a future agenda date. The board did not take additional action on the contract at Tuesday’s meeting.
