Shasta County supervisors condemn exclusion of local news outlet, warn of censure after closed-session review

The Shasta County Board of Supervisors on Oct. 14 reported out of closed session and unanimously read a statement condemning actions that excluded a member of the press and urging the county's Registrar of Voters to maintain open access to public information.

The board's report said, "By a vote of 5-0, the board unanimously respects the right of the press to have free and unfettered access to public information. We condemn Mister Curtis' actions in excluding a member of the press and encourage him to maintain a high level of transparency and access to information. If it occurs again, the board will move to censure." The statement was read by the board chair after County Counsel reported that item R1 (anticipated litigation) had been discussed in closed session and that the vote had taken place.

The chair's report follows public comments from eight speakers who told the supervisors they believed the county's ROV office had discriminated against a local outlet, Shasta Scout, by withholding press releases and other communications. One commenter described correspondence in which Shasta Scout reported that the California Secretary of State told the outlet it had not spoken with the ROV about the office's "protocol," and said that, following that exchange, the ROV stopped providing press releases to Shasta Scout.

"The best thing to do would have been just to reverse course and say, you know, I made a mistake. I am going to send press releases to Shasta Scout," one speaker said during public comment, urging the board to call ROV head Clint Curtis to explain what the Secretary of State does and does not know about his office's protocols.

Several commenters invoked constitutional and federal precedents in arguing against government entities giving preferential access to some news organizations. One speaker cited two court decisions by name to argue that content-based restrictions on press access impose a heavy burden on government and that selective access risks influencing coverage. Another commenter referenced an election-code provision (stated in public comment as "18 2 0 3") and said they had filed a complaint seeking an investigation into alleged false statements by the ROV.

Public commenters also raised broader election-administration concerns, including removal of some ballot drop boxes in outlying communities and requests for additional elections office funding to increase transparency through observers and cameras. One speaker noted that the ROV had sought an increase in operating funds and argued that moving to restrict press access contradicted promises of greater transparency.

County Counsel Joe Larma reported out that the closed-session item had been heard and that the board's vote included the read statement. The board did not announce any additional disciplinary action at the meeting beyond the public admonition and the stated willingness to pursue censure if exclusion of press access occurs in the future.

No formal motion against any named county employee was read into the record at the meeting; the board's action was the issuance of the public statement and the unanimous vote reported after closed session. The record does not specify whether any other remedies or follow-up steps (investigations, referrals, or administrative proceedings) were authorized during closed session.