Shasta County supervisors vote 4-0 to open recruitment for County Clerk and Registrar of Voters after heated public comment

Shasta County supervisors voted 4–0 on March 27 to open a recruitment process to fill the vacancy for County Clerk and Registrar of Voters, rejecting a proposal to appoint the current acting official outright after an extended public-comment period.

The board directed staff to post the job, run an abbreviated advertising window, and return a pool of three to five finalists for a single day of public interviews. The board also authorized the county CEO to adjust dates within parameters set by the motion and established minimum qualifications including a bachelor’s degree or related credential and managerial or election-office experience.

Why it matters: The county is replacing an official who left midterm, and the board’s choice affects how local elections are run and observed. Public speakers at the meeting repeatedly framed the selection as a question of election integrity and transparency — pressing the board either to appoint an experienced interim official who previously served or to pursue a broader competitive search to restore public confidence.

Clerk of the Board Stephanie Blankenship, who has coordinated logistics, told supervisors, “As of right now, I’ve only gotten confirmation that the thirtieth is available at the city of Sheffield Lake,” when the board discussed proposed interview dates. The board’s motion proposed interviews around April 30 and a final decision on a later May meeting date.

Multiple members of the public urged appointment of a previously vetted finalist, identified in public comments as Joanna Francesca, saying she had performed the work during earlier elections and would save the county time and money. One commenter alleged election-related data had been withheld in a prior manual tally and urged greater precinct-level hand counting and observer access. Other residents and board members argued an open recruitment would bolster transparency and avoid the appearance of preselection.

During the meeting supervisors and staff reviewed two legal paths: directing staff to bring back a specific appointment for board action, or directing staff to conduct a competitive recruitment and screening process. County counsel told the board that the Government Code does not specify a strict deadline for filling the vacancy but requires action within a reasonable time frame.

Supervisor Long initially proposed recruitment and the board ultimately adopted that direction on a 4–0 vote. The action included three follow-up directives: allow the CEO to adjust dates within the motion’s parameters, adopt minimum qualifications for applicants, and form an ad hoc committee to screen applicants and recommend finalists. The ad hoc committee was directed to work with the human-resources director and the CEO to pare the applicant pool to the 3–5 finalists the board will interview publicly.

The board did not make a direct appointment at the meeting. The chosen path means the clerk/registrar vacancy will be filled after a public recruitment, screening by the ad hoc committee, and a public interview and selection process by the full board.

What’s next: Staff will post the position and return dates and finalists in accordance with the motion; the board expects interviews to occur around April 30 with a final appointment on a subsequent May meeting date. The CEO was authorized to shift dates within the parameters set by the board.

Reporting note: The transcript contained multiple inconsistent spellings of candidate and participant names in public remarks. This story uses the spellings that appeared most consistently in the record for individuals referenced in public comment and official remarks. If the board returns with a direct nomination or award, the official action will be recorded in the board minutes and future reporting will be updated with the board’s formal item language and vote tallies.