Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Investigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Shasta supervisors agree to bring ROV concerns back for staff report after public allegations
Summary
Following public allegations of electioneering at the Registrar of Voters office, the board voted to agendize a future discussion based on a staff investigation; the motion passed 4–1 and the board clarified FPPC and county roles.
The Shasta County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to bring allegations about recent activity at the Registrar of Voters (ROV) office back for discussion after staff prepare a report, following several public complaints that county resources were used for campaign activity.
Supervisor Alan Long moved to have the matter returned to a future agenda so staff could investigate whether actions in the ROV office violated county policy or Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) rules; County Counsel Joseph Larmer cautioned the FPPC has primary jurisdiction for some election-law matters and that a county counsel opinion would cover county policy considerations.
Long described constituent concerns about alleged "electioneering and campaigning" inside the county clerk/ROV offices and asked staff to assess whether related conduct violated county policy or FPPC rules. "Whether, based on FPPC, whether there was electioneering or campaigning conducted in a public building," Long said when explaining the intended investigatory scope.
Board members debated whether the county has authority to act or should refer the matter to FPPC; Larmer noted that a county counsel opinion would be limited to county policy. After discussion, the motion to place the topic on a future agenda for a staff report and discussion passed 4–1.
Public commenters during the meeting urged the board to investigate and to refer matters to county, state or federal authorities as appropriate; other speakers cautioned against conflating public presentations with campaigning. The motion does not itself resolve whether policy or law was violated; the board will receive a staff report and may take future action once it has been agendized and discussed.
