Shasta County lifts privilege on ROV investigations, then delays censure until after June election

The Shasta County Board of Supervisors on April 28 voted to lift attorney-client privilege on two investigations into Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis and then voted to delay any formal censure until after the June primary, saying the public should have access to the investigators' reports before the board takes final action.

Monica Fugate, director of support services and the principal investigator for the internal review, told the board the internal inquiry and an external review used the preponderance-of-evidence standard and found conduct that "did engage in abusive conduct and retaliation towards staff" and that those findings implicated Chapter 22 (personnel rules) and Chapter 40 (code of conduct). Fugate recommended that the board consider remedial action including public censure and, if behavior continues, measures such as separation from staff or even a workplace restraining order.

"Based upon the preponderance of the evidence, Curtis did engage in abusive conduct and retaliation towards staff in violation of chapter 22 of the personnel rules," Fugate said during the meeting.

The board first voted to waive attorney-client privilege so the reports could be released and reviewed by the public; that motion was approved 5-0. County counsel and the CEO said the files total roughly 1,000 pages and would require redaction for privacy and legal reasons before full public release; the county said the documents would be made available online and at the county administrative office.

Curtis, who spoke for the bulk of the meeting's opening remarks and rebuttal, rejected the findings. "Both of these claims are absolutely false, just made up with absolutely no basis at all," he said, and added that he had taken a polygraph and was prepared to pursue defamation claims if the allegations persisted.

The public-comment period drew roughly 42 speakers and sharply divided testimony. Some current and former election-office workers and community members testified that Curtis improved transparency and running of elections, with Assistant Registrar Brent Turner saying, "Clint has brought in transparent elections to Shasta County." Others — including multiple people who identified themselves as current or former staff — described a hostile workplace, citing aggressive interactions, deleted or missing materials, and what they called retaliatory conduct. Several speakers urged the board to delay action until after the election; others urged the board to censure Curtis now.

Board members debated the limits of a censure for an elected official, the county's obligation to protect employees, and the timing of action immediately before ballots are mailed. Supervisor Long said the county must "fight for our employees" and described the whistleblower process used in part to generate the internal review. Several supervisors said the reports should be made public so the electorate can see the facts.

Because of the proximity of the primary, Chair Kallstrom made a subsequent motion that the board not impose censure until after the election and public review of the reports; that motion passed 3-2. County staff told the public the reports would be posted electronically and available in person, with paper copies subject to the county's copy fee.

The board went into closed session on a separate matter and reported after the break that there was no reportable action. The board adjourned following the closed session.

Next steps: the county will publish the redacted investigation files and the board will reconsider the censure question after the election and once the public has had time to review the released documents.