Censure of Shasta County Clerk and Registrar of Voter Clint Curtis is back on the table, but will only happen once the election process has fully settled.
At a June 23 meeting, the county Board of Supervisors voted to bring back for discussion the potential censure of Curtis for substantiated findings of workplace misconduct, but with the stipulation that it occurs once the June 2 primary election is certified on July 2.
Supervisor Allen Long initiated the process to revisit the topic.
“I think that the time has come back to complete that discussion as we promised our public,” said Long.
At an April 28 special meeting, the board voted to delay its decision on potentially censuring Curtis until after the June 2 election.
Long, on June 23, initially hoped to have the discussion at the next scheduled board meeting, but Supervisor and Board Chair Chris Kelstrom offered a different path forward.
“I want the election over, certified, before we really even have that discussion,” said Kelstrom.
Long conceded, and amended his motion for the discussion to occur after certification.
The board ultimately voted 4-1 to bring the potential censure back for discussion, with Supervisor Kevin Crye casting the only dissenting vote.
“It’s a waste of time,” Crye said during the meeting.
When asked his response to the board’s recent decision, Curtis said the following:
“They might want to wait until the lawsuit against Oppenheimer (Investigations Group) has concluded. We will be filing that shortly,” said Curtis.
Oppenheimer Investigations Group was a third party hired by the county to investigate allegations of misconduct against Curtis.
Curtis did not respond to a question asking him to elaborate before deadline on June 24.
Curtis also confirmed the elections office is on schedule to certify the election on July 2.
Supervisor Matt Plummer, who disapproved of the board’s original decision to delay the censure discussion until after the election, told the newspaper on June 24 that the move to delay until after the election is certified is “inconsistent” with what the board’s rationale was to postpone their vote on the matter.
Kelstrom, Crye and Harmon initially voted to delay a potential censure so as not to influence the results of the June 2 election, which Curtis was a candidate in.
Plummer said he ultimately voted for Long’s motion because it was an opportunity to bring the discussion back.
Crye could not be reached for comment before deadline on June 24.
The matter was initially brought before the board at the April 28 special meeting, in which Social Services Director Monica Fugitt recommended the panel censure Curtis for substantiated findings of workplace misconduct.
Fugitt’s recommendation was based on the findings of two independent reports, one by the county and one by Oppenheimer Investigations Group, which found substantiated evidence supporting various allegations made against Curtis, including that he threatened to have an employee pulled out their office by their hair, more than likely made appearance-based comments toward female employees, and made statements that he would slap or punch and throat punch staff.
At that meeting, Kelstrom, Plummer and Long expressed frustration with, and disapproval of, Curtis’ actions.
Kelstrom said to Curtis at the meeting “if even 10% of those allegations are true, you deserve a censure.”
Plummer and Long also emphasized the responsibility of the board to protect their elections office employees from what appeared to be abusive behavior by Curtis.
Crye, however, was more skeptical about the severity of the report, highlighting that the individual who testified that Curtis threatened to have them pulled out of the office by their hair, had also told the investigators, according to Crye, to “let it go.”
Crye clarified he doesn’t believe Curtis’ comment was “OK” and told him to “knock it off,” but said that, if the employee said to “let it go,” there’s no reason for the county to take action.
Plummer rebutted Crye’s statement, mentioning the report said the individual was “shaking” at the time she told investigators to “let it go” and reminding the board that victims of abuse often are not “interested in coming forward.”
“We cannot use that as a justification for not thinking this was a serious action,” said Plummer.
Long concurred, and drew on his law enforcement experience to say “people don’t come forward because they are intimidated” and “fear retaliation.”
Harmon said he felt there was “not enough evidence” to censure Curtis.
Curtis has since denied the validity of all allegations made against him in the two reports.
Drew Askeland covers Redding and Shasta County government issues, as well as anything else that needs reporting for the Record Searchlight and USA Today Network. Reach him at drew.askeland@redding.com or (530) 225-8247. Please subscribe today to support our newsroom’s commitment to public service journalism.
This article originally appeared on Redding Record Searchlight: Censure vote of Shasta County elections clerk rears its head
Reporting by Drew Askeland, Redding Record Searchlight / Redding Record Searchlight
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
By Drew Askeland, Redding Record Searchlight | USA TODAY Network
