A day after Shasta County Registrar of Voters Clints Curtis received notice that an outside investigation was closing having found that his conduct toward his staff was at time unprofessional and abusive, Curtis allegedly retaliated against an employee for participating in that investigation.
Support Services Director Monica Fugitt met with Curtis on March 26 to give him the notice.
“In this meeting, I warned Curtis against assuming any individuals named in the notice brought forward the allegations that were investigated and reminded him he is not to retaliate against staff he may become aware is involved in the investigation,” Fugitt wrote in an internal report she did on Curtis’ conduct.
Shasta County Deputy CEO Stewart Buettell released Fugitt’s report and its findings on Monday, May 18 after the Board of Supervisors unanimously voted at a special meeting on April 28 to make the report available to the public. The county redacted the document to protect the identities of employees and others.
The 38-page report by Fugitt is the first time the public is provided with the details of the allegations against Curtis.
Fugitt’s investigation happened in April while the outside investigation by Oppenheimer Investigations Group was launched last August and wrapped up in March. Fugitt was responsible for delivering the results of the Oppenheimer investigation to Curtis.
Her report was released three weeks after the county released the Oppenheimer report, which supervisors also voted to make public.
Based on a verbal report her office received on April 3 and a whistleblower’s report the county auditor-controller’s office received on April 7, Fugitt investigated four allegations:
In all four instances, Fugitt found a preponderance of evidence that the alleged conduct occurred.
In her report, Fugitt took witness accounts on Curtis’ behavior. She also interviewed Curtis, who has called his accusers disgruntled employees who are trying to sabotage his efforts to bring change to the way elections are run in the county. He has also said the allegations were false and has threatened to sue the alleged victims for defamation.
Fugitt’s investigation found Curtis threatened to “have an employee pulled out their office by their hair” by the human resources department” on March 27, a day after Curtis received the closure notice from the Oppenheimer investigation.
Curtis completed harassment training in December and after the Oppenheimer investigation concluded, Curtis received one-on-one supervisory training on April 28, Fugitt said in her report.
Fugitt said her investigation took into account Curtis’ comments that some of the staff was trying to sabotage his efforts.
“Regardless of whether there is or is not valid basis for some of Curtis’ frustrations, it does not excuse his behavior, and rather than address it in an appropriate manner through supervision and training, he has repeatedly responded to staff in abusive manner that a reasonable person would find offensive,” Fugitt wrote.
There was a significant number of witness accounts, Fugitt added, that demonstrated his “behaviors are pervasive in the workplace.”
Fugitt recommended censoring Curtis for his behavior. But supervisors at the April 28 special meeting voted 3-2 to delay a decision on censure until after the election.
Supervisors Kevin Crye, Chris Kelstrom and Corkey Harmon voted to delay.
Supervisors Allen Long and Matt Plummer wanted to censure Curtis and voted against delaying. Both Long and Plummer pointed out that Curtis’ behavior had not been getting better.
“The timing of this is obviously unfortunate but it’s also, it’s been (progressing) over a period of a year, building and building and there’s been multiple efforts to stop this,” Plummer said at the April 28 meeting.
Also at the special meeting, Kelstrom, who voted to hire Curtis in May 2025, voiced his frustrations with the county’s top election official.
“I mean, we have had multiple, multiple discussions. Myself, Supervisor Crye. We’ve talked multiple times until it seems like we’re blue in the face. And I know county counsel’s had hundreds of conversations with you, and Dave Rickert, CEO Rickert, has had hundreds of conversations with you,” Kelstrom said.
“But please, stop the jokes, have somebody, a witness with you in the room and, you know, do some of the things we’ve talked about multiple, multiple times,” he added.
The fallout from the two separate investigations has included personnel and county administrative staff members being assigned to the county clerk and registrar of voters offices on Market Street and Court Street.
“Should Mr. Curtis’ behaviors continue it may be necessary for the County to pursue a workplace restraining order to protect employees from continued harassment,” Fugitt wrote in her report.
David Benda covers business, development and anything else that comes up for the USA TODAY Network in Redding. He also writes the weekly “Buzz on the Street” column. He’s part of a team of dedicated reporters that investigate wrongdoing, cover breaking news and tell other stories about your community. Reach him on Twitter @DavidBenda_RS or by phone at 1-530-338-8323. To support and sustain this work, please subscribe today.
This article originally appeared on Redding Record Searchlight: Report sheds new light on Shasta elections chief’s alleged misconduct
Reporting by David Benda, Redding Record Searchlight / Redding Record Searchlight
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
