Shasta County Clerk and Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis was censured by the Shasta County Board of Supervisors at a raucous meeting on Tuesday Aug. 11.
Finally fulfilling the recommendation made by Support Services Director Monica Fugitt in April, the board voted to censure Curtis in response to investigations that found substantiated evidence of his managerial misconduct. The vote represented an unusual breaking of the board’s typical voting lines, with Supervisor Chris Kelstrom voting alongside Supervisors Matt Plummer and Allen Long for censure. Curtis’ supporters and detractors showed out in droves at the meeting, loudly applauding speakers that supported their views on Curtis, and jeering at those who opposed them.
Fugitt’s initial recommendation was based on the findings of two independent reports, one by the county and one by Oppenheimer Investigations Group. Both 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.
The final vote was 3-1 in favor of censure, with Supervisor Corkey Harmon casting the only dissenting vote. Supervisor Kevin Crye was not present at the meeting due to health reasons.
Curtis reacts to being censured by the board
Curtis said he was surprised that Kelstrom voted to censure him in an address to the media after the meeting.
“I was a little surprised with Kelstrom. Corkey seems to be the smartest guy on the board, but the other two (Plummer and Long) have always created a hostile work environment so we’ll work on that with the litigation,” said Curtis.
Curtis said he’s planning to file numerous lawsuits, including suits against Fugitt and Oppenheimer Investigations Group for alleged biases in their investigations, as well as a federal whistleblower suit in connection to the November 2024 general election and two “hostile work environment” lawsuits.
Curtis said he wasn’t sure if he thought the board’s vote would have gone differently had Crye been at the meeting, but said he knew Crye wouldn’t have voted for censure because he’s “a good guy.”
Curtis supporters protested the allegations of misconduct
At the meeting, 11 members of the public spoke in favor of censure and 24 spoke in opposition. Those who opposed the censure echoed claims made by Curtis that the investigations only took into account the views of a contingent of elections office employees seeking to sabotage Curtis, and that they ignored the perspectives of employees that support Curtis and were present when, according to the investigation, the acts of mismanagement occurred.
Plummer attempted to dismantle this argument later in the meeting, noting that four witnesses interviewed across the two investigations seemed to have neutral if not supportive views of Curtis, some describing him as being “approachable,” “always in a good mood,” and “kind.”
Quoting a section from the Oppenheimer investigative report, Plummer recalled that “no evidence established coordinated efforts to manufacture claims” about Curtis, despite the fact that Oppenheimer made the decision to give “greater weight” to the testimony of “those who otherwise described positive working relationships with Curtis or who expressed reluctance in reporting concerns …”
Why the supervisors voted to censure Curtis
Regarding why he supports censuring Curtis, Plummer said the following:
“This is about determining, whether, when a department head … has substantiated allegations of violating personnel codes — the codes that guide how we as a county intend to interact with our employees — what do we do about it? … and its not just about Clint Curtis, it’s about everyone who will come after us and what precedent we will set for every future leader that comes and works at this county or is appointed to this county or is elected to this county,” said Plummer.
At the meeting, Long echoed Plummer’s sentiment.
“We have to protect our employees, those are the backbone of our workforce including Mr. Curtis … we have policy and conduct and I believe that there has been a violation of that on an ongoing repeated basis,” said Long.
Kelstrom said he supported censure because he believes it’s unbecoming of someone in a leadership position to say the things that Curtis said.
“I don’t think anybody was actually afraid of being pulled out of their office by their hair … I don’t think anybody actually (felt) threatened that they were going to be throat punched, but you just don’t say those things,” said Kelstrom.
But Harmon broke from the rest of the board and said he felt he didn’t have enough evidence to censure Curtis, drawing groans from some in the crowd.
“If I was on a jury and I was responsible for convicting somebody to send them off to prison or whatever I don’t have enough evidence, I’m not going to support it … I have a lot of respect for my gut feelings and this is just not right. Am I respectful of our employees? Absolutely, and I don’t like the accusations that if you’re not voting for censure-ship then you’re not supporting our employees. That is absolutely not true,” said Harmon.
Harmon expressed concern that more employees were not interviewed in the two investigation, to which Long, a former lieutenant at the Redding Police Department, responded by explaining that in his experience, only “key material witnesses” are contacted during an investigation, not every witness.
Harmon also said he felt conflicted about censuring Curtis because someone he trusts, who he said was present when accusations were made alleging that Curtis had threatened to have an employee pulled out of the office by their hair, told him that it “did not happen.”
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: Shasta elections chief censured over misconduct allegations
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
