A third-party investigation on Shasta County Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis found the elections official’s conduct that included inappropriate, demeaning and threatening comments contributed to an unprofessional workplace environment.
Shasta County Deputy CEO Stewart Buettell released the Oppenheimer Investigations Group report late last week after the Board of Supervisors unanimously voted at a special meeting Tuesday, April 28, to make the 51-page report available to the public.
Supervisors held the special meeting to consider censuring Curtis for his conduct. But a divided board voted 3-2 to delay a decision until after the June 2 primary because it did not want to influence the upcoming election, a move that received pushback from the community.
A day after the meeting, One SAFE Place, a local shelter for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, released a statement noting that Shasta County is one of the largest employers in the region, and “how major employers respond to threats of violence in the workplace matters. … It sets a tone for every employee watching, and for every person in our community who is already wondering whether it is safe to speak. One SAFE Place sees the consequences of that tone every day.”
While the report found the totality of Curtis’ conduct in the office unprofessional by county personnel standards, it also said the evidence did not sustain that Curtis was solely responsible “for the broader workplace” tension in the Shasta County Elections Department since he took over in May 2025.
Curtis also told the investigator that he has a hearing impairment and the report took that into consideration.
“Additionally, Curtis’s hearing impairment, observed during the investigative interview, may haveaffected conversational tone and interpersonal dynamics. However, this factor does not account for independently corroborated remarks or supervisory decisions that carried workplace impact,” the report said.
The report also states that the findings are not intended to “equate to a finding that applicable laws were violated.”
The investigator who prepared the report interviewed several witnesses over the course of several months, starting in late August 2025 and ending in late January 2026. The county redacted the document released to the public to protect the identities of employees and others. It also had 119 pages of attachments that included emails, phone text messages, and notes from meetings between county administrators and union representatives.
Here are six highlights from the investigative report.
Report supports allegation of Curtis using ‘violent imagery’
There was an allegation that on election night last November Curtis commented in front of a group of people that he was going to have to “spank” an employee for not following office protocol.
Also, the day after the Nov. 4 election, it was alleged that Curtis used exaggerated or violent imagery that included throwing disgruntled voters “into the baler.”
Curtis denied making the remarks, telling the investigator that the allegations did not make any sense, and that he does not trust his staff enough to joke with them.
But “based on the evidence, including consistent witness accounts and contemporaneous reporting, it is more likely than not that Curtis made the ‘spanking’ remark … and used exaggerated violent imagery in the workplace,” the report said.
Witnesses interviewed described Curtis as having “an odd sense of humor” and said Curtis frequently made remarks referencing violence in a joking manner. For example, during a building tour, when someone expressed discomfort about homeless individuals, “Curtis responded by asking, ‘Would you like me to go kill them? Would that make you more comfortable?’”
A public observer, a day after the Nov. 4 election, said Curtis wanted to know which employee was doing the poorest job, adding “Because I’ll execute them.”
Another witness characterized Curtis’ humor as “unusual rather than malicious.”
A ‘monkey could do’ it
It was reported that Curtis related election work as something a “monkey could do.”
Other witnesses interviewed said that Curtis characterized election work as “easy” or not requiring “book smarts.” And it was recounted that Curtis told employees they needed to get letters from their union — which he referred as their “mommies.” Curtis acknowledged that he referred to union representatives as employees’ “mommies.”
But Curtis denied saying the word “monkey,” though he told the investigator that administering an election is not complex “because machines tabulate ballots and procedures are straightforward.”
For his part, Curtis told the investigator that he describes work as manageable to help reduce the stress, not to belittle staff.
“Based on the evidence, including consistent witness accounts, contemporaneous reporting, and Curtis’ partial acknowledgement, it is more likely than not that Curtis made the “monkey” remark or language substantially similar in meaning and referred to union representatives as employees’ ‘mommies,’ “ the report said.
The investigation said statements minimizing the intelligence required for work “or infantilizing employees reasonably fall within conduct that a reasonable person could find offensive or humiliating, particularly when made by a department head.”
Working hard with his shirt off
Last fall, a video of a shirtless Curtis and another person working inside the elections office in downtown Redding went viral in the community after it was posted on social media.
Curtis, after the video started circulating, remarked that it was proof he was a “hard worker,” and “the only hard worker,” the report said.
When someone told Curtis that there are others who also work hard, Curtis said, “Well, you’re not a hard worker. I’ve never seen you work without your shirt on,” a witness told investigators, describing the remark as “inappropriate” and “shocking.”
Curtis denied saying that and did not recall talking about the shirtless video with staff, though he confirmed the existence of the video.
The report said because there were no other direct witnesses to the alleged comment, the finding “turns on a credibility assessment.”
“Based on the totality of the evidence and the relative credibility of the parties, it is more likely than not that the comment occurred as described,” the report said.
Appearance-based comments to female employees?
Witnesses interviewed said that Curtis numerous times referred to female employees as “pretty” or “dear” and that the comments eventually stopped. There was also a report that Curtis, while talking about measuring office space, said “You probably don’t know how to use a tape measure because you’re a female.”
Curtis in the report said that he did not refer to female employees as “pretty” or “dear,” noting “I barely say that to my wife … I’m not chummy.” He also denied the suggestion that he treats his employees different based on gender.
But the investigation said that based on consistent witness accounts, Curtis more than likely made appearance-based comments toward female employees.
The investigative report noted that not all employees found the remarks offensive, adding that “comments made by a department head toward subordinate staff can reasonably be viewed as diminishing and fall within conduct that a reasonable person would consider ‘offensive’ or ‘humiliating’ under the County’s Personnel Rules,” the report stated.
Curtis did not treat female employees differently than men
While the evidence supported that Curtis made certain inappropriate comments, some of which referenced gender, the issue was whether he administered workplace authority differently based on gender.
“None of the witnesses presented evidence that female employees were denied pay, promotions, conference attendance, or assignments because of their gender.
“The evidence further reflects that Curtis engaged in direct conflict with male employees and imposed corrective measures unrelated to gender,” the report said.
Not enough evidence to back using county time to campaign
The report found that Curtis engaged in at least one campaign-related phone call during works hours and likely a few more.
But the investigation concluded that there was not sufficient evidence that Curtis used county equipment, facilities or staff time to campaign. Nor did his statements about former county Assistant Registrar of Voters Joanna Francescut constitute campaign activity that involved the misuse of county resources.
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: Shasta elections official’s conduct unprofessional, report says
Reporting by David Benda, Redding Record Searchlight / Redding Record Searchlight
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
