Shasta County supervisors voted Tuesday to delay a decision on whether to censure the county clerk, despite investigations that substantiated some complaints about his workplace conduct.
Two investigations into County Clerk Clint Curtis, which began shortly after the board appointed Curtis last year, found evidence of threats of physical violence, campaigning while on the job and retaliation against an employee. The board postponed action until after the June primary election, citing concerns about influencing the outcome.
County staff recommended censuring Curtis, which is the strongest action the Board of Supervisors can take against an elected official.
Curtis denied the allegations, claiming elections office staff are intentionally sabotaging him because they support his opponent in the primary election, former Assistant County Clerk Joanna Francescut.
“Now they’re in a full, 'we’re not going to cooperate,' mode," he said. "Slowing everything down, refusing to train the new people.”
According to the county support services director, Curtis has not formally written up any of his staff for this alleged insubordination.
At least 42 people spoke during the public comment, including Francescut.
"All employees deserve to work in a safe environment," she said. "The employees in the office, whether longtime or new, they are members of our community."
Other speakers, including some new staff at the elections office, said they did not believe Curtis was creating a poor work environment. They claimed that longtime staff members were mistreating new workers, some of whom had been involved in the local election integrity movement.
"By the time the November election arrived, I experienced overwhelming frustration with the office, especially when I had to ask important questions," said Marjorie Andrews, a part-time elections worker. "I have observed what appears to be stonewalling of any procedures and processes Mr. Curtis has tried to achieve."
Three county supervisors voted to delay a censure vote until after the June primary election, saying they did not want to influence the outcome.
Supervisors Matt Plummer and Allen Long opposed the delay and instead wanted to censure Curtis immediately.
“There have been ongoing challenges related to this behavior that, despite efforts to address them, don't seem to be improving," said Plummer.
Supervisors formally condemned Curtis last October for excluding a member of the press.
At that time, the board said it would censure Curtis if there were more issues. Board Chair Chris Kelstrom pushed to delay the censure until after the election but said Curtis is not off the hook.
"If even 10% of those allegations are true, you deserve a censure," he said.
Kelstrom said he, Supervisor Kevin Crye, the county counsel and the county CEO have had multiple conversations with Curtis about his workplace behavior, telling him to stop making certain comments.
During Tuesday's meeting, Curtis said he would not follow recommendations from Shasta County's human resources department to distance himself from the elections department before the election or to bring HR staff when he needed to be there.
"I can't leave that place with the people that are there and expect that the election be held correctly," he said. "They're trying to sabotage it."
Curtis asked county supervisors to transfer the staff he described as insubordinate to other county departments, but county counsel said the request was not on the meeting agenda and could not be considered.
The board also voted to publicly release the two investigations, but the documents have not yet been made available.
