An ongoing dispute between the Plumas County Board of Supervisors and the County Treasurer/Tax Collector has led to some significant revelations. On September 6 of last year, Plumas County Treasurer/Tax Collector Julie White, an elected official, received a memo from Nancy Selvage, the county’s Human Resources Director. The memo, issued on behalf of the County Board of Supervisors, outlined a list of alleged performance deficiencies against White. White was surprised for two main reasons. First, as an elected official, she isn’t subject to the same employment policies and procedures as county staff members and is generally afforded confidentiality protections. Second, she questioned how the Board of Supervisors could have directed HR Director Selvage, who is now under indictment for an unrelated issue, to draft this memo without any public discussion, potentially in violation of California’s Brown Act. The Brown Act does not permit discussions of elected officials in Closed Sessions.
Despite these concerns, County officials—including Board of Supervisors members, CAO Debra Lucero, and the County Counsel’s office—have asserted that no Brown Act violations occurred and that all actions were lawful and appropriate. However, findings from a recent public records request, submitted under the California Public Records Act (CPRA), suggest otherwise.
Initially, the County justified the HR memo by claiming that the Feather River Tourism Association (FRTA) had expressed dissatisfaction with alleged delays in Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) payments from the Tax Collector’s office. This dissatisfaction, they argued, constituted a “significant exposure to litigation,” warranting discussion in Closed Session in August 2023. Despite requests for evidence of actual litigation risk from attorney Chris Bakes, of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, representing White, the County provided no supporting documentation, prompting Bakes’ law firm to file a public records request. “The results were mind-boggling,” said Bakes.
Both FRTA and Plumas County received the public records request. FRTA complied, promptly providing copies of relevant emails. Plumas County, however, delayed. Among the uncovered records was an email exchange revealing that CAO Lucero had actively requested FRTA provide a letter expressing their consideration of legal action against the Tax Collector’s office. This letter, dated September 28, 2023, appears to have been used to justify a Special Meeting held the following day, where a Closed Session item regarding potential litigation was on the agenda. Notably, this agenda was posted two days before FRTA’s letter was even received, suggesting the County may have orchestrated a cover-up