Plumas County Human Resources Director Nancy Louise Selvage is facing a jury trial on three felony counts stemming from her alleged activity as a department head on and following May 17, 2022.
Visiting Judge Raymond Giordano found sufficient evidence during an April 9 preliminary hearing to hold Selvage to answer to all three charges and schedule an arraignment in Plumas County Superior Court.
The five-hour hearing focused on Selvage’s involvement in pay raises awarded to appointed county department heads on May 24, 2022. The largest was a 43% increase for Selvage herself. Her annual salary jumped from $97,634.88 to $137,063.88.
California law prohibits “serving two masters.”
Brian Hagen, Plumas County assistant district attorney
The crux of the case, said Assistant District Attorney Brian Hagen who presented it April 9, is that in recommending across-the-board pay raises for department heads, Selvage was also advocating for herself. California law prohibits “serving two masters,” he said.
The criminal complaint, filed November 16, 2023, by Plumas County District Attorney David Hollister, charges that negotiating and recommending the pay increases was a conflict of interest for Selvage because she had a personal financial interest in the contract. It also charges Selvage with obtaining money under false pretenses by preparing false evidence for the Plumas County Board of Supervisors in her capacity as a county department head.
Robert Burns, Selvage’s defense attorney, said Selvage acted exactly as the Plumas supervisors asked her to. “When this case is done, it’s going to look a lot different than what was presented at the preliminary hearing,” he said.
Agenda item 3-C-3
All three of the charges originate from a closed session held May 17, 2022 by the county supervisors. Selvage attended the meeting, providing a table of the salary increases she recommended. She also gave the supervisors a statement of the financial impact the raises would have on the county. The supervisors agreed to schedule the pay increases for action in open session at their next meeting.
Hagen began his presentation with Heidi H. White, his first witness. White served as clerk to the board of supervisors from March 2021 through July 2023. She was responsible for preparing agendas for the supervisors’ meetings.
After the supervisors agreed May 17, 2022, to post the salary raise for action, White began preparing it for the May 24, 2022 agenda. That typically involves gathering supplemental documents, which are then made available to the supervisors and the public. White did not receive any backup information from Selvage by the 72-hour deadline required by the Brown Act, California’s open meeting law. White nevertheless placed the pay raise issue on the agenda as item 3-C-3.
On the morning of May 24, 2022, shortly before the supervisors’ meeting was to begin, White said Selvage handed her a packet of information supplemental to the pay raise. It was what White had hoped to include in the agenda packet, she told Hagen. Because Selvage delivered it at such a late date, neither the supervisors nor the public had had an opportunity to review information documenting her recommended pay raises. After the May 17, 2022 meeting, Selvage had removed all of the information she presented to the supervisors that day, White said.
In her April 9 testimony, White said she hesitated after receiving Selvage’s packet of material. The May 24, 2022 board meeting was to begin shortly. She looked toward then County Counsel Gretchen Stuhr, asking “nonverbally” if she should accept the material for the supervisors. “The county counsel said yes, they are expecting it,” White testified.
Under questioning by Hagen, White said the newly presented documents did not include the fiscal impacts of the raises to Plumas County, which totaled $482,969.93. They did, however, include a salary comparison with comparable counties, a standard procedure Plumas County officials use to gauge pay scales. Selvage told the supervisors she used the standard 10 comparable counties in the chart, White said. In her cover letter to the supervisors, Selvage stated that 10 counties were included for salary comparison, according to White’s testimony.
Eight or 10 comparison counties?
In fact, said Hagen, the salary comparison included only eight of the 10 counties. It dropped Lassen and Del Norte counties, which paid the lowest rates for human resource directors. That would have lowered the average annual salary across the counties from the $105,720 Selvage presented to the supervisors to $99,508. Omitting that information in effect bolstered Selvage’s recommendation for raising her wages, Hagen said.
All five supervisors believed the average salaries Selvage provided were for 10 counties, not eight, said Hagen, who interviewed them individually as part of his investigation. Former Plumas County Supervisor Sherry Thrall, Hagen’s second witness, said that information should have been made clear to the supervisors. “I would like to have had it before voting,” said Thrall, who represented the Chester area for four terms.
Hagen introduced a video of the Plumas supervisors’ discussion of the proposed salary increases before they approved it unanimously on a motion from Supervisor Greg Hagwood. The discussion lasted less than 10 minutes.
“All five supervisors got the materials but they didn’t read them before they voted on the issue.”
Robert Burns, defense attorney
In his preliminary hearing defense of Selvage, Burns emphasized the role of the board of supervisors in approving the pay raise. Selvage made the recommendation they requested, he said. She provided backup information. “She did precisely as told. All five supervisors got the materials but they didn’t read them before they voted on the issue. Now Ms. Selvage is being prosecuted,” Burns said.
Under questioning from Burns, Thrall agreed that Selvage had met the standards of all the evaluations of her as a county employee. She added that it was “not a dishonest statement” for Selvage to say the cost of the salary increases would be absorbed in departmental budgets.
“I had confidence in the human resources director. “
Sherry Thrall, former Plumas County supervisor
Thrall testified that she relied on the human resources director to provide accurate information to the board. “I have a reputation for driving people crazy with questions,” she said, “but I had confidence in the human resources director. … I trusted <Selvage> and the information she presented.”
What Thrall received prior to voting for pay raises was a chart with pay grades and step increases. When Hagen asked if she was aware of how much each individual department head would be earning, she said, “No.” When she later learned that Selvage received a 43% pay raise – earning an additional $51,436 between May 2022 and Nov. 2023 – Thrall said, “How is this possible?”
She also testified that she was given no information to indicate the impact of the raises on the county’s general fund. Selvage told the supervisors the $482,969.93 cost of the pay increases would be absorbed in individual departments’ budgets, she said. In fact, only some departments had the funds, said Hagen.
When pressed by Burns, Thrall said, “I regret that I did not take more time to read and evaluate and consider.”
In addition to the information Selvage did and did not provide, the pay-raise decision was complicated by the absence of a county administrator and auditor. Both positions were vacant in May 2022. The auditor is one of the county officials who has to sign off on all financial decisions affecting the budget. The position serves as “budget policeman,” Thrall said.
Were documents backdated?
Hagen’s final witness in the preliminary hearing was Jessica Beatley, an investigator for the district attorney’s office with 20 years of experience. She said it was a 2022-2023 Plumas County Civil Grand Jury report that triggered her investigation. The report focused on a general “lack of transparency” by the board of supervisors, and specifically on the discrepancy between an eight- and 10-county comparison of salaries on May 24, 2022.
Beatley provided key information about the last-minute packet of information Selvage provided to the supervisors just before their May 24, 2022 meeting. She produced evidence from the Plumas County Information Technology Department that the documents Selvage provided the supervisors had been backdated. Although they were carried the date of May 17, 2022, when she circulated them in the supervisors’ closed session, they were actually written May 20, 2022 or later – well past the date they were required to be provided to the public, Beatley stated.
After five hours of testimony, Judge Giordano needed only a few minutes to rule that Hagen had provided enough evidence to hold Selvage to stand trial on all three felony charges. Her next court date is scheduled for June 14 at 9 a.m. in Plumas County Superior Court.
Editor’s note: This story was changed April 12 to correct the name of the Plumas County counsel in 2022. We apologize for the error.
