The criminal case of former Plumas County Human Resources Director Nancy Selvage may have ended March 25 with her conviction, but its lessons for the county board of supervisors are fundamental and should be ongoing, said District Attorney David Hollister.
In a 10-minute factual summary of the case at the supervisor’s April 1 meeting, Hollister outlined numerous board failures that tested the local system of justice. He also cited Brown Act violations and financial losses resulting from Selvage’s activities.
In the end, Hollister said, “Plumas County withstood this test and clearly stated we are a county where fairness and the rule of law prevails.”
Conviction on criminal conflict of interest
Selvage, 70, was convicted March 25 of obtaining money by false pretenses, a conflict of interest felony. She was charged Nov. 16, 2023 with three criminal counts related to her alleged activity as a county department head on and following May 17, 2022. The charges included obtaining money by false pretenses and preparing false evidence for the board of supervisors in her capacity as a county department head.
Selvage pleaded to the single count of recommending salary increases for appointed county department heads that included a 43% increase for herself. At her sentencing, scheduled for May 16 in Plumas County Superior Court, Selvage will be ordered to repay Plumas County $103,679.63.
DA cites board of supervisors “failures”
The board of supervisors was not a part of the criminal case. In his factual summary, however, Hollister pointed out its implications for this and future boards. He criticized the supervisors in office in 2022 (three of whom remain on the board today) for failing to scrutinize the documents Selvage presented to them. For example, she told them the wage increases she recommended were based on rates in 10 comparable counties. In fact, she only included eight counties in her comparison. Had she used all 10, Hollister said, Selvage’s annual wage would have increased by a mere $168. Instead, it increased from $97,156.80 to $132,724.80.
Hollister also cited a table Selvage presented to the supervisors in closed session May 17, 2022. It showed the salary of each department head position and the proposed salary after the raises. It noted an overall fiscal impact on the county budget of $482,969.93. A week later, during the board’s open session discussion, the amount of the raises and the fiscal impact on the county were “notably absent on actual board resolution,” Hollister said.
That was one of several instances he cited when the supervisors failed to question the information they were given. Lacking the full table provided in closed session also deprived the public of data that would have allowed understanding of how public money was being spent. Hollister called that a violation of the Brown Act, which is designed to guarantee full access to all information involving government decisions.
“Conduct by the former HR director aside, this was a failing in our local government. This never should have happened,” said Hollister.
Shortly after the supervisors’ May 24, 2022 approval of raises for appointed department heads, the Plumas County Sheriff’s Association raised questions about the process, and filed a public records act request, Hollister said. It got no response from the supervisors. It was in September 2022, four months later, when the board’s May 24, 2022 meeting backup material “was finally uploaded to the county’s website,” he said. That was when the public first saw documentation of the raises, said Hollister. In July 2023, a Plumas County civil grand jury criticized the supervisors over the raises. The board responded by denying any wrongdoing.
Vacancies have consequences
The events in the Selvage case occurred around the time when Plumas County had lost 19 of its then 26 department heads. Two of those vacant roles were the county auditor and administrative official. Had those positions been filled, “these officers would likely have intervened,” Hollister said.
Instead, “with very little comment or discussion, the board voted and adopted the resolution,” Hollister said.
Financial losses
On Nov. 17, 2023, the day Hollister filed charges against Selvage, he provided the supervisors and then-Chairman Greg Hagwood with an affidavit. It would allow them to put Selvage’s 43% raise in a trust until completion of the criminal case. If the case resulted in an acquittal, the money would be returned to Selvage with interest. If not, the county would keep the money. The board took no action. By the time of her conviction, Selvage had been paid $103,679.63 over her normal salary as a result of the board-approved 43% raise she recommended for herself.
“That money should have been put in a trust,” Hollister said. “It was, however, not, and the HR director was placed on administrative leave, which included collecting her 43% raise.”
The court will order that money repaid at Selvage’s sentencing, he said.
Learning opportunities
Hollister framed these shortcomings as opportunities to learn from the past with a goal of not repeating them in the future.
“The great news is the board is now in a position to correct past issues and set a sound and trustworthy path moving forward,” Hollister said.
The current board includes three supervisors who were in office at the time Selvage recommended the salary increases for appointed department heads. All five supervisors listened to Hollister’s summary without comment.
Later in the April 1 meeting, the supervisors unanimously adopted a resolution confirming that the base wages for all appointed department heads shall “continue in full force.” Deputy County Counsel Sara James said the Selvage case would have no effect on the increases in place since 2022. The resolution voids the county’s 2022 contract with Selvage based on her criminal conviction. It leaves in place the 43% wage increase approved May 24, 2022, James said.
Upon conviction March 25, Selvage was immediately removed from her county position. No action was required by the board of supervisors, James said. The conviction prohibits Selvage not only from her county job but also from ever holding any office in the state of California.