Nancy Selvage was set up and fraudulently convicted of a Section 1090 felony for simply doing her job. Two of the charges were dropped but Plumas County District Attorney David Hollister “prosecuted” Selvage in the court of public opinion, drafting unsubstantiated accounts in a widely distributed article published in the Plumas Sun, the Sierra Daily News, krcrtv.com, Actionnewsnow.com, Californiacountynews.org, and at the April 1, 2025 Plumas County Board of Supervisor’s meeting.
Here are the facts of Selvage’s case that she never got the opportunity to bring before the Court due to incompetent actions on the part of Interim County Counsel Josh Brechtel and abuse of power by the DA’s office.
The day of Selvage’s trial, March 25th 2025, Assistant DA, Brian Hagan, and Selvage’s attorney, Eric Acevedo, went into chambers with visiting Superior Court Judge, Karen Dixon (the fifth judge and third visiting Judge in the case), with no court reporter present. In that meeting, evidence critical to Selvage’s defense was removed by Motions to Quash the testimony of several witnesses - some of whom wanted to testify. One witness, (Greg Hagwood, former Plumas County Sheriff and former Plumas County Board of Supervisor chair), was in the court that day, waiting to speak. This denied Selvage the right to a fair trial and due process which is protected by the US Constitution.
Even if the prosecution were able to successfully quash (eliminate) testimony for witnesses who did not want to testify, witnesses who were willing to testify on Selvage’s behalf would have shown the Court and the public that the District Attorney’s case was based on false allegations, unsubstantiated information, misrepresentations, and outright lies. Furthermore, the DA preemptively quashed any testimony related to prosecutorial misconduct or discriminatory action on the part of his office.
In addition, the prosecution was able to quash the testimony of consenting witnesses (denying Selvage due process). Although not permitted by his job description or any other authority, Interim County Counsel Brechtel filed the inappropriate Motions to Quash in this criminal case. As Interim County Counsel, Brechtel’s role is to serve as the chief legal advisor on CIVIL matters for all County officers, agencies, departments and employees. It was a conflict of interest for Brechtel to represent members of the Board of Supervisors who were adverse to Selvage, a County employee (who he was supposed to represent). Furthermore, Brechtel had authority to represent the Board of Supervisors as a whole in civil matters, NOT individual supervisors and NOT in criminal matters. (https://www.plumascounty.us/DocumentCenter/View/29096/County-Counsel- 11-2020-NS).
Either due to a lack of familiarity with the case, bowing to the instructions of the DA, or failure to take detailed notes, Judge Dixon allowed Brechtel to prevail on his Motions to Quash thereby stopping critical defense witnesses from testifying. Brechtel wrongly claimed the defense failed to show that these witnesses could offer relevant testimony or that there were concerns about confidentiality that could not be overcome by standard court practices. This is simply NOT TRUE.
The case hinges on what transpired during closed sessions of the 5/17/22 and 5/24/22 Plumas County Board of Supervisor’s meetings and the evidence presented by these witnesses would make it clear that Selvage is not guilty of the crimes for which she is charged.
A 9/21/22 email from Heidi White (the star witness for the prosecution and clerk of the Board at that time) to the HR department makes it clear that the DA presented misinformation about documents presented at the
1
5/24/22 Board of Supervisors meeting related to salaries for the District Attorney and County Counsel ’s offices (items 3C1 and 3C2), and department head salaries (Item 3C3). Unbelievably, the DA surreptitiously alleged that documents were changed by the HR director, when the Heidi White email makes it clear that this did NOT happen. The email confirms that board agenda items 3C1 and 3C2 are the agenda items in question by the DA. The item was presented on 5/17/22 to the Board and the Board directed the HR Director to bring back the ordinance and resolution to the Board meeting of 5/24/22 for approval and that is what she did.
Unsubstantiated allegations were brought up during Heidi White’s deposition where she alleged that Selvage instructed the IT Director to delete required agenda items and back-up material from the Plumas County website. THIS IS ANOTHER FALSE ALLEGATION.
Interestingly, the back-up material for items 3C1, 3C2, and 3C3 (memos from Selvage to the Board dated 5/17/22 for discussion in the 5/24/22 closed session of the Board) are not available on the Plumas County website. Fortunately, a Google search for the Board agenda and backup materials for 5/24/22 was found on Google. What happened to these documents that should have been archived on the County’s website?
A reasonable person would ask, what happened to the Plumas County’s website agenda with the backup documentation and why is it not posted but can be found through a Google search? Did a county employee remove these documents for the DA’s criminal investigation? This is questionable and should be investigated.
It was the duty of Heidi White, Clerk of the Board, to set the agenda, attach backup documents for the agenda items, and clearly White did not complete this task; withholding information from the Board and the public. Per the Plumas County’s website for the Board agendas and minutes, White did not update minutes for the Board Meeting dated 5/24/22. Selvage provided the agenda documentation to White in a timely manner as instructed by the Board but it was never posted by White. If Selvage would have known it was not posted properly, the agenda item would have been held over to the next meeting.
The outcome of the closed session meetings on 5/17/22 and 5/24/24 are not in the minutes of any Board meeting. Greg Hagwood and Gretchen Stuhr (County Counsel at the time of this event) were present at both meetings. Both believe Selvage is innocent of the felony charges, and wanted to testify as to what actually transpired. Unfortunately, their testimony was inappropriately quashed resulting in a denial of due process for Selvage.
This evidence also makes it clear that the testimony of Kristina Rogers (Deputy Clerk of the Board) could refute the testimony of White if she were allowed to do so. This was essential for Selvage’s defense. Critical documents were in the possession of White prior to Selvage’s arrest. The Quash motion by Interim County Counsel Brechtel on behalf of his employee (Rogers) is not only a conflict of interest but detrimental to Selvage’s case and once again, a denial of due process. This brings into question why Brechtel did not want Rogers to testify.
In addition, Selvage cannot be guilty of a “self-dealing” Section 1090 charge for negotiating a pay schedule when this was part of her official duties per Plumas County Personnel Rules: 1.03 (Administration), Rule 5 (Classifications), Rule 6 (Salary Plan), and CalPERS Pay Schedules (CCR Section 570.5). In addition, California Government Code Section 54957.6 requires that the Board of Supervisors hold closed sessions with the designated representative (the HR Director) regarding salary schedules. The negotiation of Department Head pay schedules was not a violation of Section 1090. It was a transparent action for the HR department
2
head to recommend changes to pay schedules. The action was directed and unanimously approved by the Board of Supervisors following proper legal procedures.
The alleged Section 1090 violation is the essence of the case against Selvage and the plea she was forced to accept. Selvage was simply doing her job and the salary changes for Department Heads were part of numerous Board meetings beginning with a closed session discussion on 12/21/21.
To add insult to injury, the District Attorney continues to conflate the 1090 charge, which, if true, should stand on its own. He continues to state publicly and in news releases that Selvage provided “misleading documents” and that the Board was “Relying on Selvage’s recommendation as well as the false, inaccurate and misleading supporting documentation.”
Multiple press releases have focused on the fact that the salary comparison for HR Director presented to the Board included only eight of the 10 counties, when historically such a comparison looked at 10 counties. The comparison dropped Lassen and Del Norte counties, which the media reports allege paid the lowest rates for human resource directors. The problem with this analysis is the jobs in Lassen and Del Norte counties were not comparable to the Plumas County HR Director job. In addition, this topic was investigated by the Grand Jury with no finding of negligence, let alone criminal activity.
An oversight on the cover memo by not changing from “10” to “eight” when the table showing eight salaries was attached to the memo is NOT a felony. However, Assistant DA Hagen was quoted as saying all five supervisors believed the average salaries Selvage provided were for 10 counties, not eight. The published articles also fail to state that the department head salary adjustments were part of the Board of Supervisor’s closed session meetings beginning in December 2021.
Selvage has a legal right to present her case, was deprived of the ability to do so, and was forced to agree to a plea where she did not admit guilt and 2 of the 3 felony charges were dropped.
The Plumas County Court minute order from March 25th, 2025 states that pursuant to the plea, Selvage will be placed on 2 years’ supervised probation, pay restitution in the amount of $103.679.63, not own or possess firearms, ammo, or firearm parts, and is permanently disqualified from government office pursuant to GC S 1097, and must forfeit any CaIPERS benefits earned or accrued after May 24,2024.
THERE IS MORE
There have been multiple press releases by the DA’s office highlighting the fact that as HR Director Selvage received a 43% salary increase (NOT the highest of any department head at the time). The published information fails to include the fact that the HR Director base wage had not been updated in at least 22 years, while many department head positions had already received base wage increases in the prior 10 years due to vacancies and the need to increase base wage for recruitment purposes.
These DA press releases also fail to mention that District Attorney Hollister received a pay increase of approximately 67% from 2018 to present and is currently paid $224,432 per year ($107.90 per hour). This information is conveniently omitted. In fact, it could be argued that Hollister, receiving a raise during those same meetings, is a conflict of interest because of his involvement and the entire case should be withdrawn.
FURTHERMORE, although the DA lacks any authority over employee wages, Selvage was told by the DA’s office that they want to deduct the restitution portion of her plea from her final paycheck. This was not part of the plea agreed to on March 25th and when Selvage’s attorney, Acevedo, attempted to discuss this with
3
Assistant DA Hagen, Hagen refused to listen and hung up the phone. This could invalidate the March 25th plea deal which could also be withdrawn based on “good cause”. "Good cause" has been interpreted by courts to exist where the plea was entered as a result of "mistake, ignorance, fraud, or duress”.
Selvage’s March 25th plea was not truly voluntary, knowing, and intelligent and subsequent to March 25th, the DA’s office has attempted to change the terms of the plea giving Selvage grounds to withdraw her plea. Selvage’s lawyer was blindsided by what took place in chambers when Assistant DA Hagen, and Interim County Counsel Brechtel convinced Visiting Superior Court Judge Dixon to quash relevant evidence, critical to Selvage’s defense.
In addition to the above injustices and lack of due process, there have been three traveling judges in this case, Raymond Giordano, Leonard LaCasse, and Karen Dixon (who joined the case on 10/25/24). Plumas County Judge Hilde signed and approved Selvage’s felony arrest warrant even though she had a conflict of interest due to her prior relationship with Selvage. Judge Hilde later recused herself and Plumas County Judge Prouty sat in for administrative purposes only when a visiting judge was not available, but could not hear the matter due to a conflict of interest.
There are serious concerns due to sequential use of three different visiting judges in any case due to the potential for inconsistent rulings and increased likelihood for errors and misunderstandings of the record because each new judge must get up to speed on the history of the case and may not have done so.
Visiting Superior Court Judge Dixon, who was late for Court three times, stated one time when she was late that it was because she was “in the shower”. On 3/25/25, Judge Dixon also made a comment to nearly 200 prospective jurors, “I know most of you would rather have a root canal than be here.”
Plumas County needs to know that the outcome of Selvage’s case violates multiple rules and policies leaving Selvage with a lack of due process due to deeply entrenched relationships between Plumas County elected officials. This sort of injustice cannot be allowed to continue if we want Plumas County to be a place where people can thrive and expect justice. The people of Plumas County were not well served by this prosecution. In fact, it cost Plumas County taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars throughout this whole process due to replacing the HR Director, necessary software, lawyers fees, and more. Additionally, the emotional stress suffered by the entire Plumas County staff is immeasurable but pales, in comparison, to the impact on Selvage herself.
Here are the facts of Selvage’s case that she never got the opportunity to bring before the Court due to incompetent actions on the part of Interim County Counsel Josh Brechtel and abuse of power by the DA’s office.
The day of Selvage’s trial, March 25th 2025, Assistant DA, Brian Hagan, and Selvage’s attorney, Eric Acevedo, went into chambers with visiting Superior Court Judge, Karen Dixon (the fifth judge and third visiting Judge in the case), with no court reporter present. In that meeting, evidence critical to Selvage’s defense was removed by Motions to Quash the testimony of several witnesses - some of whom wanted to testify. One witness, (Greg Hagwood, former Plumas County Sheriff and former Plumas County Board of Supervisor chair), was in the court that day, waiting to speak. This denied Selvage the right to a fair trial and due process which is protected by the US Constitution.
Even if the prosecution were able to successfully quash (eliminate) testimony for witnesses who did not want to testify, witnesses who were willing to testify on Selvage’s behalf would have shown the Court and the public that the District Attorney’s case was based on false allegations, unsubstantiated information, misrepresentations, and outright lies. Furthermore, the DA preemptively quashed any testimony related to prosecutorial misconduct or discriminatory action on the part of his office.
In addition, the prosecution was able to quash the testimony of consenting witnesses (denying Selvage due process). Although not permitted by his job description or any other authority, Interim County Counsel Brechtel filed the inappropriate Motions to Quash in this criminal case. As Interim County Counsel, Brechtel’s role is to serve as the chief legal advisor on CIVIL matters for all County officers, agencies, departments and employees. It was a conflict of interest for Brechtel to represent members of the Board of Supervisors who were adverse to Selvage, a County employee (who he was supposed to represent). Furthermore, Brechtel had authority to represent the Board of Supervisors as a whole in civil matters, NOT individual supervisors and NOT in criminal matters. (https://www.plumascounty.us/DocumentCenter/View/29096/County-Counsel- 11-2020-NS).
Either due to a lack of familiarity with the case, bowing to the instructions of the DA, or failure to take detailed notes, Judge Dixon allowed Brechtel to prevail on his Motions to Quash thereby stopping critical defense witnesses from testifying. Brechtel wrongly claimed the defense failed to show that these witnesses could offer relevant testimony or that there were concerns about confidentiality that could not be overcome by standard court practices. This is simply NOT TRUE.
The case hinges on what transpired during closed sessions of the 5/17/22 and 5/24/22 Plumas County Board of Supervisor’s meetings and the evidence presented by these witnesses would make it clear that Selvage is not guilty of the crimes for which she is charged.
A 9/21/22 email from Heidi White (the star witness for the prosecution and clerk of the Board at that time) to the HR department makes it clear that the DA presented misinformation about documents presented at the
1
5/24/22 Board of Supervisors meeting related to salaries for the District Attorney and County Counsel ’s offices (items 3C1 and 3C2), and department head salaries (Item 3C3). Unbelievably, the DA surreptitiously alleged that documents were changed by the HR director, when the Heidi White email makes it clear that this did NOT happen. The email confirms that board agenda items 3C1 and 3C2 are the agenda items in question by the DA. The item was presented on 5/17/22 to the Board and the Board directed the HR Director to bring back the ordinance and resolution to the Board meeting of 5/24/22 for approval and that is what she did.
Unsubstantiated allegations were brought up during Heidi White’s deposition where she alleged that Selvage instructed the IT Director to delete required agenda items and back-up material from the Plumas County website. THIS IS ANOTHER FALSE ALLEGATION.
Interestingly, the back-up material for items 3C1, 3C2, and 3C3 (memos from Selvage to the Board dated 5/17/22 for discussion in the 5/24/22 closed session of the Board) are not available on the Plumas County website. Fortunately, a Google search for the Board agenda and backup materials for 5/24/22 was found on Google. What happened to these documents that should have been archived on the County’s website?
A reasonable person would ask, what happened to the Plumas County’s website agenda with the backup documentation and why is it not posted but can be found through a Google search? Did a county employee remove these documents for the DA’s criminal investigation? This is questionable and should be investigated.
It was the duty of Heidi White, Clerk of the Board, to set the agenda, attach backup documents for the agenda items, and clearly White did not complete this task; withholding information from the Board and the public. Per the Plumas County’s website for the Board agendas and minutes, White did not update minutes for the Board Meeting dated 5/24/22. Selvage provided the agenda documentation to White in a timely manner as instructed by the Board but it was never posted by White. If Selvage would have known it was not posted properly, the agenda item would have been held over to the next meeting.
The outcome of the closed session meetings on 5/17/22 and 5/24/24 are not in the minutes of any Board meeting. Greg Hagwood and Gretchen Stuhr (County Counsel at the time of this event) were present at both meetings. Both believe Selvage is innocent of the felony charges, and wanted to testify as to what actually transpired. Unfortunately, their testimony was inappropriately quashed resulting in a denial of due process for Selvage.
This evidence also makes it clear that the testimony of Kristina Rogers (Deputy Clerk of the Board) could refute the testimony of White if she were allowed to do so. This was essential for Selvage’s defense. Critical documents were in the possession of White prior to Selvage’s arrest. The Quash motion by Interim County Counsel Brechtel on behalf of his employee (Rogers) is not only a conflict of interest but detrimental to Selvage’s case and once again, a denial of due process. This brings into question why Brechtel did not want Rogers to testify.
In addition, Selvage cannot be guilty of a “self-dealing” Section 1090 charge for negotiating a pay schedule when this was part of her official duties per Plumas County Personnel Rules: 1.03 (Administration), Rule 5 (Classifications), Rule 6 (Salary Plan), and CalPERS Pay Schedules (CCR Section 570.5). In addition, California Government Code Section 54957.6 requires that the Board of Supervisors hold closed sessions with the designated representative (the HR Director) regarding salary schedules. The negotiation of Department Head pay schedules was not a violation of Section 1090. It was a transparent action for the HR department
2
head to recommend changes to pay schedules. The action was directed and unanimously approved by the Board of Supervisors following proper legal procedures.
The alleged Section 1090 violation is the essence of the case against Selvage and the plea she was forced to accept. Selvage was simply doing her job and the salary changes for Department Heads were part of numerous Board meetings beginning with a closed session discussion on 12/21/21.
To add insult to injury, the District Attorney continues to conflate the 1090 charge, which, if true, should stand on its own. He continues to state publicly and in news releases that Selvage provided “misleading documents” and that the Board was “Relying on Selvage’s recommendation as well as the false, inaccurate and misleading supporting documentation.”
Multiple press releases have focused on the fact that the salary comparison for HR Director presented to the Board included only eight of the 10 counties, when historically such a comparison looked at 10 counties. The comparison dropped Lassen and Del Norte counties, which the media reports allege paid the lowest rates for human resource directors. The problem with this analysis is the jobs in Lassen and Del Norte counties were not comparable to the Plumas County HR Director job. In addition, this topic was investigated by the Grand Jury with no finding of negligence, let alone criminal activity.
An oversight on the cover memo by not changing from “10” to “eight” when the table showing eight salaries was attached to the memo is NOT a felony. However, Assistant DA Hagen was quoted as saying all five supervisors believed the average salaries Selvage provided were for 10 counties, not eight. The published articles also fail to state that the department head salary adjustments were part of the Board of Supervisor’s closed session meetings beginning in December 2021.
Selvage has a legal right to present her case, was deprived of the ability to do so, and was forced to agree to a plea where she did not admit guilt and 2 of the 3 felony charges were dropped.
The Plumas County Court minute order from March 25th, 2025 states that pursuant to the plea, Selvage will be placed on 2 years’ supervised probation, pay restitution in the amount of $103.679.63, not own or possess firearms, ammo, or firearm parts, and is permanently disqualified from government office pursuant to GC S 1097, and must forfeit any CaIPERS benefits earned or accrued after May 24,2024.
THERE IS MORE
There have been multiple press releases by the DA’s office highlighting the fact that as HR Director Selvage received a 43% salary increase (NOT the highest of any department head at the time). The published information fails to include the fact that the HR Director base wage had not been updated in at least 22 years, while many department head positions had already received base wage increases in the prior 10 years due to vacancies and the need to increase base wage for recruitment purposes.
These DA press releases also fail to mention that District Attorney Hollister received a pay increase of approximately 67% from 2018 to present and is currently paid $224,432 per year ($107.90 per hour). This information is conveniently omitted. In fact, it could be argued that Hollister, receiving a raise during those same meetings, is a conflict of interest because of his involvement and the entire case should be withdrawn.
FURTHERMORE, although the DA lacks any authority over employee wages, Selvage was told by the DA’s office that they want to deduct the restitution portion of her plea from her final paycheck. This was not part of the plea agreed to on March 25th and when Selvage’s attorney, Acevedo, attempted to discuss this with
3
Assistant DA Hagen, Hagen refused to listen and hung up the phone. This could invalidate the March 25th plea deal which could also be withdrawn based on “good cause”. "Good cause" has been interpreted by courts to exist where the plea was entered as a result of "mistake, ignorance, fraud, or duress”.
Selvage’s March 25th plea was not truly voluntary, knowing, and intelligent and subsequent to March 25th, the DA’s office has attempted to change the terms of the plea giving Selvage grounds to withdraw her plea. Selvage’s lawyer was blindsided by what took place in chambers when Assistant DA Hagen, and Interim County Counsel Brechtel convinced Visiting Superior Court Judge Dixon to quash relevant evidence, critical to Selvage’s defense.
In addition to the above injustices and lack of due process, there have been three traveling judges in this case, Raymond Giordano, Leonard LaCasse, and Karen Dixon (who joined the case on 10/25/24). Plumas County Judge Hilde signed and approved Selvage’s felony arrest warrant even though she had a conflict of interest due to her prior relationship with Selvage. Judge Hilde later recused herself and Plumas County Judge Prouty sat in for administrative purposes only when a visiting judge was not available, but could not hear the matter due to a conflict of interest.
There are serious concerns due to sequential use of three different visiting judges in any case due to the potential for inconsistent rulings and increased likelihood for errors and misunderstandings of the record because each new judge must get up to speed on the history of the case and may not have done so.
Visiting Superior Court Judge Dixon, who was late for Court three times, stated one time when she was late that it was because she was “in the shower”. On 3/25/25, Judge Dixon also made a comment to nearly 200 prospective jurors, “I know most of you would rather have a root canal than be here.”
Plumas County needs to know that the outcome of Selvage’s case violates multiple rules and policies leaving Selvage with a lack of due process due to deeply entrenched relationships between Plumas County elected officials. This sort of injustice cannot be allowed to continue if we want Plumas County to be a place where people can thrive and expect justice. The people of Plumas County were not well served by this prosecution. In fact, it cost Plumas County taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars throughout this whole process due to replacing the HR Director, necessary software, lawyers fees, and more. Additionally, the emotional stress suffered by the entire Plumas County staff is immeasurable but pales, in comparison, to the impact on Selvage herself.
