HR Director Nancy Selvage Convicted of Felony Self-Dealing

QUINCY — On March 25, 2025, Nancy Selvage (age 70 of Quincy, CA) was convicted of a felony violation of Section 1090 of the Government Code. Selvage is scheduled to be sentenced on May 16, 2025.

As part of her sentence, Selvage will be ordered to repay Plumas County $103,679.63. Immediately and additionally, Selvage is terminated as the Plumas County Human Resources Director and is forever disqualified from holding any office in the state of California. Also, Selvage forfeits all accrued rights and benefits in her public retirement system from May 24, 2022.

The factual basis for Selvage’s conviction is as follows:

On May 24, 2022, Plumas County Human Resources Director Nancy Selvage recommended a slate of pay raises for Plumas County Department Heads for the approval of Board of Supervisors. Among the raises, and by far the highest, was a 43% pay increase for herself. In negotiating her own raise on behalf of herself as well as the county, Selvage took advantage of a time when the positions providing checks and balances as to pay raises – the Plumas County positions of Auditor and County Administrator – had recently become vacant.

In May of 2022, Plumas County employees, and the public, were routinely addressing the Board of Supervisors seeking pay parity – especially from those in the Sheriff and Social Services Departments. Public statements and letters to the editor were a routine occurrence with Sheriff and Social Services employees warning poor pay was creating a lack of retention and challenges in hiring and putting the safety of county citizens, especially children under protection by Social Services, at risk. To avoid the public outcry from Selvage recommending a 43% pay raise for herself, and nothing for those in the Sheriff and Social Services departments, Selvage did not provide information about the pay raise until the morning of the Board of Supervisors meeting and, within the information provided, offered inaccurate and misleading information which included: claiming the traditional ten county comparison was used when, in reality, only the eight counties most favorable to Selvage’s desired pay raise were used (even with the eight counties being noted, Selvage’s negotiated raise far outpaced their average and was seemingly made up); backdating the supporting documents to make it look like they had been provided consistent with the Brown Act; and falsely claiming all of the raises could be absorbed by each department’s present budget when, in fact, the raises cost the county’s general fund nearly an additional $500,000.

Relying on Selvage’s recommendation as well as the false, inaccurate and misleading supporting documentation, the Board approved the raises, resulting in an unlawful increase for the Defendant of $103,679.63 as of the date of Selvage’s conviction on March 25, 2025.

California has long enforced the common-law prohibition against the conduct Selvage engaged in, commonly known as “self-dealing.” One can trace the present Cal. Govt. Code § 1090, which codifies the common law prohibition as to contracts, back to an act passed in 1851.

Section 1090 prohibits a public official from being financially interested in a contract in both the official’s public and private capacities. As the California Supreme Court has stated, the purpose of § 1090 is to make certain “every public officer be guided solely by the public interest, rather than by personal interest, when dealing with contracts in an official capacity. Resulting in a substantial forfeiture, this remedy provides public officials with a strong incentive to avoid conflict-of interest situations scrupulously.” Eliminating temptation for public officials, avoiding the perception of impropriety, and obtaining their undivided loyalty have been deemed as extremely important public policy goals in California by the state’s highest court.

This is an exceptionally important case and conviction for Plumas County. While our local system of checks and balances were challenged, they held and protected Plumas County from corrupt acts. Ultimately, the fact remained, no person can force the residents of Plumas County to live and work in a corrupt county.

I wish to thank Assistant District Attorney Brian Hagen for his work as the lead prosecutor in this case as well as those efforts of the DA Support Staff and Investigations Divisions. Mostly, I want to thank the many current and former employees of Plumas County who stepped up and “said something when they saw something,” cooperated with the investigation and prosecution and demonstrated courage against those who wanted to allow this type of felonious, self-serving conduct in our local government.

If nothing else, the public servants of Plumas County have demonstrated their steadfast insistence that public service means they serve the public, not that the public serves them.