(C) Common Dreams
This story was originally published by Common Dreams and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



Plumas CAO files hostile workplace complaint against DA [1]

['Jane Braxton Little']

Date: 2024-02-25

Tension has been building for months between Plumas County Administrative Officer Debra Lucero and District Attorney David Hollister. At the Plumas County Board of Supervisors meeting Feb. 20, Lucero brought it to a head by filing a formal complaint against Hollister for creating a hostile work environment.

Lucero requested an investigation as part of her complaint.

Addressing the board before it had any discussion or took any action, Plumas County Supervisor Greg Hagwood said, “The board is aware that this is probably not a popular decision but we will abide by state law.”

- Sponsored By -

Both state and federal laws protect employees against work environments that are hostile or abusive. The supervisors have an obligation to investigate whether Lucero’s complaint is credible and, if it is, to conduct a full investigation, Hagwood said. If the complaint is “insufficient,” it will be dismissed.

“The board has a duty to respond,” he said.

“If there is a complaint it should be researched by an unbiased person.” Dwight Ceresola, Plumas County supervisor

Lucero’s complaint met with a solemn reception by the supervisors and sparse discussion. She is a county employee, said Supervisor Kevin Goss, and the board definitely owes its employees follow-up action to complaints. “As an employer, that’s our job,” he said.

Supervisor Dwight Ceresola agreed: “If there is a complaint it should be researched by an unbiased person.”

Supervisor Jeff Engel asked Interim County Counsel Josh Brechtel if the complaint is legal. Brechtel assured him that it is.

Supervisor Tom McGowan made the motion to ask county counsel to contract with an investigator to begin investigating Lucero’s hostile workplace complaint against Hollister. The voice vote was unanimous.

Unusual circumstances require airing the complaint publicly

Complaints about county employees are normally sent to the human resources department for investigation, said Hagwood. Lucero’s complaint came to the board because Plumas County Human Resources Director Nancy Selvage is on administrative leave pending adjudication of a criminal case, filed in November by District Attorney Hollister.

In the meantime, Lucero is acting human resources director. That moved her complaint directly to the board of supervisors.

It is also unusual for personnel issues like this one to be handled publicly. The Brown Act, California’s open meeting law, allows most personnel issues to be resolved in a closed session of the legislative body. It makes an exception for elected officials. Specific Brown Act rules address how elected officials must be treated when dealing with a potential complaint, Hagwood said.

He emphasized that neither the county counsel’s office nor the board of supervisors had any involvement in bringing Lucero’s complaint to the board. The board will allow no discussion, supporting documentation or related complaints until all parties have had a chance to study and respond to the investigator’s review, Hagwood said.

Lucero asks for attorney fees

Lucero’s request for fees to enable her to hire a personal attorney involved a more complete discussion by the board. She said she is asking for an attorney because she is forced to handle her complaint in an open session.

“One of the only ways to take a grievance against an elected official is to go to the attorney general or the state bar. I know that will require an attorney,” she said. Lucero did not specify a dollar amount she is seeking.

Brechtel, the interim county counsel, said the board does not have an obligation to pay Lucero’s attorney fees — at least not now. The board is handing the complaint to an independent investigator. The request for attorney fees “is not timely,” he said.

There is no actual conflict of interest that would require Lucero to seek an outside attorney, Brechtel added. “However, things could change,” he said. But he remained firm that the supervisors have no obligation to approve her request for attorney fees.

Goss called any approval to pay Lucero’s legal fees “preemptive,” citing Brechtel’s legal opinion. His motion to table the issue for possible future consideration passed unanimously.

“I cannot begin to tell you the conflicts you have just walked into.” David Hollister, Plumas County district attorney

Hollister, who attended the Feb. 20 meeting, said Lucero’s complaint against him is effectively suing the county. Adding to the complications, he said, is the fact that Lucero is the county’s budget officer.

“Ms. Lucero is asking for you to provide legal representation so she can sue the county, of which she is the budget officer. I cannot begin to tell you the conflicts you have just walked into,” Hollister said.

He issued a separate statement to The Plumas Sun: “I vehemently deny this general accusation that’s been made against me. I’ve served as a prosecutor in California with honor for 32 years, 21 of which have been in Plumas County.”

Hollister plans to return to the board March 5 to ask the supervisors to fulfill their obligation to provide him with representation and indemnification.

Following Lucero’s request, Hollister would be the third Plumas County official in a month to ask for attorney fees. On Feb. 6, Treasurer/Tax Collector Julie White asked for up to $50,000 to pay her attorney for representing her in a dispute that began with the human resources department. She claimed a conflict of interest that prevented the county counsel’s office from representing her. Former Interim County Counsel Sara James denied any conflict with White. The supervisors denied her request for attorney fees.

“I hope you know how ridiculous this looks.” Jeff Engel, Plumas County supervisor

Supervisor Jeff Engel, who has chastised the board for its treatment of White, spoke near the end of the discussion over Lucero’s complaint. He addressed his comments to his fellow supervisors: “I hope you know how ridiculous this looks. I hope you know it.”

Engel asked them to consider how their deliberations Feb. 20 must look to citizens watching and to county employees. “Is this how we want to spend our revenue and tax dollars? We’re supposed to be helping people recover from the Dixie Fire, not fighting amongst ourselves,” he said.

Investigations like the one Lucero is requesting cost thousands of dollars, Engel added. “Once that money goes out of the county it’s gone. Ridiculous,” he said.

Hagwood summed up the entire discussion with an understatement: “This issue is far from over,” he said.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://plumassun.org/2024/02/25/plumas-cao-files-hostile-workplace-complaint-against-da/

Published and (C) by Common Dreams
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 3.0..

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/commondreams/

You are viewing proxied material from magical.fish. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.