The next time a complaint is raised against a member of the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, the process will play out differently behind the scenes and in the public arena under a series of “substantial policy changes” approved last week.
Gone from the board’s Code of Conduct section on complaints is the initial review by a three-member committee made up of senior staff — the county administrative officer, the human resources director and county counsel. Instead, the decision-making reins on whether an investigation should be initiated are being handed over to an outside arbitrator contracted by the county, which would then conduct the probe.
Also replaced is the former provision that any ensuing sustained findings of a code violation automatically be placed as an action item before the board to consider whether to censure their colleague on dais, who was also given an opportunity to speak to the matter.
Now an investigation summary will appear on the consent agenda for supervisors to simply accept and file the report, if that’s what they decide.
Essentially a public reprimand by fellow board members in a symbolic gesture, a censure could still happen. But, instead of by default, an individual supervisor would need to take it upon themselves to ask for its inclusion as a separate item for consideration at the same meeting — or a future one.
Other amendments include clarifying that “a board member who is the subject of an allegation will make their own determinations as to whether to recuse themselves from participating in any board action directly related to the complaint or investigation,” according to the staff report. An addition to the document also allows the option of mediation between the involved parties, which the county will pay for if “the complainant and the involved board member agree, providing an opportunity for informal conflict resolution where appropriate,” the report states.
How this all came about is a bit of a long story.
The situation began to unfold late last year, when Supervisor Michelle Bushnell challenged the policy put in place by the current board (herself included) in 2022. Her challenge came after an outside investigation sustained allegations she acted in a hostile manner toward two employees. Bushnell argued through an attorney that she was denied due process in a flawed system, albeit one she’d approved three years previously.
While Bushnell was censured in a 4-0 vote on Nov. 4, the board majority took the additional step of asking the Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury to not only review Bushnell’s conduct but also make recommendations on potential changes to the procedures under dispute.
At the time, Supervisor Steve Madrone said a referral to the government watchdog body was “the most transparent and appropriate way to address” her concerns.
The topic came back up in March when county staff returned to the board to ask for direction on how to handle any new or pending complaints while waiting to see if the grand jury would weigh in.
During those discussions, Bushnell advocated for forming an ad hoc committee, noting the code of conduct was the board’s policy and they could make changes on their own since any grand jury response could be a way down the road, adding that if any recommendations come in, those could also be incorporated.
Bushnell and Madrone were then selected to take on the task along with the senior staff panel outlined in the code, setting the policy down two separate paths of review.
The referral to the grand jury, however, hit a dead end — at least for now — in June, when the window for the civic oversight panel to issue a report on the matter closed shut.
The reason why will never be known due to the cloak of confidentiality surrounding all the panel’s proceedings.
“Each civil grand jury decides for itself what it will study and what reports it will issue,” Humboldt Chapter of the Civil Grand Jurors’ Association of California President Victoria Joyce wrote in an email to the Journal earlier this month.
“All decisions are made by a supermajority vote, which in Humboldt County means at least 12 of the 19 jurors agree to an action,” she continued. “The board of supervisors may request a study or investigation, but it is only a request. They cannot order the civil grand jury to do anything. The civil grand jury is an arm of the superior court, not a county department.”
And, Joyce added, “The outgoing civil grand jury can leave notes for the incoming grand jury, but the incoming jury would have to decide for itself if it wanted to pursue the issue and would have to open a brand-new investigation. And we will never know unless they choose to issue a report.”
With no report issued this past session, the board was left with the review by the ad hoc committee, which wrapped up its work earlier this month, resulting in the item before the board on Aug. 18.
Then came a slight twist. At the onset of the discussion, County Administrative Officer Elishia Hayes informed the board that Madrone, who was absent due to illness, communicated to her the evening prior that he was “withdrawing his support for the policy in the current form.”
But, she added, the Fifth District representative also believed “it was appropriate for the item to move forward and for your board to provide feedback on the content as it is presented today.”
Bushnell, who was on the committee with Madrone, said the news came as “a bit of shock” and offered a couple of avenues for the board to consider, including reconvening the ad hoc or just staying with the policy that was on the books.
In the end, the board decided to move forward, with much of the conversation centered on the change of giving an outside counsel “sole discretion” in deciding whether complaints should move into an investigation phase — and the ensuing costs.
Supervisor Natalie Arroyo brought up that members of the board are sometimes targets of people who are “bad actors” or “unwell,” at one point offering the example “that right now there is someone actively saying I’m actively killing kids, I’m obviously not actively killing children.”
She asked whether there was a way to incorporate some kind of “reality checkpoint” to limit the referral avenue and the potential bills involved.
“I don’t want to have this result in superfluous or absurd or excessive complaints that we are then required to have outside counsel evaluate, even if it’s only a half hour of their time,” she said. “A few hundred dollars an hour, that adds up.”
Supervisor Rex Bohn, who himself faced censure in March for an interaction with staff but the item fell short of the votes needed to take the action, said he believes the process is “used more as a weapon than as a tool and I would like to see this be used as a tool rather than a weapon.”
“Do I say inappropriate things? Hell yes. Do I say things that shouldn’t be said? But I’ve been saying them for 65 years, since I was 7 years old, so I apologize for that,” he said. “I didn’t change who I was. Am I offensive? Am I vile toward people? I don’t believe so. I think that’s been proven over and over again, but it doesn’t stop anybody from trying to create a situation. I don’t think we should be targets up here because we are servants of the community.”
He also questioned whether the board could look at policies from other counties rather than “reinvent the wheel” and floated the idea of using a “screening committee.”
While saying that he was going to vote for the changes as presented, Bohn noted, “I don’t like to lose local control on anything” and “it’s not going to be cheap.”
In response to some of those concerns raised, Bushnell said she believes the revisions to the code of conduct provide “many, many upgrades that make it more equitable than it was,” including relieving staff who work directly for the supervisors from the “sticky situation” of reviewing complaints.
“It’s pretty obvious if somebody says Natalie’s killing babies that that’s not happening and if there was a complaint filed to that, I think they would spend one second on it and say, ‘No,’” Bushnell said, referring to the outside counsel.
Along similar lines, Hayes expressed support for the changes.
“I think that the current construct is a good path forward and I similarly feel the outside counsel is going to be very reasonable in making their assertions of whether or not something should move forward, or not move forward, and whether it should be formal or informal,” she said.
She added that she was “comfortable in making some judgment calls” and believes the evaluations conducted by staff were “very fair.”
“That said, I can also say that nine times out of 10 you all don’t necessarily like the process as it’s unfolded and so that does put us in a sticky situation,” Hayes continued. “And I think we all know there’s been times when it’s been one board member complaining against another which, in the old words of [former CEO] Phil Smith-Hanes, ‘Never put yourself between two elected officials.’ So that can get particularly sticky for us, as well.”
As the board was preparing to vote, board Chair Mike Wilson added one last comment.
“Just to close, the best way to limit our exposure to these expenses is to try and conduct ourselves in a way that is in accordance with the code of conduct.”
“I’ll try my best,” Bohn replied, adding a “yes” to passing the changes.
The board approved the revisions 4-0, with Madrone absent.
Kimberly Wear (she/her) is the assistant editor at the Journal. Reach her at (707) 442-1400 ext. 105 or kim@northcoastjournal.com.
This article appears in Corkscrew Trees and a Crooked Trail.
