On paper, addressing a complaint brought against a Humboldt County supervisor seems straightforward.
First, there’s a review by the county administrative officer, county counsel and the Human Resources director. If a majority of the panel decides an incident needs to be further addressed, an outside investigation is launched.
Should the allegations be substantiated, the findings are brought as an agenda item for the board to consider whether to censure their colleague, who is also given an opportunity to speak to the matter. Essentially, it’s a public reprimand for which a super-majority vote is needed.
Approved by the current board in 2022, the procedures outlined in just a few paragraphs of the board’s 31-page code of conduct have become a point of contention in recent months — and a source of some confusion.
When and how issues raised before and amid two supervisors — Michelle Bushnell and Rex Bohn — facing censure in the last six months are resolved, including whether board members should be the ultimate arbitrators for one of their own, is still up in the air.
As is the path forward for taking action on any future code of conduct violations.
Bushnell announced earlier this month that she would be a “no” vote should another come before the board — a key factor at the March 10 meeting when Bohn faced being censured. He was not.
The county is by no means alone in using the mechanism. From the halls of Congress to the chambers of city councils, it’s one of the few avenues outside of the ballot box for holding elected officials responsible for their conduct, especially when it comes to treatment of staff.
Speaking generally on the topic, College of the Redwoods Political Science professor Ryan Emenaker said he thinks having a midway point, like the censure process, is helpful.
“If we are purely relying on the next election or a recall, I think those are too blunt an instrument for many of the situations that arise,” he said. “I think censure is a nice … other option. Asking people to mount a recall every time something comes up seems incredibly difficult, hoping at the next election that that’s going to be the thing that determines it, I think that’s a bit much. I think censure is one way that, as a board, they can say, ‘Hey, we think this is inappropriate and we want to let people know. And I think that is an important mechanism to have.”
And, he added, the logical choice seems to be for their colleagues on the dais to be the ones to weigh in.
“Were you acting in the interest of the board? Is that the way that we think we should be treating staff? Was that consistent with what we directed the staff to do? And, if not, then it is the board, as a collective body, that is best able to make that determination,” Emenaker said.
The situation began to unfold late last year when Bushnell challenged the policy 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.
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.
But the request is not a “slam dunk,” as the Humboldt Chapter of the Civil Grand Jurors’ Association of California made clear in an opinion piece penned on the matter in January.
“The board of supervisors can only request a study from the civil grand jury; they cannot demand or commission a study,” the piece said. “The civil grand jury is an entity unto itself; it does not answer either to the county or the board of supervisors. Instead, it is a part of the Humboldt County Superior Court, and the civil grand jury decides for itself what it will study, investigate and issue reports on.”
It’s a decision that’s come with rippling effects as the board navigates next steps.
With the wait on for a possible response from the civil grand jury, county staff returned to the board on March 3 to ask for direction on how to handle any new or pending complaints.
County Administrative Officer Elishia Hayes explained that the panel designated to handle complaints involving supervisors has been left “at a bit of a stalemate” since November.
“We are unsure at this time if they will provide any feedback,” she told the board, noting that under the general timeline of the grand jury, any report would likely not be issued until June.
What was initially left unsaid, but not for long, was that at least one complaint, involving Bohn, had already been under investigation, something he publicly announced during the discussion on Bushnell’s censure.
After Chair Mike Wilson started off the conversation by saying he would favor hearing back from the grand jury before proceeding, Bohn went next, noting that he had already “self-reported.”
“A fellow board member made a complaint against me and I’m OK with that and I’m willing to let it go forward,” Bohn said. “I’m going to be perfectly transparent. I haven’t participated in this complaint because I consider it baseless and that’s my opinion and I’m well within my rights.”
While Wilson attempted several times to steer the conversation away from specifics and back to the question at hand, Bohn’s case remained the elephant in the room as the board debated just what their Nov. 4 decision meant.
Bushnell floated several alternatives on how to handle complaints going forward, including bringing on a mediator to review complaints rather than continuing to put staff in the middle. She said the “process does not work the way it currently is” and was “not fair to staff.”
She also 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.
College of the Redwoods Political Science professor Ryan Emenaker
“If we are purely relying on the next election or a recall, I think those are too blunt an instrument for many of the situations that arise.”
“I will say, for myself, that it will take a four-fifths vote to censure someone and I’m never going to censure anyone on this board,” the Second District representative said. “It’s not my place. So I’m just going to publicly say that I’m not your judge and jury, your constituents are.”
Supervisor Natalie Arroyo leaned toward continuing the current course while allowing this year’s grand jury session to run its course and seeing what happens before proceeding with any revisions to the code.
Madrone agreed and, while not naming names, circled back to Bohn’s case, saying he thought any changes in how complaints are handled should not apply “to one that’s been around for a long time.”
“In fact, it was around and filed before the referral to the grand jury even occurred,” Madrone said.
Bohn replied that was fine with him. “I’m all for swift justice,” he said. “Like I said, I’m not participating in mine but bring it forward. I’ll take my beating and in two and a half years see what it costs me at the ballot box.”
Just when the board appeared to be homing in on a motion that included continuing with the current process for pending items and forming an ad hoc committee, things took a slight detour. The staff asked for clarification on what to do about new cases.
Arroyo, who was making the motion, noted she thought that was a good question but for her, they should use the code of conduct process that was on the books, noting, “We are not voting to suspend it.”
Bushnell disagreed, offering that complaints should be divided into two categories: those that came before the grand jury referral and those that came after, with the latter being held until June or when the ad hoc committee reports back.
Otherwise, she said, they would be moving forward with a process that “four members of this board said isn’t working very well.”
While Arroyo conceded concerns have been raised about the position placed on staff, the current one “gives a process and a form of recourse to county employees should they have a concern.”
“So, I think I would rather have it on the books in the meantime than not and then revise it as soon as we have some ways to improve it,” she said.
Bohn then asked for a clarification on where that would leave his complaint.
“Is it going to move forward or is it going to sit out in la-la land?” he asked. “I know we are not being specific but since it’s my complaint, I’m going to be specific. … Let’s move it forward.”
Madrone weighed in to say that, under the motion, his would. And Hayes, the county administrative officer, said that would be the case “if there are findings.”
After several board members noted that they didn’t know anything about where the complaint stood, Wilson reiterated that these processes are typically confidential and involve individuals other than supervisors.
“I think that respecting the process and confidentiality is important, he said. “So, with that, I still think we should wait for the grand jury to come back.”
The motion on the table to form an ad hoc committee — including Bushnell, Madrone and the senior staff panel outlined in the code — and keep using the current one in the interim, passed 3-2, with Bushnell and Wilson dissenting.
Bohn’s censure item appeared on the next week’s agenda, with the stage basically set for the eventual outcome even before the discussion began.
As in the case of Bushnell, the complaint against him centered on treatment of employees, with an independent investigation sustaining allegations that he engaged in “abusive and hostile behavior.”
According to the executive summary of the investigation conducted by the outside law firm Kramer Workplace Investigations, the four witnesses interviewed were “undisputed” that Bohn “acted in a disrespectful and aggressive manner toward county employees, which included the use of profanity.”
Dated March 5, the one-page, 300-word document also states that all four were “undisputed” in the perception “that Bohn scheduled the meeting to influence the staff members to quickly take action to create a waiver or an amendment to the Tobacco Retail License Ordinance to ensure that Bohn’s friend was able to transfer all of his tobacco retail licenses when his friend sold his gas stations.”
Bohn apologized, at times reading from prepared comments he said he “scratched out” after reading the report the night before. But he spent much of his speaking time disputing some of the findings’ details, including that he called the meeting, that he did so to lobby for a “friend” or used profanity at staff.
He said he was just trying to address concerns brought to him by community members about a non-transfer clause in the ordinance that only applies to stores in unincorporated areas.
“However, I sincerely regret if my tone, delivery caused anyone to feel uncomfortable or disrespected,” Bohn said. “I do apologize for that.”
The longtime First District representative went on to thank Madrone for “bringing this matter forward,” saying he appreciated “the opportunity to reflect on the situation and I apologize if anything I said or how I said it caused concern or hurt feelings.”
Bohn again noted that he did not participate in the investigation “because I just didn’t,” saying he was “ready to take my lumps.”
Madrone thanked Bohn for his “heartfelt apology,” adding, “I know that is never an easy thing for any of us.”
Arroyo and Wilson each spoke about the need for every board member to be aware of the pressure and intimidation that staff members may feel when working with them.
Arroyo noted how a consultant who worked with the county once told her that “a lot of department heads have fear for themselves and their employees about how they may be treated” during small meetings or when presenting to the supervisors.
“So I do appreciate the apology,” she said. “I think it’s a step in the right direction, but I also appreciate that it was brought forward because I don’t doubt there was some staff concern behind that or feeling there was a power imbalance that we all have to be conscious of.”
Wilson also said he appreciated Bohn’s remarks but took “a little issue” with his criticism of the report’s accuracy when he was “offered an opportunity to participate and chose not to.”
When the mic turned to Bushnell, she followed through on her remarks from the prior week, simply saying: “I just want to make a motion to receive and file the report.” Bohn seconded.
Noting that four votes were required, Arroyo reiterated the importance of board members not using their positions to intimidate staff — and upholding that standard moving forward.
And, Wilson noted, as elected officials, the process for a complaint brought against a supervisor is different from the human resources course that would be followed for a county employee under the same circumstances.
“I really want to emphasize that if it gets this far, and especially if it’s involving employees, we are not the victim,” he said. “I just want to be very clear. We are responsible for our behavior in those situations and that is something I just want to emphasize.”
With that, Wilson asked: “Is there any objection to unanimous consent to the motion?”
“Seeing none,” he said, “we are ending this discussion.”
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 On the Matter of Censure.