There’s nothing to suggest employees working for Riverside County’s top lawyer or other managers faced retaliation or unduly harsh treatment, county officials say in their response to a civil grand jury report.
The report, released July 1, alleged a pattern of hostile working conditions and unfair employee treatment in county government, including in County Counsel Greg Priamos’ office.
Supervisors Jeff Hewitt and Karen Spiegel, who were tasked with following up on the report, defended Priamos and chided the jury for not interviewing him.
“(We were) concerned by the lack of due diligence and the failure to interview those involved in this report and believe this shows a reckless disregard for the reputation of our current employees and employment law in California,” Hewitt and Spiegel wrote.
Their findings, as well as the formal response to the jury, are on the Board of Supervisors’ Tuesday, Sept. 24, agenda. Priamos has not publicly commented on the jury’s report and the foreperson for the 2018-19 grand jury that wrote the report, could not be reached for comment Monday, Sept. 23.
A rotating panel of 19 citizens appointed annually by a judge to scrutinize public agencies, the jury described an atmosphere in which “certain county managers have set personal ego, arrogance, power and personal control above their duty to serve the people.”
“Prolonged mistrust due to harsh personnel practices as well as unscrupulous tactics by some managers has created a climate of fear, intimidation and anxiety among county employees,” the jury’s 16-page report read. “Employees know it is ‘go along to get along’ even if it is immoral, illegal, unethical or goes against policies and laws.”
The report listed several examples of employees forced out or punished for going against management’s wishes, including transfers to faraway work assignments known as “freeway therapy.”
A county lawyer who discovered a potential $1.5 million liability for the county in a lease agreement was chastised and later fired, while an investigation into an attorney’s performance had a preordained outcome, the jury reported. The jury also found that some managers worsen the county’s lawsuit costs by routinely ignoring advice they get from human resources.
‘Firm, but fair’
There’s no evidence that managers ignore the human resources department’s advice or put their egos above the public’s needs, the county’s 10-page response read.
Regarding allegations of abusive management behavior, “There are no specific details as to what the grand jury is referring to; rather, the report provides conclusions without any facts as to how this finding was reached,” according to the response.
Human resources “has no knowledge” of “freeway therapy” happening, the response read. “The determination as to an employee’s assignment and work location is a management right and subject to the discretion of the Department Head.”
As for the lawyer who was allegedly fired after discovering the $1.5 million liability, the response says “the Supervising Deputy properly handled the matter at hand and gave appropriate direction to the deputy consistent with our legal and ethical duties.”
Hewitt and Spiegel wrote they spoke with current and former county counsel employees as part of their investigation, all of whom described Priamos as “firm, but fair.”
“Some of the long term employees indicated that office leadership had been lacking and that problem employees were not dealt with,” the supervisors wrote. “To the relief of those interviewed, the current County Counsel was finally holding poor performing employees accountable.”
Department heads who frequently use the county counsel’s services said there has been “significant improvement” in those services, Hewitt and Spiegel wrote, adding there are options in county policy and state and federal law for employees who believe they were discriminated or retaliated against.
Past disputes
This isn’t the first clash between a grand jury and Priamos, who came to the county in 2014 after almost 13 years as Riverside city attorney.
In 2013, the jury accused Priamos of violating its secrecy during a probe of Riverside police procedures. Priamos said he was merely trying to reschedule jury testimony by members of the city Community Police Review Commission.
In 2015, another jury accused Priamos of interfering in its work by impeding the flow of information from county government and seeking to have county lawyers present during interviews with county employees, something that could have a chilling effect on employees’ testimony.
That jury recommended the county find a new county counsel. Supervisors stood by Priamos, who has said he can’t represent the grand jury when it presents a conflict of interest and that the jury can turn to the district attorney for legal advice.
September 24, 2019
The Press-Enterprise
By Jeff Horseman
No comments:
Post a Comment