For 90 minutes on March 5 the Plumas County Board of Supervisors’ space on the third floor of the courthouse felt more like a courtroom than a boardroom. Lawyers pitched arguments and aired opinions in efforts to convince the supervisors to approve fees for private attorneys totaling $112,139.
District Attorney David Hollister won his argument — with conditions. Christopher Bakes, Treasurer/Tax Collector Julie White’s attorney, lost — for the second time — but won the chance to have his fees considered at a future board meeting.
Also in dispute were multiple claims of conflict of interest at a meeting where the supervisors were to decide whether to hire a private investigator to research County Administrative Officer Debra Lucero’s complaint that Hollister had created a hostile workplace environment.
The treasurer’s case
Treasurer/Tax Collector Julie White has been under fire for months from county officials, who have blamed her for delays in annual audits, failing to reconcile and post investment activity, lapses in interest payments to agencies in the county’s investment pool, and inconsistencies in bank balance reporting. Attempts to resolve the inadequacies have exacerbated the conflict between White and county officials.
The issues for White began Sept. 6, 2023, with an email from Plumas County Human Resources Director Nancy Selvage. Selvage questioned White’s capacity to perform the duties of her office. In following months the supervisors requested White to attend several meetings to discuss her office’s role in the county’s fiscal disarray, which includes incomplete audits since 2022 and a BBB- credit rating.
The tension erupted Jan. 2, when White requested reimbursement for legal fees accrued in defending herself against the county. She hired Bakes in September, citing a conflict of interest with the county counsel’s office, which would otherwise have represented her as a county elected official.
“I’m tired of this.”
Kevin Goss, Plumas County supervisor
On Feb. 6, the supervisors denied her request for $50,000 to pay Bakes. He was back before the board March 5, this time requesting $37,139, his fee for services starting Jan. 1, 2024. The lengthy, contentious discussion that followed included Supervisor Tom McGowan calling Bakes’ presentation “all smoke and mirrors,” and grilling Bakes by demanding that he answer “yes or no” regarding whether he has actually filed litigation.
A wide-ranging argument ensued over complaints and denials of conflict of interest by Lucero, McGowan and Board of Supervisors Chairman Greg Hagwood. Finally, Supervisor Kevin Goss spoke up: “I’m tired of this.” His motion to pay Bakes’ fees in a sum “not to exceed $50,000” failed to get a second.
A subsequent motion to deny White’s request for attorney fees passed 3-2, with Goss and Supervisor Jeff Engel voting no.
The next step, said Bakes, is to go to court, where he promised his fees would be “an escalating problem.” And he renewed his request, made at previous board meetings, that McGowan and Hagwood recuse themselves from future voting on issues related to White. They have been “advocates for positions opposing my client,” and advocates for Lucero, he said.
Hagwood agreed to recuse himself “in the interest of moving things forward.” McGowan’s response was couched: If it “solves the problem” and gets the treasurer up to date with audits — “if it gets people paid immediately, then yes!” McGowan said.
With two recusals in hand, Bakes asked the supervisors to revisit Goss’ motion to pay his fees for 2024. Instead, Goss called for putting the issue on a future board agenda, which the supervisors accepted without formal action.
The DA’s case
Hollister became the third county official in a month to request attorney fees to defend himself. On Feb. 20, Lucero asked the supervisors for attorney fees as part of her hostile workplace complaint. The supervisors denied her request, calling it “preemptive.”
Hollister’s request for up to $75,000 was in direct response to Lucero’s complaint. The supervisors agreed Feb. 20 to contract with an investigator to begin an investigation to determine whether Lucero’s complaint against Hollister is credible.
The complaint leaves Hollister without representation by the county counsel’s office, he said. Interim County Counsel Josh Brechtel acknowledged the conflict during the board’s Feb. 20 meeting, Hollister said.
He blamed the friction between him and Lucero on his criminal prosecution of Selvage, who is facing three felony counts stemming from her alleged activity as a department head on and following May 17, 2022. Since filing the charges, Hollister and Lucero have had virtually no face-to-face communication, according to Hollister. Most has been unsolicited emails from the CAO to the district attorney, he told the supervisors March 5.
Hollister, who has cited Lucero’s personal friendship with Selvage, said he believes her complaint is motivated by “an intention to undermine the prosecution of the criminal case of People v. Selvage.” On Jan. 15, he asked the supervisors to prevent Lucero from “further interfering with this prosecution.” He said they discussed that in two closed sessions prior to Lucero’s hostile workplace complaint.
Lucero said she has tried to support the HR staff following charges filed against Selvage. They had no initial contact with the district attorney’s office and were worried about their possible involvement in the case, she said.
“My facial expressions don’t necessarily reflect what goes on behind the face.”
Tom McGowan, Plumas County supervisor
Unlike their discussion of White’s request for fees to pay Bakes, the supervisors handled Hollister’s request in a civil process led by Hagwood. They agreed to pay up to $75,000 “conditionally.” If investigation of Lucero’s complaint finds it lacks credibility, they would pay nothing to Hollister. If it requires action, or if Lucero files additional complaints, the supervisors committed to paying Hollister’s attorney up to $75,000.
Throughout the discussion McGowan reacted by frowning, rolling and closing his eyes. When Hollister accused him of being disruptive, McGowan said, “My facial expressions don’t necessarily reflect what goes on behind the face.”
The CAO’s investigation request
The supervisors also faced a March 5 decision on Lucero’s Feb. 20 request for an independent investigation of her complaint that Hollister has created a hostile workplace. That discussion was colored by an email Lucero accidentally sent to Adam Cox, general manager of the Chester Public Utility District and the Greenville Community Services District. Cox, who called himself an “innocent bystander,” forwarded the email “to everyone” in the spirit of “complete transparency,” he said.
The Feb. 27 email from Lucero is to Christopher Boucher, the investigator contacted by Brechtel to conduct the investigation of Lucero’s complaint against Hollister. In it she forwarded California Public Records Act requests she made to Jon Kennedy, interim Portola city manager.
Lucero used her county email to communicate with Boucher. That, said Hollister, compromises the impartiality of the investigation. It is “totally inconsistent with the normal practices” to have the complainant “actually engaging in the post complaint investigation.” The neutral investigator had not been formally hired by the board on Feb. 27.
Lucero told the supervisors March 5 she was responding to Boucher’s request for information. She did not initiate the contact, she said: “They contacted me. I don’t understand how that is flawed.”
Goss said he will definitely quiz the investigative firm about “any impropriety” Lucero’s email may have created. Her hostile workplace complaint was “so brutal and so disconcerting” that it is critical to ensure the impartiality of the investigator, Goss said.
Engel asked Hollister if the emails compromised the investigation. “I certainly have that concern,” Hollister said.
The board voted 4-1 to sign an agreement with Boucher Law to conduct a workplace investigation for an amount not to exceed $35,000. Engel cast the lone no vote.
