The Plumas County Board of Supervisors will not pursue a hostile workplace complaint filed Feb. 20 against Plumas County District Attorney David Hollister.
An investigation by Christopher Boucher, a Berkeley-based attorney, found no support for the allegations filed by County Administrative Officer Debra Lucero.
“Based on conclusions made by the investigator, the allegations did not support a prima facie case of violation of county policies and procedures,” board clerk Allen Hiskey stated in a memo presented to the supervisors June 11.
A prima facie case is a legal claim with sufficient evidence to move forward. The CAO’s claim did not rise to the level where it was worth pursuing, according to Boucher’s conclusion.
“As such, the investigation is now concluded,” Hiskey’s recommendation stated.
After reading the memo, Board of Supervisors Chairman Greg Hagwood said, “The investigation has been addressed,” and prepared to move to the next agenda item.
Supervisors chose to handle the complaint publicly
In the discussion that followed, Hollister pointed out the stark contrast between the brief June 11 meeting and the polarized discussion held Feb. 20. At the earlier meeting Hagwood went to great lengths to explain why the supervisors were handling the complaint against Hollister publicly. 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 so, to conduct a full investigation, Hagwood said. If the complaint is “insufficient,” it will be dismissed.
“The board is aware that this is probably not a popular decision but we will abide by state law,” Hagwood said Feb. 20.
Complaints about county employees are normally sent to the human resources department for investigation. 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 2023 by Hollister. In her absence, Lucero is acting human resources director. That moved her complaint directly to the board of supervisors.
The investigation cost roughly $18,000.
Josh Brechtel, interim county counsel
During the June 11 session, Hollister noted that similar complaints have been treated as pending litigation, which requires that all discussion occur in closed session. In this case, when Lucero first brought the issue to the supervisors in February, the board decided to treat it as a complaint against an individual — the district attorney. Under California government code 54957, the supervisors are required to hold all related discussions in public. “Nothing thereafter can be in closed session, and nothing is privileged,” Hollister said.
It was Hollister himself who asked the county counsel’s office to place the investigation results on the board’s June 11 agenda, he said. He also said that a closed session discussion about the investigation held June 4 should have been aired in public.
In response, interim County Counsel Josh Brechtel said the June 4 discussion concerned a threat of litigation “from somewhere else.” It did have to be addressed in closed session, he told Hollister, and was “not litigation against you, but litigation against the county as a result of <Boucher’s> report.”
The investigation cost roughly $18,000, Brechtel said in response to a question from The Plumas Sun. The reporter also asked if the investigation is available to the public.
“Right now the report is attorney client privilege. The board, as a majority, holds the privilege. If they are so inclined, they can release it,” Brechtel said
The Plumas Sun formally requested release of the full investigation. A decision would have to be placed on a future board agenda.
Response to ‘baseless’ complaint
Hollister said he was pleased to see that the investigator hired by the board concluded the CAO’s complaint was “baseless.” Neither he nor his office were interviewed by the investigator. Hollister was not given a copy of the complaint, he said, and it has not been made public.
In commenting to The Plumas Sun, he referenced Hagwood, who said Feb. 20 that the first step is examining “whether there is credibility to the complaint.” “It was not credible,” Hollister said.
Contacted for a response, Lucero said she would withhold comments until after the board of supervisors decides whether to release what she called “the Grievance Report.”
The board’s June 18 agenda does not include discussion of releasing the investigation of her complaint to the public.
