Humboldt County Second District Supervisor Michelle Bushnell. | County of Humboldt.



PREVIOUSLY

###

In early May, just a few days after a pair of employee complaints were filed against Humboldt County Supervisor Michelle Bushnell, a committee of senior administrators urged her to step down from her role as board chair while a third-party investigation was conducted.

She declined, opting to remain in the position for nearly six months. On Tuesday afternoon, her fellow supervisors censured her for her behavior and voted to remove her as chair.

The suggestion to step down, which was made by Human Resources Director Zach O’Hanen, County Administrative Office Elishia Hayes and Interim County Counsel Scott Miles, was sent to Bushnell via email on May 9. A copy of that email was included in a batch of documents released to the Outpost this morning in response to a California Public Records Act request. 

The email explains that Bushnell had been accused of violating the board’s Code of Conduct and Ethics and the county’s Abusive Conduct Policy. Per the rules in the former policy, a committee comprising O’Hanen, Hayes and Miles reviewed the allegations and determined that a formal, third-party investigation was warranted. (That investigation concluded that Bushnell had indeed violated the board’s Code of Conduct on May 5 when she yelled and cursed at county employees.)

The committee urged Bushnell to do two things while the investigation was under way:

  • step down as chair, and
  • limit communication with her accusers to email for the duration of the investigation.

The email explained that this request was being made due to “the nature of the alleged conduct, need to ensure employee wellbeing, and potential liability to the County of Humboldt caused by this incident.”

I called Bushnell this morning to ask why she didn’t step down as requested. She said that after receiving the email, she reached out to O’Hanen to ask about protocol in such situations.

“I asked Zach if I had to [step down]; he said ‘no,’” Bushnell said. “I said, OK, I’m going to choose not to, because this is not the norm for me. I don’t react this way.”

Bushnell then predicted that I would bring up the 2022 incident that likewise resulted in a sustained finding of misconduct, but she reiterated that she felt confident this time around that she could remain in her position as chair without any problems.

Regarding her behavior on May 5, Bushnell said, “There were reasons. And I’m human. And I recognized right away I was emotional and got upset. And I knew I would not have that [kind of] interaction with [those employees] again.”

During Tuesday’s meeting, Third District Supervisor Mike Wilson brought up the committee’s recommendations, saying, “one of them was partially done and the other was completely ignored.” He suggested that Bushnell should have followed the group’s advice. “We are responsible for maintaining a safe working environment, free of threats, free of violent behavior,” he said. “The employees are scared.”

I asked Bushnell about the “partially done” comment. Did she refrain from direct communication with the employees who’d complained? She said she didn’t know what Wilson was talking about. She also took issue with comments Fifth District Supervisor Steve Madrone made during Tuesday’s meeting about having witnessed from Bushnell “similar behaviors towards staff, the public and community partners.”

“I have no idea what he was talking about,” Bushnell said. “Not one time did my board members come talk to me.”

Bushnell, as previously reported, has retained a private attorney to challenge both the investigation process and the resulting findings. She said two of her colleagues on the board agreed with her that the investigation process spelled out in the Code of Conduct is flawed, which is why they referred the matter to the Civil Grand Jury.

“How do you have three people on a panel where I’m one of their bosses? How difficult for them is that?” Bushnell said. “Then, when the investigation [results] came, there was one part I didn’t agree with. I said, ‘How do I appeal?’ and they said there’s no way. I said, ‘That’s not due process. That’s not fair.’ So I elected to continue being the board chair, knowing this is not how I treat people. I knew that I could be fine and they, ultimately, the employees and I were fine. We’ve been fine for five months.”

Attorney emails

The documents released to the Outpost this morning also include emails between Allison Jackson (the private attorney Bushnell hired) and Savana Jefferson of the firm Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, who is representing the county in this dispute.

On Oct. 2, Jackson had a letter hand-delivered to the county. It argued, as Bushnell has, that the investigation process “does not contain adequate due process protections.” Her letter argued that Bushnell should be provided with a full copy of the investigation report, rather than a mere summary. In a subsequent letter, Jackson argued that Bushnell has a constitutional right to call and cross-examine witnesses, present evidence and make arguments.

Jefferson replied to Jackson on October 16, saying in an email:

The County is under no obligation to release the investigation report as it is confidential and protected under the attorney-client privilege. Moreover, Supervisor Bushnell was afforded full due process during the investigation. She was notified of the allegations, provided the opportunity to respond, and met with the investigator to present her account and any supporting information. The investigation was conducted by an independent, neutral investigator retained by the County to ensure a fair and impartial process. The County did not direct, control, or influence the investigator’s findings or conclusions in any way.

While your client may disagree with the outcome of the investigation, the County stands by the integrity of the investigation and its results. The Code of Conduct and Ethics does not provide a mechanism for the respondent or subject of a workplace investigation to appeal or otherwise challenge the findings of a neutral investigation. The Code of Conduct and Ethics requires only that the Board member be notified of the allegations and provided an opportunity to respond.