Bradbury to Assist in Nepotism Inquiry : Personnel: The Board of Supervisors orders an investigation into allegations involving the district attorney’s Child Support Division.

A showdown between Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury and the county Board of Supervisors was averted late Tuesday when Bradbury agreed to cooperate with an investigation into charges of nepotism within his Child Support Division.

The supervisors on Tuesday ordered an inquiry into employee union allegations that the district attorney has violated county work rules by allowing C. Stanley Trom to keep his new wife, Margaret, on his staff and that Trom has favored her over co-workers.

Bradbury, adamant that no rule has been broken and angry that the issue was not resolved Tuesday, said after the hearing that the supervisors have no authority over his office and that he may not cooperate with a probe by the county Personnel Department.

The veteran district attorney said that if he allowed the inquiry he would insist that workers complaining about the Troms “sit across the table” from him and state their concerns, rather than voicing them anonymously as has often been the case so far.

But late in the day, after a lengthy conversation with board Chairwoman Madge L. Schaefer, Bradbury said he had decided to assist Personnel Director Ronald Komers in his probe. He said that he would not insist on participating in the interviews nor that Komers identify complainants by name.

Schaefer, who had called Bradbury after being asked by The Times about his earlier comments on the board’s lack of authority, said: “I just called him and said, ‘What is this?’ We ended the conversation by agreeing that the board did share his concern about the personal effects of this on everybody.”

Schaefer said: “I think Mike Bradbury does a fantastic job, but he is not unlike any other human being. There are times when he feels very passionately about an issue, and he feels very strongly about this issue.”

Indeed, even upon reflection, Bradbury said Tuesday evening that regardless of the new probe’s findings, he will transfer neither Trom nor his wife to new jobs.

“I can guarantee you that the Troms’ employment status will not change as long as I’m district attorney, period,” Bradbury had said earlier. “I’m fed up with the Troms getting knocked from pillar to post on this issue.”

Tuesday’s developments follow months of unrest that have forced the internal workings of the Child Support Division into the public eye.

At issue legally is whether Bradbury can allow Trom to keep ombudsperson Escobar Trom on his 135-worker child-support staff.

The couple married in October, sparking protests from the Public Employees Assn. of Ventura County. The union insisted that Trom indirectly supervised his wife and branded Bradbury’s reassignment of Escobar Trom to another supervisor a sham.

The county Civil Service Commission, responding to the union complaint, last week found Bradbury in violation of an anti-nepotism rule and recommended that the Board of Supervisors arrange the transfer of Escobar Trom to a new county job of equal pay.

Commission staff adviser Ray Charles said there are morale problems in the division because of the Troms’ situation. He said he based those conclusions on conversations with about 20 family-support officers, half of the 40 workers in that section. Nearly all complained, for example, that Escobar Trom “did not carry a workload comparable” to other supervising officers, he said.

At Tuesday’s hearing, supervisors expressed concern and sadness over how the Trom complaints have been handled so far.

“Are we really going to let the county be substantially influenced, even run, by anonymous phone calls and unsigned letters,” Supervisor James R. Dougherty demanded. “I’m sorry that this has happened to two people whose only crime has been that they had the bad taste to fall in love and get married.”

But the board rejected on a 4 to 1 vote Dougherty’s motion that the county’s anti-nepotism rule be waived in the Trom case.

“The district attorney has not resolved the problem” of alleged favored treatment of Escobar Trom, Supervisor Maggie Erickson said in moving for an inquiry by Komers.

“This has been in front of us too often,” Supervisor Susan K. Lacey said. “At this point all of the people involved deserve a reasoned, well-thought-out” decision to clear the air.

Yet, Erickson, Schaefer and Lacey all said they were bothered that none of the workers who have complained about the Troms have yet identified themselves publicly and that many of the complaints to supervisors have been made anonymously over the telephone.

Only one of the several workers who contacted Schaefer or Erickson identified herself, the supervisors said. Lacey said that at least four workers had identified themselves to her or her staff.

The supervisors said the purpose of Komers’ inquiry is to address specific allegations against the Troms. The motion was vague as to how Komers should conduct the probe and whether he should identify complaining workers by name to Bradbury.

But Schaefer said that if no employee is willing to be named as a complainant then her understanding is that the investigation will end quickly.

Barry L. Hammitt, executive director of the employees’ union, said the message of the supervisors was clear:

“If the employees are concerned, they must come forward and be counted. It puts a lot of people in a very tough situation. People fear for their jobs.”

Bradbury said that “whistle-blowers” are protected by laws and grievance procedures and that no employee will be punished for coming forward.

But one family-support worker who called The Times said she is concerned that she will be harassed if she tells Komers of her complaints against Escobar Trom.

“It’s a very real concern,” she said. “I can’t say one way or another whether people are going to come forward.”

For their part, the Troms said, they wanted the situation resolved Tuesday.

Escobar Trom said she never heard a complaint about her five-year relationship with Trom before they were married seven months ago.

“Never once,” she said. “That’s why it’s so bizarre this has gone so far.”