Inquiry Finds No Evidence of Nepotism : Employees: Because of workers’ concerns, however, a woman may be transferred out of the county office that her husband supervises.

A county Personnel Department investigation has found that Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury did not violate anti-nepotism rules by allowing a top assistant to keep his new wife on his staff.

But Personnel Director Ronald W. Komers, noting the concerns of a “significant number” of employees, has recommended that Margaret Escobar-Trom be transferred out of the child support division office headed by her husband, C. Stanley Trom.

Bradbury, who assisted Komers with the inquiry, said that he agrees the transfer is a good move and that Escobar-Trom will soon begin working out of his Hall of Justice office rather than in her husband’s satellite office on Telephone Road.

That decision was made partly to defuse the nepotism controversy that has persisted since the Troms’ marriage last fall but also because Escobar-Trom has been assigned to a new supervisor in the district attorney’s main office since allegations of favoritism were first leveled by disgruntled co-workers last November, Bradbury said.

Komers released his report Thursday to the Board of Supervisors, which had directed him to find out whether the county Civil Service Commission was right when it concluded in April that the Troms’ work situation violated county rules and was damaging office morale.

The board will consider Komers’ recommendations on Tuesday.

The personnel chief recommended that the supervisors reject the findings of the Civil Service Commission and conclude that Bradbury violated no work rule. To treat Escobar-Trom fairly, Komers said the supervisors should create a new position for her with similar duties and the same pay.

Board Chairwoman Madge L. Schaefer endorsed the reassignment of Escobar-Trom. But she faulted Bradbury for moving so slowly to quell a dispute that she said would have been resolved quickly and quietly by a good manager.

“Better late than never,” Schaefer said. “I hope Mike has learned something from this.”

Barry L. Hammitt, executive director of the county employees union that took the nepotism charges to the Civil Service Commission in February, said he was encouraged by Bradbury’s decision to transfer one of the Troms to a different office.

“It’s probably a good solution, but it probably could have been done early on without all the anxiety,” Hammitt said.

Bradbury said he would reserve comment on the issue until after the Board of Supervisors decides Tuesday to either accept or reject the recommendation.

Previously, the district attorney has maintained that there was no significant morale problem in the child support division and that a possible violation of county rules was avoided when he shifted supervision of Escobar-Trom out of that division last fall.

Hammitt and Civil Service Commission Chairman Robert Embry said the shift of supervision did not resolve the problem, since Escobar-Trom still worked only three offices away from her husband and kept her former job.

“We thought that move was specious,” Embry said Thursday, because the Troms still worked together and in the same office with Stanley Trom’s former wife, Joan. “The realignment didn’t change that.

“And our investigation indicated that there was deep dissatisfaction on behalf of some employees of the district attorney’s office,” Embry said.

At the direction of the Board of Supervisors, Komers, accompanied by Bradbury, personally interviewed 68 child support division employees in May and solicited comments from several supervisors in the district attorney’s office.

A majority of the child support workers told Komers and Bradbury that office morale was good and said that they like and respect the Troms, Komers said.

But a “significant number” of employees said that anti-nepotism rules should be “evenhandedly enforced, and there should be no exceptions or waivers,” he reported. “These employees believe that Stan or Margaret should be transferred or moved to another site and lines of authority clarified.”

And “a handful” of the employees “strongly stated that their morale was adversely affected and their jobs were affected in a wide variety of ways by the Troms’ marital status,” Komers said.

Komers was unavailable Thursday afternoon to clarify the terms that he used to describe the number of workers with concerns about the Troms.

However, Schaefer said: “I know the numbers, and I know it’s more than a handful.” Former Civil Service Commission staff member Ray Charles, who died suddenly this week, said in April that about 20 workers had complained to him.

Embry said he also questions the usefulness of the interviews by Komers and Bradbury. “If my boss summoned me and conducted his investigation on a one-to-one basis, the tendency would be to tell him what he wanted to hear,” Embry said.

Komers did not elaborate on the workers’ concerns in his report. But employee spokesman Hammitt has said workers told him that Escobar-Trom received favored treatment such as prime overtime assignments and time off to travel with her husband to conferences.

Some workers felt that Escobar-Trom had held her personal relationship with their boss “over them directly” in disputes, Hammitt has said.

The Troms were at an out-of-town conference Thursday and unavailable for comment. But previously they have denied that she received favored treatment and have expressed surprise at the complaints.