Official Reprimanded for Hiring Molina’s Husband : Government: County rebukes affirmative action officer for authorizing Ron Martinez to proceed with training employees.

Los Angeles County’s affirmative action officer has been reprimanded for steering county business to Supervisor Gloria Molina’s husband after withdrawing a contract for the same work for board consideration to avoid political controversy during Molina’s campaign.

Chief Administrative Officer Richard B. Dixon said in a report obtained Tuesday that he has reprimanded Robert A. Arias for a “serious lapse of administrative judgment” in authorizing Molina’s husband, Ron Martinez, to proceed with cultural sensitivity training for employees.

“There is no evidence that Supervisor Molina participated in any of the events which were investigated,” the report says. Dixon noted that no contract with Martinez or his firm, PeopleWorks, was approved after Molina was elected in February.

A spokesman for Molina said the supervisor had no comment on the report. She previously said she was unaware of the details surrounding her husband’s work for the county.

The county investigation was prompted by a story in The Times in May that Arias authorized Martinez to proceed with the training after a proposed $100,000 contract for the same work was pulled from the board agenda in February.

At the time, Arias said that he withdrew the contract to avoid controversy during Molina’s campaign but that he felt the training was needed to address allegations by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that the county’s huge hospital system discriminates against Latino employees.

In his report to the supervisors, Dixon said, “In continuing the training after withdrawing the contract from the board’s consideration without advising the board that they intended to do so, the director of health services and the affirmative action compliance officer exercised poor judgment.”

Dixon said Arias and health director Robert Gates permitted the training to continue without a contract in violation of county contracting procedures.

Gates said Dixon had not indicated to him that he personally executed poor judgment. “Some of my staff were not as cautious as they should have been,” Gates said, adding that he has admonished his managers to be more careful.

Arias declined to comment. Dixon said a reprimand is the “harshest non-monetary penalty” that can be given to a county employee short of being fired. It can be a factor in the supervisors’ decision whether to award Arias a merit raise.

Dixon’s report apparently does not end the matter, however.

Martinez has filed a claim with the county seeking $35,777 for the training he conducted. His attorney said he may seek more money.

Dixon said the county’s liability, if any, should not exceed $18,000, which represents the training conducted by Martinez before the county ordered a halt to his work following the Times’ story.

According to Dixon, Martinez may be paid for his work as long as he can prove that it was performed “in good faith and with reasonable expectation that the county managers who authorized it had appropriate authority to do so.”

Martinez referred questions to his lawyer, Robert M. Hertzberg, who said his client believed that Arias had the authority to authorize the work.

“It is the view of PeopleWorks that it was, at all times, dealing with authorized, high-level county management employees who had full authority and funding to proceed with an EEOC-mandated training program,” Hertzberg said.

Last spring, Martinez told The Times that he had to continue the training because the county informed the commission that he would provide the training.

Dixon disputed that: “The county had agreed with the EEOC to provide training, but had not agreed to provide that training through Mr. Martinez.”

Dixon said he has asked the affirmative action officer and health director to make a recommendation on whether the county should resume the training with another firm.

But the county cannot legally contract with Martinez because of a state law prohibiting county boards from approving contracts in which one of its members has a significant economic interest, Dixon said.