County Inquiry Lifts O.C. Recorder Out of Obscurity : Government: Subject of affirmative action probe has denied wrongdoing.

Until early last week, Orange County Recorder Lee A. Branch was one of the most anonymous elected officials in the county.

That obscurity has evaporated. Branch has been spotlighted by a county Affirmative Action probe, investigating whether he favored office middle manager Nancy L. Smith, with whom he acknowledges a relationship; made lewd comments to a female employee, and physically abused another.

The perceived favoritism for Smith has reportedly caused serious morale problems in the 100-person office. One incident, cited by sources close to the investigation as being particularly harmful, allegedly involved Branch having delayed disciplinary action against Smith, who was accused of grabbing an employee by the shoulders and strongly scolding her in the office.

Branch has denied any wrongdoing and said he properly handled the disciplinary action of Smith.

It is not the first time that Branch and his department have received sharp official criticism. In 1985, judges and lawyers expressed dissatisfaction with his office, and a public study criticized Branch for poor management and his agency for being rude to the public and poor in its relations with other county departments.

But those previous problems did not affect his electability nor shorten his career as a public official. Branch, who began climbing the department ladder in 1956, assumed control of the office in 1978.

In response to the current allegations, Branch last week took a 30-day leave of absence so the inquiry could continue unimpeded. Investigators from the county Office of Affirmative Action are interviewing at least 14 office workers.

The allegations have hurt deeply, he acknowledged in a recent interview. Branch would discuss his relationship with Smith only in guarded terms. Asked whether, given all that he now knows, he would have continued the relationship, he paused.

“I don’t know,” he finally answered. “You get attached to somebody and fall in love. You can’t control that sort of thing, can you?”

Although no rules restrict blossoming relationships between managers and their employees in county government, county Personnel Director Russ Patton said it is possible that fallout from the Branch investigation could produce more specific regulations.

“Right now, we rely on people’s judgment,” Patton said.

David A. Poole, Branch’s longtime campaign treasurer who also knows Smith, said the Affirmative Action investigation is a most surprising development.

“I know him very well,” Poole said. “Lee is a very hard-working and dedicated man. I understand how it might be difficult working for him because he is such a hard worker himself.”

Crammed in the first floor of the county’s finance building, Branch since 1978 has reigned in a world of scuffed linoleum floors and fluorescent overhead lights, all the while directing a small army of document clerks.

Their job: to catch and file the numbing load of real estate documents generated by the home refinance boom and the failure of so many savings and loans with trust deeds on property in the county.

The volume has been especially heavy as interest rates have tumbled--up to 4,000 transactions on some days. The monotonous work has recently required much overtime and an unusual amount of weekend duty, Branch and his top assistant said.

The long hours, Branch said, has weighed heavily on staff morale. But nothing has done more to upset this unglamorous workplace--in fact, all of county government--than the 57-year-old recorder’s personal relationship of at least two years with Smith, whose office is steps from Branch’s door.

And as the investigation has broadened in recent days, county officials and others familiar with Branch describe a manager whose style has won him few allies in local government and maybe even fewer in his own office.

Dan Wooldridge, a longtime aide to former Supervisors Ralph Clark and Don R. Roth, described the recorder as “the most uncooperative official in my experience in county government.”

“He was a bull in a china closet,” Wooldridge said, and exhibited a “confrontational style every time there was a problem.”

In his experience, Wooldridge said, Branch preferred dealing only with other elected officials and reportedly had little time for lower-level bureaucrats.

“Everybody just dreaded having anything to do with him,” the former aide said. “He was jealously protective of his own position.”

Anaheim Mayor Tom Daly, also an aide to the same former supervisors, said that, though his dealings with Branch were limited, he recalled the recorder’s “frequent difficulties with other county departments and the Board of Supervisors.”

In addition, there is a history of official actions by the Board of Supervisors that point to a general dissatisfaction with Branch and his management style.

In one management study ordered by the board in 1985, Branch and his staff were roundly criticized for their overall dealings with the public and their resistance to change.

“We found that low morale and observed rude behavior toward clients both appear to be linked to a generally negative tone which is promoted by management,” stated the report, prepared by the county administrative office.

It went on to say that Branch’s presence was “perceived by staff as distant and minimal, with his involvement and interest limited primarily to resisting suggested changes and refusing requests for resources.”

The description of Branch’s “distant” management approach matches recent accounts of those familiar with the recorder and his day-to-day supervisorial style.

“When he walks by,” one source said, “everybody just freezes. He stares and stares. He doesn’t say anything. Oh, it’s just horrible.”

The 1985 study was sparked by judges and lawyers who complained of work backlogs.

At the time, Branch agreed with much of the study’s conclusions, but also said auditors did not “give us enough consideration on what we have to put up with” each day.

But the criticisms continued in subsequent years, when supervisors denied Branch a pay raise in 1988 because he refused to move his operation after the county had spent $260,000 to plan a new office for the department. In the same year, another report found a 21% error rate in a new index of official records.

When he was denied the raise, said one official, Branch “retreated, after that. . . . He felt like everybody was against him.”

These difficulties, however, have never affected the recorder’s standing on Election Day. In 1986, a year after the scathing county report, Branch scored a huge victory over challenger Gary Winterbottom. His most recent campaign in 1990 ended in another romp over Stanley Roach.

Some say Branch’s political success, despite the criticisms, can largely be attributed to the obscurity of his office.

“I don’t even know who the guy is or what he does,” said Dave Ellis, a Newport Beach-based political consultant. “I never heard of him until this thing got started. The guy is not even on the political radar screen.”

Even one of the handful of contributors to the recorder’s most recent campaign said Branch’s name is unfamiliar to him.

“What did he run for?” asked Reed Sprinkel of Newport Beach, who donated $100 to Branch’s 1990 campaign. “Somebody probably said that I should give this person some money. I don’t think I ever met him.”

But that anonymity is gone.

The sexual harassment and employee relations investigation is believed to be the first against an elected county official.

At the root of most of the complaints is Branch’s acknowledged relationship with Smith, who could not be reached for comment.

In recent interviews, the recorder insisted he has kept the relationship separate from business. But sources close to the investigation said Branch responded slowly in disciplining Smith.

After the incident, in which Smith was found to have grabbed the female employee, sources said that Branch “delayed” action on a proposed reprimand for Smith. Sources familiar with the incident said Branch would not at first consider a reprimand, but days later relented, leaving the responsibility to Assistant Recorder Ella M. Murphy to carry out.

Smith was given a reprimand, an action she is now challenging through the county’s personnel office, sources said.

Branch has declined to elaborate on details of the Smith incident, but has said that the matter “has been taken care of or is in the process of being taken care of.”

Branch said it was not his job to handle the reprimand.

“It was the assistant recorder’s responsibility,” he said.

In the past week, Branch has stated and restated his belief that the allegations are politically motivated. But he claims not to know who or what might be motivating such a campaign.

“I’m trying to do what I said I would do and that is to remain neutral,” Branch said of his 30-day leave from office pending the outcome of the investigation. “I am removing myself from making any judgments.”

For now, Branch is staying at his home in Tustin. His office, with its worn shag carpet, remains dark. On the walls are tacked the standard mementos from a long career. And on a cluttered credenza, stacked among the trade journals and office documents, sits a book on management, titled, “Thriving on Chaos.”