Board to Censure Branch : Inquiry: Supervisors will act following investigation that upheld allegations of sexual harassment and mismanagement against the county recorder.

The Board of Supervisors plans to censure Orange County Recorder Lee A. Branch now that the county’s investigation has upheld allegations of sexual harassment and serious mismanagement and portrayed Branch’s office as “out of control.”

In reports made public Thursday, county personnel investigators said Branch’s favored treatment of a female department supervisor with whom he was romantically involved created such a hostile work environment that at least nine employees sought medical or psychological treatment for stress and depression.

Employees told investigators that office supervisor Nancy L. Smith “wielded tremendous power” as a result of her relationship with Branch and used that authority to “intimidate” employees.

“Many of the employees we interviewed believed that Ms. Smith was the recorder,” investigators wrote. “As one employee put it, ‘You don’t cross Nancy or you’re dead meat.’ ”

Branch and Smith have denied any wrongdoing. Branch has vowed to seek reelection this year.

Reached at his home Thursday, Branch said he had not seen the county reports and declined comment.

His attorney, Lloyd Charton, said there were “no surprises” in the county’s report.

“The sexual harassment allegations are as laughable as they were before,” he said. “If Lee Branch can go through life and this is the worst he has done, then he’ll die a happy man.”

Responding to the board’s planned censure action, Charton said: “Lee Branch hereby censures (board Chairman) Tom Riley. That means the same as the board’s censure and that’s nothing.”

Despite the employee complaints, repeated calls by top officials for the recorder to resign and now the supervisors’ planned censure, Branch remains virtually untouchable.

Branch, 57, who presides over the obscure repository for real estate and loan transactions, is elected by the voters. He has been in office since 1978.

The Orange County Grand Jury could engage in removal proceedings. The Grand Jury has requested information regarding the recorder’s office, but it is unclear whether the panel is pursuing misconduct allegations.

County Affirmative Action Officer Ben Alvillar, whose office conducted the wide-ranging probe, recommended that Branch resign.

In a censure letter to Branch, Riley said the evidence supports the misconduct allegations.

“Your management style has resulted in low morale and inefficiency,” Riley wrote. “It is a tribute to recorder employees that they have continued to get the job done in spite of you.”

On Thursday, Riley said he did not believe Branch could ever assume control of his office in light the reports’ findings.

The board is expected to consider the Branch reports Tuesday. The planned censure could be the first time the board has taken such an action, County Administrative Officer Ernie Schneider said.

At the recorder’s office Thursday, emotions were running high among some employees who have said that they fear possible retaliation.

“It’s kind of like chaos around here,” said one employee who declined to be named. The employee said office copy machines were buzzing all day, running off copies of the county report for employees.

In separate reports, investigators in the county’s Affirmative Action Office analyzed the employee-related complaints while a top county official reviewed the management of Branch’s office. The reports recommended that:

* Branch apologize to an employee who accused him of making lewd remarks interpreted by the employee as conveying a “sexual overture.”

* Branch take “absolutely no type of retaliation” against any of the 50 employees interviewed by investigators.

* Smith be transferred to another county department.

* The recorder make no decisions on routine employee discipline matters without approval from the county administrative officer, personnel director and county counsel.

The management review, conducted by Deputy Social Services Agency Director Robert A. Griffith, found a “definite leadership failure” in the office “with the recorder allowing himself to become isolated and unresponsive to many serious situations requiring management attention.”

“Without a doubt, the management problems in the recorder’s office are the most severe I have observed in almost 25 years as a manager in Orange County,” Griffith wrote.

The investigation was launched in late October, when a female employee complained that Branch made lewd comments during an Oct. 22 meeting in his office. The inquiry expanded to include allegations of physical abuse against both Branch and Smith, as well as the complaints of mismanagement. During the Oct. 22 incident, Branch allegedly became “visibly angry” with the female employee and began shouting. Later, the report states, Branch used crude language and suggested a possible sexual liaison.

“When questioned about her reaction,” the report said, the employee “stated that she was shocked and horrified at Mr. Branch’s language and his insinuation of a possible liaison between them since her relationship with him had been strictly business-like up to that point.”

County officials said a “preponderance of evidence” supported the allegation.

County officials also said it was “reasonable to believe” that Branch engaged in a second incident of sexual harassment involving another female employee during a 1985 Christmas party. The employee said Branch “was getting overly friendly,” brushing up against her when she “became frightened of more sexual advances.”

The following week, the employee went to Smith for advice about Branch’s behavior, not knowing that Branch and Smith had a personal relationship, the report stated. Shortly after that meeting, the employee said she was “deluged with extra work.” The report stated that the employee later resigned and sought psychological counseling.

Investigators found that separate physical abuse allegations against both Branch and Smith were inconclusive.

Some of the strongest employee concerns, however, involved how general office operations were affected by Branch’s relationship with Smith.

Assistant Recorder Ella M. Murphy told investigators that Smith refused to acknowledge Murphy’s authority and “frequently end-ran” Murphy and went to Branch with her concerns.

“This all occurred despite the fact that Ms. Murphy is Ms. Smith’s supervisor,” the report stated. “Ms. Murphy also explained that she had not given Ms. Smith a performance evaluation in nine years because Mr. Branch would not permit it.”

Murphy has since said that she will run against Branch for the recorder’s post.

Smith could not be reached Thursday. But she told investigators that Branch never showed any favoritism toward her.

Smith told investigators that she was a victim of sexual harassment involving an individual who investigators identified only as “Person No. 2.” The report, however, provided no details of the incident, stating only that it remained under investigation.

Smith “claimed to be a hard worker and an employee dedicated to the recorder’s office,” the report stated. “She blamed Ms. Murphy for the problems in the recorder’s office, alleging that Ms. Murphy and Person No. 2 were conspiring against Mr. Branch, thereby disrupting smooth operations of the department.”