O.C. Board Condemns Recorder Branch : Government: Supervisors ask grand jury to determine if he can be removed from office for alleged misconduct.

In an unprecedented move, the Orange County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday publicly condemned Recorder Lee A. Branch and asked the grand jury to determine whether allegations of misconduct warrant his removal from office.

The double-barreled decision was met by quiet applause from more than a dozen employees of the recorder’s office, one of whom likened Branch’s treatment of workers to “child abuse” in testimony to the board.

Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. Maury Evans said his office would provide assistance to the grand jury if asked.

“The grand jury is an independent body and will act as they deem appropriate,” Evans said.

Supervisor William G. Steiner said the jury’s involvement is necessary since Branch has refused to resign his obscure elected office although a county personnel investigation has found that he has mismanaged his office and sexually harassed employees.

The county investigation, which was made public last week, also found that Branch’s office romance with and favored treatment of supervisor Nancy L. Smith created such a hostile work environment that nine employees sought medical treatment for stress and depression.

At home Tuesday afternoon, Branch declined comment on the board’s actions. But Smith, who answered Branch’s home phone, called the decisions “unfair.”

As part of its unanimous action, the board recommended that Smith be transferred from the recorder’s office to another county job.

“I’m just horrified by this entire thing,” she said. “I don’t take this as a joke.”

Branch has said that the investigation of his office has been part of a political “hidden agenda” initiated by the board to remove him from office to make room for a favored candidate, County Clerk Gary Granville.

On Tuesday, both Steiner and Supervisor Gaddi H. Vasquez referred to the employees’ gripping testimony to the board in explaining their vote.

“No report that I have ever read conveys the power contained in the statements of these employees,” Steiner said. “They have taken this matter to a new level of seriousness.”

Longtime government observers said they could not remember any other time when the board had publicly condemned another elected official or sought an official’s removal from office through the grand jury.

“I think the board is justified in its action,” said William Mitchell, director of Common Cause in Orange County. “There appears to be gross mismanagement in every facet of the recorder’s job. I think the supervisors are doing the only thing they can do.”

Before they voted, the supervisors heard testimony from three recorder employees who came to the Hall of Administration on Tuesday morning on their work breaks to detail “years” of office turmoil. They were accompanied by colleagues including Assistant Recorder Ella M. Murphy.

“The staff of the recorder’s office have been like abused children,” said 12-year employee Cyndi Viall, “afraid to tell the parents of their abuse and suffering because of intimidation and fear of retaliation by their abuser. . . .

“We have been degraded, harassed, prejudged, lied to, slandered and forced to work in a mentally and physically unhealthy environment,” Viall said. “I pity Mr. Branch for not acknowledging his obligation to the voters, the county family and his position by respecting their needs and resigning.”

Said employee Corinna Rubio: “During the years, I have been subjected to discrimination, harassment, abuse and ridicule from (Nancy Smith). Astonishingly, Mr. Branch has allowed the continuance of this harassment throughout the office.”

Supervisor Roger R. Stanton said the recorder’s apparent conduct presented “an incredible situation” for the board since supervisors have limited authority over the independently elected public official.

The 57-year-old Branch has held the office since 1978 and has vowed to seek reelection in June despite the controversy.

Short of pressing for his being voted out of office, supervisors said the grand jury inquiry is the strongest action they can recommend. Board members also said a grand jury format could offer a safeguard for employees who are fearful of possible retaliation for their testimony to the board Tuesday, and for county personnel investigators who took part in the three-month investigation of Branch’s office.

In the investigation, county affirmative action officials found--among other things--that there was ample evidence to support allegations that Branch had made lewd comments to a female employee suggesting a sexual liaison, made sexual advances to another female employee during a Christmas party and allowed general office operations to be affected by his relationship with Smith.

Employees also complained to investigators that Smith “wielded tremendous power” in the office and used that authority to intimidate the employees. Assistant Recorder Murphy told investigators she was barred by Branch from evaluating Smith’s work performance for about nine years.

“I have not seen anything like this in any organization I have been a part of,” Stanton said Tuesday. “If there is any effort to retaliate against any of the employees for their testimony, they should feel free to speak to any one of us.”

As part of the board’s censure, Steiner said the county would not provide Branch legal defense in the event he is the subject of a lawsuit.

Vasquez said Branch’s behavior is unacceptable but should not surprise officials who have been familiar with management troubles in the recorder’s office, which began in the mid-1980s.

Vasquez referred to a December, 1987, memo to Branch from then-County Administrative Officer Larry Parrish who sharply denounced the recorder’s handling of an office problem.

In the memo, Parrish wrote: “By now, I should not be surprised by your (Branch’s) unlimited capacity to miss the point of a conversation, form an idiotic opinion and choose a course of action whose only effect is to reinforce the widely held view that you are incompetent.”