Public commenters allege hiring irregularities, harassment at Ventura County APCD; board takes no immediate action

Speakers at the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District board meeting on June 10 alleged hiring irregularities, favoritism and workplace harassment within the APCD and county human resources offices. The board received the comments during the public-comment portion of the meeting; no formal investigation or board action was initiated at that session.

The first commenter, Maria Cruz, identified herself as a current APCD employee and told the board she had submitted a written complaint and cited a June 8 Ventura County Star article. Cruz said she had “evidence of preferential treatment and personal abuse of the hiring system” and described multiple concerns: “improper transition of extra help to full time positions,” promotions or reclassifications without public posting or competitive recruitment, creation of higher classifications without oversight, and “questionable pay raises for underqualified employees.” Cruz asked the board to “review the hiring reclassification and compensation history” of the employees she described, audit the creation and approval process for reclassified positions in the fiscal and administration division, and investigate criteria for pay increases. She also requested confidentiality “to the extent permitted by law due to fear of retaliation.”

A second speaker, identified as Renee (no last name provided), said a former APCD administrative employee suffered harassment and alleged a manager conducted investigations of that employee. Renee described mental and physical health consequences for the former employee and urged the board to take the allegations seriously.

A third commenter, identified in the record as Jane F., gave detailed accusations naming an HR manager, Nancy Mendoza, and the APCD executive officer, identified in the meeting as Ali Gassimi (executive officer). Jane F. said Mendoza and, in some instances, Gassimi had allowed promotions and reclassifications without required testing or postings and had altered duties in ways she described as inconsistent with county and union policy. Jane F. referenced county policies by section numbers as presented to the board and urged the board to investigate: “Nancy has engaged in harassment, surveillance, and targeting of her employment employees,” she said.

Board members did not announce a referral or formal inquiry at the meeting. The chair closed public comment and the board proceeded to other agenda items. The complaints were entered into the meeting record; speakers asked the board to investigate and, in one case, to keep the commenter’s identity confidential.

The matters raised in public comment included specific requests for an internal audit and document review; the commenters alleged possible violations of county hiring and classification procedures but did not identify any completed disciplinary or corrective action taken by the board during the June 10 meeting.

The record provides the public-comment statements and the board’s acknowledgement in the meeting minutes. If the board chooses to direct staff to investigate or report back, that direction would be reflected in future agenda materials.