APCD employees urge board to investigate alleged hostile workplace; county HR presents complaint-resolution overview

Several current and former employees of the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District told the Air Pollution Control Board on July 24 that they face a hostile work environment under agency leadership and urged the board to order investigations and corrective action.

In public comment, Sam Edelson, a union representative for SEIU Local 721, read a letter from former APCD employee Elizabeth Gutierrez alleging repeated harassment and retaliation by a manager identified in comments as Nancy Mendoza. Olivia Cortez, whose remarks were read into the record by APCD engineer Ed Swede, said she resigned in February 2025 “under duress” after what she described as unjust and retaliatory treatment. Neil Hammel, a supervising inspector with APCD, said leadership actions have disrupted operations and morale and estimated investigations, grievances and related work have cost the agency “over $100,000.” Robert Schultz and Michelle Wood spoke in support of employees who say they were pushed out; Nicole Collazo, a current APCD air quality specialist and SEIU steward, urged the board to act and called for upgrading three long-tenured IT positions to reflect the duties staff perform.

The comments followed a presentation by Danielle Keyes, Ventura County human resources director, and Matt Escobedo, the county’s Equal Employment Opportunity officer, who delivered an overview of the county’s complaint intake and investigation procedures and the biannual “workplace misconduct and complaint resolution” report for January–June 2025. Keyes told the board the county’s role with APCD is consultative: APCD has adopted county personnel rules, but implementation and compliance are the responsibility of APCD leadership. Keyes also said county HR does not present agency-specific carve-outs of the countywide data when doing so would risk identifying anonymous complainants.

Escobedo described multiple complaint intake methods — a 24/7 third‑party employee misconduct hotline, the auditor-controller fraud line and direct contacts to county HR — and outlined the investigation process. He said investigations use a preponderance-of-evidence standard, that confidentiality is provided “to the degree possible,” and that anonymous complaints are often difficult to investigate because they lack sufficient specificity about who, what, where and when. He also said the county refers matters that appear to reflect strained interpersonal relationships to the county’s employee relations and resolution program for coaching, mediation and organizational-development interventions.

Board members pressed staff on timing and scope. Board member Chavez asked who receives investigatory reports and what oversight exists when the allegations involve management; Escobedo said that disposition is case-by-case and investigatory reports are typically provided when allegations are sustained. Supervisor Lopez and others asked whether the county will investigate complaints that predate the current reporting period; Escobedo said older complaints can be investigated if the facts support it. Several speakers and board members raised concern that anonymous reporting mechanisms and small‑agency carve-outs can make it hard to protect confidentiality while providing transparency to the board and to complainants.

After public comment and discussion, the board voted to receive and file the county HR workplace-misconduct report for January–June 2025. The board’s action was recorded as a motion to receive the report and passed with the board members present voting in favor.

Speakers and employees asked the board to request agency-specific complaint and retention data and to commission an independent review or well‑being assessment. Multiple speakers said they fear retaliation for speaking publicly; county HR and union representatives reiterated that the county’s whistleblower policy prohibits retaliation and that investigatory protections exist but cannot be guaranteed as fully confidential in every circumstance.

The board did not announce additional directives at the meeting beyond receiving the report; board members asked county HR to follow up on several items, including whether an APCD employee-satisfaction survey exists and whether additional, APCD-specific information could be provided in closed session if confidentiality concerns can be addressed.