Employees and callers allege harassment at Ventura County APCD; board approves 6% merit raise for executive officer

At a public meeting of the Ventura County Air Pollution Control Board, multiple current and former employees and community members raised allegations of mistreatment, harassment and retaliation inside the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), and urged the board to investigate before approving personnel and pay actions.

The concerns surfaced during the board's public comment period and recurred when the board considered a merit increase for the district's executive officer. Commenters described a pattern of low morale and personnel decisions they say amounted to retaliation. Spencer Noren, a community member, urged the board to postpone two personnel actions and "extend decision" so staff complaints could be verified. Christine Dow, a resident, asked the board to "delay any decision on mister Gossimi's raise until these ongoing issues are thoroughly considered" and to make the justification for any merit increase public.

Why it matters: Commenters said workplace culture and alleged management practices are already affecting staff retention and could undermine district operations. The merit increase vote affects taxpayer-funded compensation and drew direct public scrutiny because some commenters linked personnel practices to how the district manages budget and staff resources.

What board members and staff said

Several speakers read or summarized statements they said were from APCD employees. Christina Gonzales told the board she had heard "reports [of] mistreatment, verbal abuse, harassment, overwork, demotions, belittlement, and retaliation against employees" and said employees were "living in fear." Kathy Kaye read a letter written by a staff member that said, "APCD has [a] management problem that has led to very low morale of employees district wide." Gloria Bard said the district had "seen 3 valuable employees either demoted or placed on administrative leave after presenting cost saving or operational improvement suggestions."

Some public commenters asked the board to pause personnel decisions pending investigation. Spencer Noren said he supported creating or filling positions but asked the board to "pause this merit increase until we find out more of this department" and proposed a subcommittee or further review. Christine Dow argued the board should make the merit-increase justification public.

District and county staff answered questions from the board. Executive Officer Ali Gersembe (APCD Executive Officer) said a separate agenda item proposing two one-year fixed-term air quality specialist positions was intended to "avoid disruption in the district operation and to maintain operational efficiency" and that the district's current adopted budget for FY 2024-25 had funds available to cover temporary hires. County Human Resources representative Mattis Gamato told the board "there are various protected leaves within the state of California and it is not uncommon for positions to be requested and approved in order to cover work during those absences."

On the merit increase item, County Human Resources presenter Mattis Cabello explained the proposed merit process under the county management resolution, citing sections 3.16, 3.19 and 3.22. Cabello said the executive officer's base salary was "approximately 13.56% below the top of the range," and described the board's flexibility under county policy to grant merit increases and retroactivity.

Board action and next steps

After public comment and discussion, the board voted to approve a 6% merit increase for the district's executive officer, effective retroactive to Sept. 29, 2024. The motion passed by majority vote; one board member indicated they would abstain because they had not participated in the prior management review process. The board also approved, elsewhere on the agenda, two one-year fixed-term air quality specialist positions and other personnel-related items discussed during the meeting.

What was not decided here

Commenters asked the board to investigate allegations of harassment, retaliation and inconsistent policy enforcement. The board did not open a separate, public investigation during the meeting; several speakers were advised to submit comments or complaints to the clerk or to existing county complaint channels. County auditor-controller staff confirmed the county hotline and complaint channels are received and reviewed; substantiation is determined after investigation.

Looking ahead

Multiple commenters asked the board to follow up on employee complaints and to publicly document the rationale for personnel and pay decisions. Board members who spoke thanked the executive officer for responsiveness to constituents and acknowledged the need to balance personnel management, budget constraints and transparency. Several speakers said they would send written materials to the clerk for the record.