Board of Supervisors Vote to Censure County Assessor After Sexual Harassment Allegations

On Tuesday, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors voted to censure County Assessor Gus Kramer and approved a resolution which they believe he acted in behavior to have been inappropriate and unbecoming of a County official.

The action also refers this issue now to the Contra Costa Grand Jury to determine whether further investigation of the Assessor’s conduct or the operational procedures of the Assessor’s department with regard to sexual harassment complaints is warranted.

The move came after allegations of sexual harassment with two female employees became public and an investigation found he was more likely than not to have performed sexual harassment in the workplace.

According to the resolution: 

1. As to the initial complainant, there was sufficient evidence to indicate that Mr. Kramer engaged in the following conduct in 2014 and 2015:
   • Kramer frequently visited the complainant’s cubicle on the first floor and the complainant frequently visited Mr. Kramer’s office during 2014 and up to March 2015. During these visits they discussed work related and non-work related matters.
   • On one occasion Mr. Kramer told her that he had given a vibrator to a woman (not a County employee) as a gift. She thought that this was inappropriate and offensive.
   • Kramer sent her two text messages in 2014 that she believed suggested a romantic/sexual interest in her. The Mr. Kramer sent her two text messages in 2014 that she believed suggested a romantic/sexual interest in her. The partial text messages provided by the complainant in support of this allegation are attached. She considered the texts to be inappropriate and unwelcome.
   • In May 2014, he offered her a rose, which she interpreted to be a romantic gesture.
2. As to the second employee/witness, there was sufficient evidence to indicate that Mr. Kramer made a comment in her presence in 2008 and told a story in her presence in 2013 concerning his social interactions with women that she thought were inappropriate and offensive; and that on one occasion in 2015 he made a comment to her that she believed was intended to be sexually suggestive and considered inappropriate, offensive and unwelcome.

During public comments, Attorney Bruce Zelis requested the Board of Supervisors continue this matter until a later date because Mr. Kramers attorney could not appear today.

“I am an attorney and I’m here to specially appear for Mr. Kramer on this matter. There are some concerns that number one, it appears that this board is recommending action based on a administrative bulletin that became effective two or three years after these alleged incidents took place,” explained Zelis.  “Mr. Kramer is not a county employee. We think there are violations of the Brown Act. There’s issues about a closed session, an open session and just the several irregularities yet. I just heard about this last night, so I’m not prepared to go into the substantive detail, but I think Mr. Kramer is entitled to have a continuance on this so he can get counsel to appear with them.”

According to County Counsel, the policy cited in the resolution was a “remodeled policy but all of the elements existed previously” where they took two-to-three policies and made them into one.

County legal also said that a Ministry of Bulletin applies to elected officials and to all employees and that Mr. Kramer is an officer of the county and by statue, the Board of Supervisors has some supervisory responsibility over officers, which is why it was appropriate for the Board to consider this action.

During the meeting, the Board of Supervisors were made aware of the allegations in January with a report being completed in May and the findings made available in June

Supervisor Candace Andersen said she has heard feed back from both sides including friends of Kramers who say this is a witch-hunt and politically motivated.

“From my perspective, we cannot tolerate anything in this county that they’re really a reasonable person would deem inappropriate, offensive or unwelcome and I think that’s why we’re passing this resolution,” said Andersen.  “Perhaps the investigator did not find that there was retaliation or cause of action of, of sexual harassment potentially there. But in this instance particularly, we’re unfortunately prior to my time on this board, and I think most of ours other than Federal (Glover), the county paid out a million dollars for a sexual harassment retaliation. Nevertheless, it put the county in a very difficult position at that time and I think after that happened, we expect anyone who caused the county that kind of money to have a little bit more of a conscientious, cautious approach to what their behavior is.”

Andersen stated that what was shared in the staff report, there clearly was inappropriate offensive activity so she was supportive of the motion and making a referral to the grand jury.

“I think it’s important to make a referral to the grand jury is from a transparency standpoint that it’s not, you know, the fox guarding the chicken, that somehow we’re trying to protect other elected officials, but that we have another independent look at was this conduct something more that needs to be addressed,” said Andersen.

Supervisor Diane Burgis offered the motion a second.

“I want all of our employees to feel comfortable and safe in their work environment. And that’s what we’re doing,” said Burgis.

Supervisor Karen Mitchoff stated she would be supporting the motion and explained how it was not politically motivated nor a witch hunt.

“I to agree, we want to ensure a safe environment for all of our employees. As is stated in the resolution. Elected officials need to be above reproach a in conducting their duties and it’s unfortunate and as I’ve stated to media, this is not something that we take any pleasure in it. It’s, it’s a very unfortunate situation,” said Mitchoff.

After the 4-0 vote, Mitchoff highlighted that Supervisor John Gioia was in Canada as part of the California Air Resources Board, however, he was in support of the motion.

She further highlighted how they did not break the Brown Act rules, however, it was brought up because both Mitchoff and Gioia serve as chair and vice chair of the Board of Supervisors.

On Monday, Kramer told KPIX 5 that he had no plans to resign and if there was a vote “I will be suing their pants off if they censure me tomorrow”.