Gibson’s wife won’t join his staff after all — and that’s for the best | Opinion

Supervisor Bruce Gibson’s wife, Cherie Gibson, will not return to work as District 2 chief of staff after all.

She submitted her resignation on Thursday, after it became apparent that her employment creates a financial conflict of interest for her husband. That’s based on a California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) decision in a similar case.

Supervisor Gibson said he was unaware of FPPC guidance, which was issued in October 2019.

“My decision to bring Cherie back into her role as employed district staff was approved by our Human Resources Department, and was based on a legal determination provided by county counsel in 2016,” Gibson said in a statement. “After Cherie returned, I was made aware that new FPPC guidance on spousal employment had been issued after she retired.”

His statement ended with an apology: “I accept responsibility for this misunderstanding, and apologize for assuming the rules of employment are the same today as they were before. It was my mistake.”

Cherie Gibson is considering returning to work as a volunteer, provided that does not violate any county policies. She is not accepting payment for the two weeks she already put in.

Michael Erin Woody raised accusations of nepotism

The issue of Cherie Gibson’s reemployment might have stayed under the radar, if not for Michael Erin Woody — one of two candidates hoping to succeed Gibson, who is not running for reelection next year.

Woody accused Gibson of nepotism and demanded that he resign and apologize to his constituents. He also requested an investigation by the District Attorney’s Office, among other remedies.

“Gibson is using the power of his office to enrich an immediate family member and by proxy, his family household,” Woody wrote to The Tribune. “This is no different than if he were to use the power of his office to award a contract that would benefit an immediate family member, or himself, as well. There is no question in my mind that this is illegal.”

The FPPC letter appeared to confirm Woody’s allegation. It also compared the hiring of a county employee to a contract, and while it concerned a case in Placer County, there are clear parallels to what’s happening in San Luis Obispo County.

What Placer County case shows

In the Placer County situation, an employee wanted to apply for a promotion, but the legality was in question since her husband served on the Board of Supervisors. The FPPC attorney who analyzed the case concluded it would be a conflict of interest for her to receive the promotion, since her husband would also benefit financially.

It would, however, be permissible for her to continue to hold her old job, since she had been working in that position before her husband joined the board. It was the change in employment status that triggered the decision in Placer County.

That is Cherie Gibson’s situation as well.

She had already been working as legislative assistant prior to her 2016 marriage to Bruce Gibson and was allowed to remain in that position. No wrongdoing there.

But returning to work after retiring constituted a change in status, and under the FPPC guidance would not be permitted.

These cases are not an easy call, but FPCC got it right.

Complaints of cronyism threaten public trust

San Luis Obispo County does have an anti-nepotism policy that applies to civil service employees, but it does not cover supervisors’ chiefs of staff.

Now would be a good time to reconsider.

This is no reflection on Cherie Gibson’s work or her qualifications.

Objections to her reappointment are aimed at her husband and are the opening salvos of what is shaping up to be a nasty political campaign pitting Woody against Jim Dantona, who will soon be joining Gibson’s staff — giving him a leg-up and triggering additional objections from Woody.

This is about optics and the public trust.

Complaints of nepotism and cronyism can erode confidence in local government, and for that reason, the Board of Supervisors would do well to revisit its hiring policies, possibly by considering an ordinance prohibiting supervisors from hiring their immediate relatives.

Some counties already have such restrictions. For example, Placer County specifically prohibits supervisors from hiring dependents to work on their staffs.

Bottom line: Having a relative on the same payroll — not to mention working in the same office — is not a good look in the public sector, no matter how scrupulously parties work to keep their private and professional lives separate.

We said as much in a 2013 editorial.

“We believe it’s a clear conflict of interest for a public official or public employee to supervise a spouse, relative or romantic partner — period,” we wrote then.

That remains our position today.