OC CEO Mauk condones Bustamantes’ sexist remarks!

Carlos BustamanteOn June 19th I wrote about the response from the Orange County CEO’s PR person regarding Carlos Bustamantes’ now notorious comment to Red County Blogger Matt Cunningham/Jubal and LATimes reporter Christian Berthelsen regarding the appointment of Sandra Hutchens as Sheriff over Santa Ana PD Chief Paul Walters. They responded that they could not comment on personnel matters. I followed up on Sunday June 22nd to make sure that they knew my request for clarification was a request for public records.

OC CEO Tom MaukWell in Tom Mauk’s ever spinning world of bull-sh*t, I received a response late Friday afternoon. I’ve got to say this is the best load his office has dumped yet.

“Carlos Bustamante was present at that beginning of the Board Meeting during the vote for Sheriff on his personal time and in his capacity as a Santa Ana Council Member.  The remainder of the June 10 Board Meeting involved the annual budget hearings, which Mr. Bustamante attended in his capacity as a Director of Administration for OC Public Works.”

I had asked:

  1. Was Carlos Bustamante, Administrative Manager III, paid for work on June 10, 2008?
  2. If Mr. Bustamante was paid for working on June 10, 2008, was he paid for a full or partial day?
  3. Was Mr. Bustamante present, in his capacity of Director of Administration for OC Public Works, for the Board of Supervisors hearing regarding the 2008-2009 County of Orange Budget?
  4. Finally, I would appreciate an official answer to the following question: Is the comment, “I kept telling the Chief (Walters) maybe we should get you some implants, or a water bra, reflective of the position of the County Executive Office regarding the appointment of women to management positions and in particular the appointment of Sandra Hutchens as OC Sheriff?

Their full response:

The material requested in questions 1 and 2 is confidential personnel information and is exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act, Government Code Secs. 6254(c) and (k) and Art. 1, Sec. 1 of the California Constitution.

Regarding question 3, Carlos Bustamante was present at that beginning of the Board Meeting during the vote for Sheriff on his personal time and in his capacity as a Santa Ana Council Member.  The remainder of the June 10 Board Meeting involved the annual budget hearings, which Mr. Bustamante attended in his capacity as a Director of Administration for OC Public Works.

We are unable to provide further comments.

Government Code Secs. 6254(c) and (k) read:

(c) Personnel, medical, or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(k) Records, the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege.

Just so we are all clear, it is apparently not an invasion of personal privacy for them to confirm that Mr. Bustamante did work that day, that he was present in the Board Hearing Room for the budget hearings while on the public dime, that he was not on the clock however when he made his comments in late morning.

I’ve been working for the County for about eleven years now, and I have never known any executive manager to attend ANY PORTION of a Board of Supervisors Meeting on their own time. It is particularly unprecedented that Mr. Bustamante was the only county administrator present for a portion of that meeting on his or her own time.

Quite frankly, I this response to simply mean that the County of Orange CEO condones the behavior and comments of Carlos Bustamante, and that the CEO is claiming that the comments made by Mr. Bustamante were somehow made on his own time to create the appearance that he did not violate county policy by his comments.

Further, by failing to comment as to whether Mr. Bustamantes’ comments are reflective of the position of the County Executive Office regarding the appointment of women to management positions and in particular the appointment of Sandra Hutchens as OC Sheriff, Mr. Mauk is confirming that Bustamantes’ comments are in fact reflective of the position of his office and the County of Orange regarding the appointment of women to management positions and in particular the appointment of Sandra Hutchens as OC Sheriff.

Mr. Mauk, for the record, with this response your office has just stated that any manager accused of making a sexually inappropriate remark may simply claim it was a personal remark made in their capacity as a private citizen and be off the hook.

You should be ashamed of yourself Mr. Mauk, instead of repudiating his comments you’re slapping Bustamante, and every other sexist pig in county management, with a big high-five.

Here is the link http://www.theliberaloc.com/category/carlos-bustamante/ to all of the recent stories on this topic.

Only in Orange County!

  5 comments for “OC CEO Mauk condones Bustamantes’ sexist remarks!

  1. June 30, 2008 at 6:25 am

    Why am I not surprised? Good work, Chris!

  2. Homewrecker
    June 30, 2008 at 9:45 am

    Chris, good work and please keep at it. The “personal time” excuse does not wash. Mr. Bustamante is a manager in an executive capacity and his conduct outside of the scope of his position, inasmuch as it reflects negatively on Orange County goverment, would warrant disciplinary action against him under provisions regarding “conduct unbecoming a County employee,” particularly since the comment was uttered in the open, on County property, in front of a reporter, and Mr. Bustamante subsequently lied when asked about it.

    Given Mr. Mauk’s apparently loose standards pertaining to executive conduct, it is perhaps for the best that he turned down the LA County job since he could do much, much more damage in the larger jurisdiction.

    At the very least, Mr. Bustamante should be forced to write a letter of apology to Sheriff Hutchins; then he should apologize to all of us for that hairdo.

  3. just...asking?
    July 1, 2008 at 9:12 am

    Chris,

    If you submit any more questions, please ask when Carlos submitted his request for personel time off?

    My guess is it was done after the flap over his sexist comments were made to “cover” legal issues arising from County HR employee making such comments.

  4. Oh Good God!
    July 1, 2008 at 10:08 am

    Who cares? When did everyone get so freaking sensitive about really stupid stuff? Do you think this comment is going to have some effect on the time and space continuum and catapult us back to the turn of the century? No! If anything, everyone’s knee-jerk reaction is just an indication that you all have not evolved very much. I am a woman and I could care less! It doesn’t demean me because I don’t let it. Grow up everyone and get over your self-righteous indignation. How many off-hand remarks have you made in jest–privately-intended for the one person involved in your conversation–that might have been construed by someone else as innappropriate? My guess is MANY! Congratulations for helping vanilla-ize the world.

  5. Homewrecker
    July 1, 2008 at 10:35 am

    Chris, I work in public sector human resources, and I can tell you that it does not matter whether he was “on his own time.” What Mr. Bustamante said was lewd and inappropriate given its target and insinuations, and uttered on County property. This would be the same as if I came into work on my day off and said or did something along those lines. I don’t think it would matter that I was on my own time if I was subjecting my co-workers to lewd behavior or statements in a clear violation of policy.

    Technicalities aside, Mr. Bustamante is in an executive leadership role and should be held to a higher standard. Mr. Mauk’s attempt to brush this matter aside reveals an obvious contempt for checks and balances as well the cronyism that OC goverment is famous for. One has to ask what county employees should take from Mr. Mauk’s handling of this incident; and why he is going to such lengths to protect Mr. Bustamante.

    This whole thing stinks and just really pi**es me off.

Comments are closed.