The conduct of Thurston County Commissioner Emily Clouse was “more likely than not, inconsistent with and contrary to the behavioral requirements and expectations of professionalism” outlined by the county, according to a summary of an independent investigation prepared by county Human Resources Director Maria Aponte.
“The lack of professional boundaries, workplace decorum, sound judgment, and the application of ethical practices have created a compromising position for Commissioner Clouse and the County,” Aponte wrote. “These actions have also subjected an employee to workplace conditions that are not tolerated in Thurston County. Thurston County does not condone the blurring of professional lines as represented in this situation.”
Following the publication of the report Friday evening, The Chronicle contacted a lawyer representing Clouse seeking comment. In response, Maia Robbins stated “Clouse is delighted that the investigation has concluded, as it should have months ago.”
“She looks forward to the public’s careful review of the investigatory report, which details the many inconsistencies of the complainant’s story and puts to bed their salacious allegations as unsubstantiated,” Robbins said. “She looks forward to continuing to serve the interests of Thurston County as a County Commissioner.”
The report and summary, both submitted Nov. 26, were filed on the same day Clouse’s former aide filed a lawsuit against Clouse in Thurston County Superior Court for damages to be established at trial.
The long-awaited report, which details the personal relationship between Clouse and a former aide, comes after Clouse was temporarily removed from all appointed boards and commissions on Aug. 13 following “allegations of misconduct.”
While portions of the public report and investigation are highly redacted, The Chronicle reviewed an unredacted version prior to its official publication Friday evening.
In a joint statement released Friday, the Thurston County commissioners said the “investigation uncovered breaches of trust and ethical violations” by Clouse.
“Commissioner Clouse’s actions were a direct violation of Thurston County HR Policies, her Oath of Office, and a violation of the public’s trust instilled in elected officials. Deliberate deceptive behavior created confusion within the Board, Thurston County organization and public,” the statement says. “Although outside the disciplinary authority of the Board, the misuse of public resources and inappropriate personal gain raise great concern.”
The report details the close relationship between the county commissioner and the aide, and describes the at times blurred lines between personal and professional relationship the aide reported.
In several instances, the aide reported loaning Clouse money that had not been repaid. This includes $1,500 for Clouse to purchase a plane ticket to Japan, which the investigator noted “could reasonably appear to be an inappropriate use of her position for personal gain or benefit.”
Clouse and her former aide first kissed on March 29, and the pair began to soon discuss the position, though neither knew where their personal relationship was headed.
“Commissioner Clouse stated that she had reviewed the County’s policies regarding nepotism and potential conflicts of interest prior to deciding to offer [aide] the EA position,” the report states. “She found no restrictions in County policies regarding dating someone at work, including a subordinate.”
Before he was formally hired as Clouse’s assistant, the complainant said he picked up the commissioner from an event and drove her back to her office, something he considered to be “his first assignment” in the position. He was formally offered the role the following day.
“The informal matter in which Commissioner Clouse performed some aspects of her work relationship” which included failing to reimburse her aide for items purchased for her during the work day on several occasions, “did not reflect the attention and respect commonly expected of a supervisor, and created opportunities for real or perceived abuse of supervisory authority.”
The relationship, the statement says, “caused work colleagues to question or distrust her judgement because she appeared to act without appreciating the risk that her romantic/sexual relationship with her subordinate created for the county and without recognizing the possibility that her actions would reflect negatively on the reputation of the County and its commissioners.”
In their statement, the Thurston County commissioners said the “conduct in the investigative report would result in the termination of any regular County employee, however as an independently elected official this is not within the legal authority of the board,” the statement from the Board of Commissioners states. “It is also important to note that as an elected official, Commissioner Clouse should be held to an even higher standard of accountability than any regular employee.”
According to the commissioners’ statement, the board has begun to strengthen “policies to enforce boundaries regarding workplace relationships, conflicts of interest and public resource use.”
The board has also begun:
• Enhancing anonymous reporting systems
• Implementing and strengthening safeguards
• Requiring periodic ethics reviews for all elected officials
In the executive summary, Aponte stated the “primary focus of the investigators was to ascertain the level of legal risk to the County in response to the employee’s complaint.”
The aide was fired soon after a July 24 commissioners meeting, where someone had jokingly left a bag of candy on Clouse’s desk. Believing the aide had played the prank, “Clouse questioned [aide]’s conduct, which she said was disrespectful towards her.”
The aide left shortly after, and was absent from work the next two days without Clouse’s approval.
Fearing he would be terminated the following Monday, the aide spoke to Human Resources that evening regarding his relationship with Clouse.
In the report, the investigator found “it was more likely than not” a report to Human Resources “was not a substantial factor in Commissioner Clouse’s decision to terminate” her aide this July.
According to the investigation, which was conducted by lawyer Robin L. Nielson, the relationship between Clouse and the aide “more likely than not” lasted between five and six weeks, beginning in the second half of April and lasting through some time in May.
In the summary, which is addressed to Thurston County Manager Leonard Hernandez, Aponte wrote that Clouse continued to engage in a romantic and sexual relationship with the aide “after she selected him for employment in the Commissioners Office, and he began working for her as a subordinate.”
During this relationship, Aponte wrote that Clouse benefitted from the relationship “while creating risk that he could question any further adverse employment action by the County and allege discriminatory harassment and that she failed to take proactive steps to manage and limit the potential risk for the County” that the relationship created.
The investigator, though, concluded that “that is more likely than not that Commissioner Clouse did not condition (the aide’s) job benefits on whether or not (aide) provided her with any sexual favors or engaged in any sexual conduct with her.”
The investigator could also not substantiate several of the other claims alleged in the initial complaint.
The investigator found it was more likely than not that Clouse “did not subject [aide] to unwelcome, sex-based conduct that was subjectively and objectively either pervasive or severe enough to alter the terms and conditions of his job and create an offensive or intimidating work environment because of his gender.”
During the investigation, Nielson found it was “more likely than not that Commissioner Clouse did not subject [aide] to conduct that was offensive or intimidating to him because of his race.”
See the redacted investigator’s report into allegations against Clouse at https://tinyurl.com/d29cbsjd.
