Yuba County Supervisor Seth Fuhrer shakes hands with members of the public who spoke in his defense during a special meeting hearing held on Dec. 29 regarding Fuhrer’s alleged workplace misconduct. Photo by Shamaya Sutton

YUBA COUNTY, CA (MPG) - A special meeting was held on Dec. 19 at the Yuba County Government center regarding Yuba County Supervisor Seth Fuhrer and the alleged workplace misconduct allegations brought against him.

“My understanding is that an initial complaint was received by the county in July of this year, which led to the retaining of Mr. Boucher,” said Gage Dungy from Liebert Cassidy Whitmore during the Dec. 19 special meeting. “As part of that investigation, other matters came to the attention of the county, including the CSAC (California State Association of Counties) and RCRC (Rural County Representatives of California) letter, which expanded the investigation and led to the findings of where we are today.”

The investigation performed by Boucher Law, PC included interviews with approximately nine individuals, a combination of current Yuba County employees, staff from partnering agencies, and other county supervisors. These accounts came from both professional and private interactions with Fuhrer over the past two years. The report listed findings such as touching someone on the nose, pulling a woman’s ponytail, poking another in the stomach, blocking the path of a female employee and making sexually suggestive comments such as “don’t flash me,” “you’re worth more than $100” and “everyone in this room is a prostitute.” There were also stories of alleged discriminatory religious views expressed by Fuhrer, who identifies as Jewish. These stories involved him referring to Christian women as being “more pretty” and making what was described as a joke about other people looking Jewish during a conference.

Fuhrer maintains that the majority of these encounters were taken out of context and that the primary reason behind these allegations is in fact a “smear campaign” to prevent him from claiming the position of board chair in 2025. The chair is normally a rotational position in Yuba County and after winning his re-election in March, and as current vice-chair, Fuhrer was next in line.

In light of the findings of Boucher Law and letters issued by the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) and Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC), Yuba County Administrator Kevin Mallen presented nine points of recommendation to the Board of Supervisors as follows:

1. Receive and accept the Executive Summary of the investigative report.

2. Inform Supervisor Fuhrer that county policy prohibits him from harassing or retaliating against county employees and requires that he “treat all employees and non-employees with respect and consideration” and model appropriate behavior.

3. The Board of Supervisors direct staff to prepare a draft Code of Conduct for all Yuba County elected officials within 90 days for the board’s consideration.

4. Supervisor Fuhrer is ineligible for nomination to chair or vice-chair for a one-year period, beginning Jan 1.

5. Accept the Aug. 20, joint letter from California State Association of Counties and Rural County Representatives of California and acknowledge the suspension of Supervisor Fuhrer from attending California State Association of Counties or Rural County Representatives of California sponsored conferences, convenings or annual meetings at least until Dec. 31, 2026, as requested by both organizations.

6. Pursuant to the county’s travel policy, direct the chair of the Board of Supervisors not to authorize Supervisor Fuhrer to travel to an event for county business, except where otherwise required pursuant to his official duties, unless such event is also attended by another board member or the county administrator commencing immediately through Dec. 31, 2025.

7. Inform Supervisor Fuhrer to direct all communications about county business to the county administrator or appropriate cunty department head in lieu of interacting directly with other county employees.

8. Inform Supervisor Fuhrer that his attendance at legally-mandated training sessions relating to standards of workplace conduct and harassment prevention be undertaken as determined by county management.

9. Censure and/or express disapproval regarding Supervisor Fuhrer’s sustained inappropriate conduct as found in the above-referenced investigation.

Mallen said that the board could opt to adopt all recommendations in one sweeping motion or approve each item individually. The meeting was then opened to public comment in which five members of the community stepped forward to voice their opinions, four in defense of Fuhrer and one against.

“It’s a sad day in Yuba County,” said Doug Lofton of Yuba County. “I’ve read the executive summary and staff recommendations and all I’m going to say to that is ‘wow’... I respectfully ask that you keep in mind your wives, your sisters and your daughters and the level of respect that you would require them to be shown.”

While it appears many of the complaints filed against Fuhrer were brought forward by women, three (Ruth Armstrong, Tina Hessong and Stephanie Ruscigno) out of the four voices supporting Fuhrer were also women.

Armstrong referred to the allegations as a “witch hunt,” adding that she was aware of at least one other board member who has done something “way worse.”

Hessong echoed these sentiments, stating that “sex scandals seem to be the quickest way to cancel someone.”

Ruscigno identified herself as having Post Traumatic Stress Disorder from a sexual assault that occurred during military service.

“I’m also a mother and my late son was accused of sexual misconduct,” said Ruscigno. “The girl later recanted when the truth came out that my son couldn’t have done anything because he wasn’t even in the state. So I was lucky about that and I also know there are two sides to every story. Everything I’ve heard about Seth is positive.”

Following the public’s statements, Fuhrer was given an opportunity to respond and did so with a prepared statement that he also posted to social media. Fuhrer criticized the decision to host the meeting as an open session, a choice he described as “novel.”

“There has been egregious behavior committed by some of our other electees and it was not dealt with in open session,” said Fuhrer. “Publishing this report and making a public spectacle is harassment and abuse of power. The goal is to stop me from being chair and to defame me in the eyes of my constituents.”

Fuhrer also disagreed with the county’s “zero tolerance policy” when it came to sexual harassment and workplace violence, calling it “absurd” and too vague to be applied fairly. A comparison was drawn between the standards used in today’s courts to justify sexual harassment or workplace violence and those currently used by the county.

“Weaponizing human resources to go after only certain individuals for their policy is where their problem is,” Fuhrer said.

After Fuhrer’s statements, the board was allowed time to ask questions or give their own statements. Only two supervisors, John Messick and Don Blaser, chose to speak. Messick maintained that he had developed a friendship with Fuhrer over the past couple years and understood his sense of humor. Messick also acknowledged how others might take offense to some of Fuhrer’s comments and wanted to take an active role in helping Fuhrer conduct himself better socially.

“I’d be more than willing to make sure I’m at events with Seth,” said Messick. “I really truly want to help him represent us better.”

Blaser, the board’s current chair, acknowledged that he himself had said “stupid stuff” when he was in his 20s and 30s but had reservations about this type of behavior as an elected public official.

“When something like this happens, it reflects badly not only on the board; it reflects badly on the employees of the county and it reflects badly on the (residents) we have in the county,” said Blaser. “I really feel badly that they got to the point where they felt they had to come forward and file these complaints. They were not coerced into doing that.”

At the conclusion of these statements, Yuba County Supervisor Andy Vasquez Jr. motioned to accept the executive summary and take all recommendations. Supervisor Gary Bradford seconded the motion, which brought it to a board vote. Vasquez, Blaser and Bradford voted yes, Fuhrer voted no, and Messick voted no adding that his only caveat would have been to accept the recommendations excluding blocking Fuhrer’s ability to exercise his impending position as chair.

With a 3-2 majority vote, all nine recommendations in regard to Fuhrer were passed. Fuhrer will remain in his elected position as District Three supervisor, however, he will have to abide by the list of censors and stipulations that were passed and will be ineligible for nomination to the position of chair or vice-chair for a year, beginning on Jan.1.