The probe, the results of which were released in recent weeks to the Rogue Valley Times, came about in response to allegations first raised by union officials in January

By Buffy Pollock, Rogue Valley Times

A third-party investigation into former Jackson County Fire District 5 Chief Charles Hanley revealed a culture of alleged sexual harassment and misconduct that includes lewd behavior from district brass, Hanley screaming at an employee and the chief changing test scores during a promotion process.

The investigation, the results of which were recently released to the Rogue Valley Times, came about in response to allegations first raised by union officials in January. Board members — half of which were newly appointed at the time — ordered the investigation during a May 7 board meeting at the same time they placed the chief on administrative leave.

The district’s three fire stations provide fire protection to 120 square miles of southern Jackson County, including the cities of Phoenix and Talent and unincorporated areas surrounding Ashland, down to the California border.

In a Jan. 3 letter regarding “Staffing Issues, Failure to Follow Civil Service Rules, Violations of ORS 242.702 to 242.824, Unfair Labor Practices, Retaliatory Practices, Request for Information,” Tedesco Law Group, attorneys for International Association of Fire Fighters Local 2596, detailed several “workplace issues giving rise to legal claims at Jackson County Fire District 5.”

The letter reported a staffing crisis “that threatens the safety of firefighters and the public,” as well as inconsistent hiring practices by the former chief and his “refusal to follow district civil service rules for hiring and promoting district employees.”

It also said that several senior captains chose not to test for the district’s 2023 battalion chief examination because they did “not believe the testing process under Chief Hanley is fair.”

The letter further stated that the district had “not taken proper action to put a stop to” harassment and bullying despite an earlier investigation, ordered by district officials and conducted in 2022 by independent investigator Tim Doney.

In the letter, the law group requested a copy of that earlier investigation, including interviews regarding employee complaints against Battalion Chief Jim Campbell.

Union president Capt. Brady Graham told board members during a Feb. 6 board meeting that the district’s lack of action on the union allegations prompted a second letter, dated Feb. 5, regarding “IAFF Local 2596 Seeks Board Intervention to Correct Management Failures.”

The district’s failure to address these concerns, according to Graham, perpetuated a work environment where bullying, harassment and even sexual harassment are accepted as normal behaviors, and had prompted a steady exodus of tenured employees.

Seven months after Graham spoke out — a period that saw board member resignations, high employee turnover and the news of a looming fiscal crisis for the district — the more recent investigation, conducted by Bill Landis of Pacific Consulting, substantiated allegations against Hanley and an employee.

Landis’ interviews with more than a dozen employees substantiated claims of chronic low morale, inconsistent promotional processes, retaliatory employment practices and management’s failure to address harassment and bullying.

The report describes an employee, identified as Campbell in the union’s Jan. 3 letter, as the source of union complaints; the Landis investigation said the employee used a derogatory term to describe a special needs child being let off a school bus, made masturbation and ejaculation gestures in the face of a subordinate, directed an employee to “apply water” to a homeless person’s belongings and threatened an employee who reported an incident involving him.

District officials, who provided the Times with a redacted copy of the latest investigation, declined to confirm employee complaints centered around Campbell. Four district employees, who asked not to be identified, confirmed Campbell as the source of the harassment complaints.

In addition to three allegations against Hanley that the investigation corroborated, district board Chair Greg Costanzo confirmed that Landis is investigating additional allegations as part of the current investigation.

While the district terminated Hanley’s contract Aug. 6 — three months after placing him on administrative leave — Campbell remains employed by the district, where he has worked since 1979.

After making several unsuccessful attempts to reach Campbell through district and union officials, the Times reached Campbell by phone Tuesday morning.

Campbell said that, due a termination agreement with the district, he is unable to comment on the details of either investigation. While he remains employed by the district, he is no longer working shifts but will remain on the payroll until Jan. 1 using sick leave and paid time off.

Hanley’s final payout, confirmed last week by district officials, was $28,197.43. While Hanley has declined to speak with the Times, Landis said in the report that Hanley claimed sexual harassment in the district was “rampant.” Landis also reported discrepancies in Hanley’s interviews.

The former chief told Landis he had stopped the 2022 investigation, but also said the investigation had been completed. Hanley said he had disciplined the employee in question, presumably Campbell, but the employee told Landis that no discipline had taken place.

Hanley told Landis that the employee had a history of alleged misconduct and said the employee was the focus of the 2022 investigation. Landis, in the current investigation, reported that the employee who allegedly exhibited the harassing behaviors had not been interviewed for the earlier investigation despite two requests by Doney.

“Without a complete investigation, Chief Hanley alleged that he gave (redacted) verbal counseling that was not documented, without knowledge of what (redacted) response was to (redacted) complaint. I found his statement to not be credible,” Landis wrote in the more recent investigation. “Chief Hanley had knowledge that Tim Doney had not completed or concluded his investigation of what had occurred. … Chief Hanley’s answers lacked credibility when answering questions regarding Tim Doney’s investigation.”

One of the three corroborated allegations found that Hanley had harassed or bullied an employee regarding an agenda item for a board meeting on or about Feb. 20.

The Times previously reported that board member Derek Volkart said he witnessed the chief yelling and cussing at administrative assistant Tina Maziarski, who was recently placed on leave.

In his report, Landis said Hanley was “upset and angry over an agenda that (redacted) had sent out instead of a corrected version.” The employee reported that Hanley was “aggressive, yelling, and cursing,” which caused the employee to cry and order Hanley to get out of the employee’s office, and that Hanley’s actions violated district policies pertaining to harassment.

In a third allegation, Hanley is said to have altered a battalion chief’s promotional scores in December 2023 “by manipulating the scores from passing to not passing.”

“It was only after (redacted) called out the score change that Chief Hanley called (redacted) scores a passing score,” Landis’ report said. The investigator reported that Hanley’s response to questions about the scoring process “lacked credibility” and violated multiple district policies.

While the Times obtained a copy of Landis’ report on the three sustained allegations, a public records request submitted to the district Feb. 16 for the 2022 Doney investigation has been repeatedly delayed. Since the union contracted with Doney in recent months to summarize the findings of his 2022 investigation, board Chair Costanzo has unsuccessfully directed the report to be released to the Times multiple times.

Interim Chief Aaron Bustard said the district legal team was working to redact sensitive information from the requested documents.

Contacted by the Times, union president Graham said he was unable to respond to questions about current personnel, but said the union’s concerns first raised in January centered around the behaviors and other issues revealed by both investigations.

“I do want to make it very clear that the union did not and would not and will not defend those actions,” Graham said of the employee’s behavior.

“Our primary role in all this is to just make sure that the contract is followed for progressive discipline and, if there are items in the contract that are fireable offenses, that the process for progressive discipline is followed. … Ultimately, the decision into what the discipline will be is up to the fire chief, or in this case the acting fire chief. It is left to the chief’s discretion to determine the disciplinary action based on severity of the infraction.”

Asked why Campbell’s employment had not been terminated, Bustard replied in an email to the Times, “The administration and board are working with legal counsel to reduce the likelihood of additional complaints. The district will not release personal information or comment on the proceedings of the disciplinary issues.”

Asked about discrepancies as to whether Campbell was disciplined, Bustard said, “I cannot speak for the discipline levied by the previous administration. Again, the district respects the due process deserving of all our members involved in personnel matters and maintains the confidentiality and privacy of the process. The district will not release personal information or comment on disciplinary issues.”

Reach reporter Buffy Pollock at 458-488-2029 or bpollock@rv-times.com. Follow her on Twitter @orwritergal. This story first appeared in the Rogue Valley Times.