Politics Re: Family Values
posted by July 15 at 18:09 PM
onAs I mentioned below, several media outlets had documents outlining a sexual harassment complaint against Republican state lands commissioner Doug Sutherland before David Goldstein of Horse’s Ass received the documents this week. In the documents, a female employee of the state Department of Natural Resources alleged that Sutherland had repeatedly stroked her back and waist and made inappropriate comments about her breasts in the presence of others—a story several of the young woman’s colleagues corroborated in the documents. Again, as Goldy reported,
Meetings were held, testimony taken, statements given, memos written, supervisors reassigned, counseling given, and reminders on appropriate workplace behavior sent department wide. According to notes from a January 24 meeting, it was determined that the incident was a violation of DNR policy, that disciplinary action was warranted, and that it was in fact sexual harassment… but that due to the fact that it was “isolated,” “not hostile,” and involved no “quid pro quo,” it did not rise to the level of “illegal” sexual harassment.
OK, so not “illegal” harassment… just harassment. And, assuming the several eyewitnesses’ statements in the documents are true, some completely inappropriate behavior on the part of the lands commissioner, a statewide elected official. Despite all this, the local media, including the Seattle Times and the P-I, passed on the story. Earlier this afternoon, I wrote to both the Times and P-I to find out why they didn’t think it was worth printing. When I got back to my desk this evening, the P-I’s political assignments editor, Chris Grygiel, had responded.
The P-I got the documents in the spring. Sutherland and the woman had different accounts of what happened. A reporter interviewed female associates and political foes of Sutherland to look for a pattern of misconduct but found neither a pattern nor another complaint. The Human Resources Dept. the woman complained to, according to the documentation we received, determined the behavior wasn’t sexual harassment but was inappropriate. The woman who complained wasn’t identified and we were unable to contact her. According to the documents, Sutherland met with the woman at her request and followed through on other anti-harassment protocols she had suggested. When the matter was resolved no disciplinary action was taken and there was no payment of state funds in any settlement.We decided to pass on the story. People can certainly second guess our decision but that was the reasoning at the time.
Of course, any public official—any person, period—charged with sexual harassment is going to have a different story than the purported victim. That’s the nature of harassment allegations, true or false. However, the fact that several of the woman’s colleagues backed up her statements about what happened—and the fact that a statewide elected official was found to have behaved “inappropriately” toward a recent college graduate in her first-ever job—makes this story seem pretty newsworthy to me.
Comments
Sexual harassment? Isn't it a little more important that he's a corporate whore who is in league with the Maury Island rapists at gravel extractor Glacier Northwest?
then write about it.
@2. Um, she is?
Ugh, the last time I saw him in person--at a local officials event in Pasco--he was really drunk.
Go get the motherfucker, ECB. Seriously, this story has value and I hope The Stranger makes it a cover story.
Take a deep breath, do some real digging for facts,...and then write the best article you ever wrote.
There is no line between "OK sexual harassment" and "illegal sexual harassment". If it's sexual harassment at all, it's all the way.
Shoot first, ask questions later much?
How about getting the Times/PI on the record before making an accusation against their reporters/editors.
I'm not saying this isn't a story, but how about YOU dig up the dirt they failed to find and then run your own story, until then I won't hold my breath.
Best of luck.
What it sounds like from Grygiel's response is that they didn't want to crucify Sutherland in print based on a single incident that didn't rise to the level of illegality. You and I may not agree with that, but it is reasonable.
Isn't the Stranger a goddamn newspaper (of sorts)? Sure, it's a whole lot easier to crap all over the other papers in town for not doing a story rather than actually do it yourself. But isn't it embarrassing for you, since you consider yourself some kind of journalist?
If you think it's a big story (I don't, but that's neither her nor there) then go do it.
I think that you have to report on this. It's a scandal in a day and age where people spout off about sexism and racism as if they were a thing of the past.
Also, I agree with Fnarf. What's the actual legal standing for this, "ok sexual harassment" vs "illegal sexual harassment"?
The one time that I worked in an office where someone was fired for sexual harassment it was between two people who were in the same job and thus same position. There was no power play involved.
Comments Closed
Comments are closed on this post.