By Judi McLeod ——Bio and Archives--December 11, 2018
Cover Story | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
“The CAA sought to make changes in how Congress dealt with charges of sexual harassment against its members and staff, too. Prior to enactment of the law, a victim of sexual harassment by a member of Congress had virtually no legal recourse at all. With whom would such a victim lodge a complaint or seek redress? “So the CAA created the "Office of Compliance" to deal with such issues. Complainants begin the dispute resolution process with a mandatory (yes, really) course of counseling that can last up to 30 days. Only after completing the compulsory counseling may a complainant pursue mediation. That, too, can last up to 30 days. “If mediation fails to resolve the issue to the complainant's satisfaction, she or he can then go to an administrative hearing, or file a federal lawsuit. “Here's the kicker: If the dispute is resolved in favor of the complainant (read: victim), funds for the settlement don't come out of the offender's personal bank account, or his or her campaign account. Instead, they come out of a secret account maintained by the Office of Compliance. It is so secret, in fact, that taxpayers don't even know they are funding it. “According to the Washington Post, there were 235 complainants who received compensation totaling $15.2 million between 1997 and 2014. That's more than one settlement per month for 17 years and nearly $1 million per year. We, the taxpayers, have no idea on whose behalf we've been paying to settle these sexual harassment claims. That's wrong. “We, the taxpayers who have been paying for more than two decades to quietly settle literally hundreds of sexual harassment claims against members of Congress and their staffs, have a right to know which members and staffers have made use of the hush money over the years. Going forward, taxpayers should have knowledge about how that fund is used.”
Long before the 2016 election of Trump, the White House was a second home away from home for Hollywood, and because, until he was outed, alleged sexual predator movie mogul Harvey Weinstein was hosted by the White House many times during the 8-year tenure of Barack Obama, who, along with his protégé Hillary Clinton, accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in Weinstein campaign donations. “Efforts to combat sexual harassment on Capitol Hill gained momentum on Tuesday as female lawmakers shared stories of male colleagues engaging in predatory behavior. (The Hill, Nov.14, 2017)“Those stories ranged from comments asking “Are you going to be a good girl?” to harassers exposing their genitals and grabbing private parts on the House floor.”“What possible good are any of their stories if the perpetrators get to go unnamed? (Canada Free Press, Nov. 17, 2017)
“Lawmakers in both parties had already expressed support for mandatory sexual harassment awareness training, which is currently voluntary for legislative branch staffers. But they went further in a House Administration Committee hearing on Capitol Hill’s harassment policies and said even more can be done in a male-dominated workplace where sexual harassment can be pervasive.” (The Hill)“What good was “voluntary” sexual harassment awareness training for legislative branch staffers if support exists for “mandatory” sexual harassment awareness training now? (CFP)“Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.), a member of the House Democratic leadership, told The Associated Press earlier this month that a male colleague had ogled her and touched her inappropriately on the House floor when she first began serving in Congress. (The Hill) “Sánchez declined to name the lawmaker when asked about the incident on Tuesday. “She never filed an official complaint, but learned to avoid being near him.” “Since then, Sánchez told reporters, she’s advised newer members to do the same.
In other words Sánchez maintained a silence that kept the offending lawmaker on the loose, and one that put others at risk of potential sexual harassment. Silence, Rep. Sánchez, is not always golden.Members of the public at large “don’t feel comfortable” that lawmakers are keeping mum on the names of congressman who expose genitals and grab private parts on the House floor no matter the reason. And just to think that Reps. Speier, and Sánchez will be part of the attack when the Democrats try to impeach President Trump for allegedly paying “hush” money to Stormy Daniels from campaign finances when new members are sworn in on January 3, 2019.“When you are new to a workplace, you don’t always understand what the policies and procedures are, or what the avenues for reporting those kinds of incidences are,” Sánchez said. (The Hill) “Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), in testimony before the panel, said at least two current members of Congress have engaged in sexual harassment. “Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Va.) offered another example. She shared a story of a male lawmaker — still in Congress — who asked a young female staffer to bring materials to his residence. He opened the door dressed in only a towel, invited her inside and proceeded to expose himself. “The staffer subsequently quit her job. “That kind of situation, what are we doing here for women right now who are dealing with somebody like that?” Comstock asked.The answer is: Nothing, Rep.Comstock, absolutely nothing. Even if the staffer quit, wouldn’t whom she worked for be easy to determine?“Speier had previously shared her own experience of having a chief of staff forcibly kiss her when she was working as a congressional staffer in the 1970s. (The Hill) “Since then, Speier said she’s received a multitude of calls to her office from people sharing their own stories of sexual harassment on Capitol Hill. “None of the three female lawmakers accused any of their colleagues by name of sexual harassment. Comstock said she heard the story secondhand and did not know the lawmaker’s identity, only that he is still a member of Congress.”How is it possible that Comstock does not know the lawmaker’s identity but that he’s still a member of congress?
View Comments