Leaders of the Vermont legislature acknowledged Thursday that the Statehouse’s sexual harassment policy is in need of revision, even as they sought to defend its near-total secrecy. Current policies on handling allegations of misbehavior by lawmakers are handled almost completely behind closed doors, with no public disclosure except in rare circumstances.
Speaking at a press conference in the Statehouse’s Cedar Creek Room, House Speaker Mitzi Johnson (D-South Hero) acknowledged a changed atmosphere around sexual misconduct in recent months. Allegations of sexual assault and harassment against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein have opened the floodgates to revelations of inappropriate behavior by men in almost every walk of life.
“In light of all the allegations across the country, we’re really diving in and looking at how we can take our current policies and make them the gold standard,” Johnson said.
Those policies appear to fall well short of the “gold standard.” Think something more like tin, or possibly pig iron.
The inadequacy of House and Senate policies is highlighted in a case we never knew existed until Vermont Public Radio’s Peter Hirschfeld reported it last week. Last April, according to VPR, a complaint of inappropriate behavior was filed against a sitting state senator. It went through the process and was disposed of without ever being disclosed to the public. Even now, nothing more can be said.
“The policy was followed from beginning to end,” said Senate Majority Leader Becca Balint (D-Windham), who chairs the Senate’s sexual harassment panel and spoke to reporters after the press conference. “You can go back and read the policy, and that’s all that I can share at this point in terms of the details.”
Nothing. What was alleged, who was accused, what decision was reached and what (if any) punishment was handed down — we don’t know and, under Senate rules, we can’t know. That seems a disservice to those who work in or visit the Statehouse, and to constituents who might unknowingly cast their votes for an abuser.
Even the leader of the Senate was in the dark until he heard the VPR report.
“I don’t know the specifics because I’m not on the panel,” said Senate President Pro Tempore Tim Ashe (D/P-Chittenden). When WCAX-TV’s Neal Goswami noted that it seems “remarkable” that Ashe wouldn’t know about the case, the pro tem replied, “I think you’re trying to create a bit of a controversy … Should the leader of the Senate have a different right than other members?”
Is that really the question to be asking here? How about, “Shouldn’t the leader of the Senate be informed when one of its members is a sexual harasser?” Or, “Shouldn’t he bear responsibility for ensuring the offense is not repeated?”
Balint noted that there’s been a “sea change” since the legislature adjourned last spring. She said she and Rep. Mollie Burke (P/D-Brattleboro), chair of the House Sexual Harassment Prevention Panel, have “met frequently since the Harvey Weinstein scandal blew up … We do see some holes in the policy.” They are considering changes that may include establishing a joint House/Senate panel instead of having separate bodies with separate rules and standards, including non-lawmakers on the panel or panels, and adding more transparency to the process. “We’ll meet first thing in January, and we’re going to talk about all these issues,” Balint said.
Balint and Johnson each recounted, in very general terms, their own encounters with harassment under the Golden Dome. “I’ve been in very uncomfortable situations,” said Johnson. “I’ve been in situations where I’ve sought legal advice. I have a really personal interest in making sure that everybody feels safe and welcome and feel like they can give their best here.”
The Senate’s sexual harassment policy outlines a long and winding process that seems designed to avoid exposure of any kind to anyone — even the guilty. If the panel holds any hearings or takes testimony, it’s all behind closed doors. If it finds a violation has occurred, the sexual harassment panel’s first option is to seek “a mutually agreed to resolution with the Respondent and the Complainant,” which would not be subject to disclosure.
If the senator refuses to agree, the matter would go to the Senate Rules Committee, which would “determine the appropriate course of action.” If the Rules Committee so determined, the case would go to the full Senate — and only then would there be any public disclosure. Obviously, the accused has ample reason and opportunity to avoid that eventuality.
As for the complaint filed in April, Balint said she could not even say whether the accusation was found to have merit, or whether there was any sanction against the accused.
It’s more than a little sad that it took a series of national scandals for the legislature to rethink its policies. Especially since lawmakers just lived through the Norm McAllister experience, in which a sitting senator was arrested on the Statehouse grounds on charges of sexual assault — some of which involved an ongoing relationship with a paid assistant who shared rental housing in Montpelier with McAllister and two fellow lawmakers. (McAllister was subsequently suspended from the Senate, convicted on one misdemeanor charge and acquitted on others.)
Even now, it remains to be seen how seriously the House and Senate will take this issue. Lawmakers have a long and ignominious history of thinking of themselves first when deciding on self-regulatory issues — not only sexual harassment, but also ethics, conflicts of interest and personal finances.
Perhaps this scandal will force lawmakers to rethink their approach to all of these issues, and do it before the horse has escaped the barn.
Again.
Disclosure: Tim Ashe is the domestic partner of Seven Days publisher and coeditor Paula Routly. Find our conflict-of-interest policy here: sevendaysvt.com/disclosure.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Nothing to see here people. Move along.
The House and Senate should be ashamed of their behavior. Those who are enabling rapists and sexual harassers by turning a blind eye because that stuff is awful but “it just doesn’t happen here” are just as responsible.
People, please start calling and emailing your reps and senators to tell them you want justice and transparency! You can find their information here:
House:
https://legislature.vermont.gov/people/search/2018
Senate:
https://legislature.vermont.gov/people/search/2018
Least we forget, below is the list of senators who voted to keep Norm “I made you do things you didn’t want to do” McAllister in office.
Brian Collamore R Rutland bcollamore@leg.state.vt.us
Peg Flory R Rutland pflory@leg.state.vt.us
Dick Mazza D Grand Isle
Dick McCormack D Windsor rmccormack@leg.state.vt.us
Mark MacDonald D Orange mmacdonald@leg.state.vt.us
Kevin Mullin R Rutland
Alice Nitka D Windsor anitka@leg.state.vt.us
Robert Starr D Essex-Orleans rstarr@leg.state.vt.us
Jeanette White D Windham jwhite@leg.state.vt.us
Many of whom have also stone walled transparent ethics reform.
I am appalled at the political-ese being spoken by these members of the House and Senate. They are trying to defend an awful system developed by their predecessors to avoid repercussions for their old boys’ fun and games. Why don’t they just shut up about it and fix the problem? Tim Ashe, who is usually a sensible, if humorless, legislator took an awfully stuffed-shirt way to avoid the issue, claiming he shouldn’t know because he was just your average senator. They all should know and be able to report to their constituents what was alleged, what was found, and what was done about the complaint.
Let’s see if Ashe and Johnson are able to come up with a policy that is not wrapped up in secrecy and don’t ask don’t tell. Their constituents deserve better than the old “I can’t speak to that” routine.
We need a strong ethics committee and policy now.
Why should any woman in the legislature have to feel “uncomfortable” because some old fool can’t keep his hands to himself or his foul mouth shut.
This is a comment for any legislators reading:
You were elected to represent the people, you are beholden to the people.
Thus: you do not touch the people inappropriately or verbally harass the people.
Finally lest you forget: you are not god, you are an elected official. You must abide my the same laws and morals us all is mortals.
The investigation of misconduct should be done outside of the public eye, much the same as anyone else would want their employer to do. The public is TOO quick to condemn someone on an accusation. Let the investigation be made then let the FACTS be known, not the accusation. I don’t see anyone, including the people whining about it, that would not want a fair and honest investigation if they were accused.