|
In what may be a truly groundbreaking new application of media resources, State lawmakers are finding new opportunities to communicate directly to concerned citizens about some of the most highly charged issues at the state capitol.
A case in point is the Rules Committee's work to investigate the Sexual Harassment charges of some of the current and past members. This week, Rep David Perryman became the point person for the minority and he made a dramatic show of his choice to walk out of the hearings. The Rules Committee created a select investigative subcommittee from their own membership, to investigate The payout of money to settle claims of wrongful termination of a Legislative Assistant (Hollie Bishop) who just happened to have filed a sexual harassment complaint several weeks earlier. Perryman's protest is reported in SoonerPolitics' previous reports: Perryman Decries.. & Perryman Proposes.. As is our publishing practice, the articles were posted to the SoonerPolitics Facebook Group, for readers to weigh in. Our readers possess incredible insights and knowledge of all levels of government and they never shy away from their participatory role in bringing about needed reforms. This was evident, over the weekend when the controversy over the rules of the investigation were discussed and explained. |
Jon Echols: "Al Gerhart, very good point. And I agree with you that the final report must be public (including details of what was reviewed. I actually think you and I agree on most points it is just the process to get there. And I will admit, you have made me think a great deal about the process. At a minimum I think this discussion will lead to a much better final product."
|
Among the members of the discussion were:
- Rep. Kevin West, A freshman Republican from Moore. He is the vice chair of the Rules Committee.
- Al Gerhart, founder and president of the Sooner tea Party. He is known for being exonerated by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, after being convicted of blackmail for telling a senate committee chairman that he will "look into" his personal and business associations, if the senator refuses to allow a particular bill to get a committee vote.
- Rep. Jon Echols, floor leader and close associate of incoming speaker, Charles McCall. Echols is an attorney and businessman, as well as an effective legislator.
- David Oldham & Jet Walsh, active participants in advocacy efforts and constitutional liberty. Oldham was a presidential elector, last month.
Kevin West As Vice Chairman of this committee I can tell you that everything that can be released after the investigation is over absolutely will be. However, you have to keep a couple of factors in mind…
One of the most important components of a workplace environment free of harassment and discrimination is to have a workplace full of people who know they have the protection against retaliation should they need to come forward and lodge a complaint. They cannot feel that the information will not be kept in confidence (and almost assuredly wouldn’t lodge the complaint) if they didn't, especially if they felt that the details would be available for the press and all the world to see. An employee needs to know that each situation would be looked into with the utmost integrity and confidentiality as possible. As any other entity is (private and public sector), we are required by law through the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) as an employer to make sure of the confidentiality of allegations to the greatest extent possible. We can’t guarantee complete and total confidentiality since we can’t look into the investigation without revealing highly personal and private information to the committee members, but there has to be an accountability measure in place to keep the members held to a standard under law and from sharing that private information. If we were holding public meetings right now, the press and the public would know every detail of that highly personal information, and it would be devastating for those who come along in the future needing to lodge a complaint, knowing that their lives would be aired out for the world to see. In short, we are required by law to conduct these meetings under complete confidentiality. If we did not, the EEOC would sue the state and fighting that legal battle would be a costly affair. However, we can and we will come forward at the end of these investigations and make every piece of information that is permissible and available outside of attorney client privileges available to the public. No matter how much individuals may not like it, we cannot ignore the strict legal consequences and the potential further harm to the alleged victims in this case should we release everything at this time. This isn’t about playing games or partisan politics, this is about the law and our deep respect for our actions reflecting the ability for every employee to feel safe from retaliation. 
Al Gerhart Rep West, take these comments in the spirit of respect as you have yet had the chance to earn our disrespect.
Al Gerhart First you are probably feeling pretty important that they chose you to be Vice Chair of such an important matter. I remember another shavetail rep going public with a plan to author some controversial legislation. Others reached out and let him know that I was not happy to hear of his plan. When he called me, about fifteen minutes after he heard, the first thing I asked was who put him up to it. Second question was if the idea was truly in his constituent's best interests. The third question was if he remembered our talk the day after he won the election, specifically about walking into a meeting and not knowing who the mark was and that if he did then he was the mark.
Al Gerhart Bottom line was that the Senator that had put him up for the job was not his friend and was angling to ruin him politically. Now, ask yourself if you were done any favors by House Leadership when they put you in the Vice Chair of this whitewash. Now if you would, take Perryman's objections one by one and tell us why he is wrong and you are right.
Al Gerhart As for the EEOC, here is what they cover on state government employees: If you have a complaint against a state or local government agency that involves race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information, the agency is covered by the laws we enforce if it has 15 or more employees who worked for the agency for at least twenty calendar weeks (in this year or last). Obviously the defining sector is sex, ie., sexual harassment. And what does that cover? Here you go: It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.
Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general. Both victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex. Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted). The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer. With all of that in mind if you hide behind the EEOC you are irrefutably stating that both Kirby and Fourkiller's actions were more than simple teasing, not offhand, not isolated, and serious in nature.
Al Gerhart Now consider the mood of the state and the entire country. We want the swamp drained. Are you, Rep. West, gonna be an alligator left high and dry and turned into a pair of boots after House Leadership throws you into this wood chipper of a whitewash job or are you going to represent the people that voted for you and bring transparency to these allegations of sexual harassment, coverup, and embezzlement of state tax dollars to pay off harassed women and their lawyers?
Al Gerhart Lastly let's see what the EEOC says about confidentiality: Confidentiality
An employer should make clear to employees that it will protect the confidentiality of harassment allegations to the extent possible. An employer cannot guarantee complete confidentiality, since it cannot conduct an effective investigation without revealing certain information to the alleged harasser and potential witnesses. However, information about the allegation of harassment should be shared only with those who need to know about it. Records relating to harassment complaints should be kept confidential on the same basis. A conflict between an employee’s desire for confidentiality and the employer’s duty to investigate may arise if an employee informs a supervisor about alleged harassment, but asks him or her to keep the matter confidential and take no action. Inaction by the supervisor in such circumstances could lead to employer liability. While it may seem reasonable to let the employee determine whether to pursue a complaint, the employer must discharge its duty to prevent and correct harassment. One mechanism to help avoid such conflicts would be for the employer to set up an informational phone line which employees can use to discuss questions or concerns about harassment on an anonymous basis.
Al Gerhart I see nothing in all of that that forces employers much less a state government to do anything other than keeping the name of the minor out of the public eye. What you guys appear to be doing is whitewashing the affairs so it can be said with a somewhat straight face that something was done. There is NOTHING in the EEOC laws that says the perverts escape public wrath, nothing that says that other supervisors (House Leadership both past and present) that tried to cover up the sexual harassment gets to have their shame and their culpability hidden. In fact the last part of the EEOC statement says YOU have a duty to prevent and correct.
David Oldham Kevin, Thank you for your work to look into this. I have read what Al wrote and, although I have seen nothing to dictate that a whitewash is in progress, I do agree with him that much more can come out than what Perryman says the agreement disallowed. Plus, in this case the "horse is already gone from the barn" on many issues of privacy. Too much secrecy now is just "locking the barn door after the horse has left."
Plus, Rep. Perryman's criticisms are that the agreement goes well beyond any issue of privacy and if true, such requirements give the appearance of wrongdoing by the committee, and especially leadership. Please do respond, as Al requested, to each of Perryman's concerns. As a Republican who is critical of any who would misuse the trust we give them, in our party or not, I wish to have all doubt and concerns answered and dealt with. 
Jon Echols Al, you asked for a point by point response and I'm happy to try.
His objections 1-3 happened exactly as he asked. His objection 4 is he is simply angry he doesn't get per diem for meetings. If attending meetings is to difficult he should have Leader inman appoint another member. And by the way, leader Inman, not McCall, chose the D members. 5. The rules do reflect the speakers charge. I have no idea what he is taking about. 6 and 7. The rules do allow that and Chairman Cockroft has not censored one single witness or question. 8 and 9. Of course all votes would be public. That is silly. The bottom line is this is a political stunt by Perryman. And I will tell you I will not cover for anyone. If Rep. Kirby deserves punishment I will recommend it, if he doesn't I won't. But under no circumstances would I cover up anything. Al, your questions are respectful and fair and deserved an answer. I just wanted to do my best to answer them. Your points are fair, but I would suggest Chairman Cockroft and Vice Chairman West, and the rest of the committee, deserve to do their job and be judged by the transparency of the result. I sincerely wish the Democrats would participate. Especially since I personally attempted to call Leader Inman the night before several times to work out any issues. The loyal opposition is important to the process. But at the moment it appears they are more concerned with keeping the story going then with investigating what happened and reaching a conclusion so we can move on.
Al Gerhart Hi Jon, for all of those out there that may not know Jon he is one of the better ones influential and sharp enough to know that any appearances of coverup is going to prolong this and taint the McCall team forevermore so let's all treat him with respect. Give me a bit to reply please
Jon Echols Al Gerhart thank you sir. And I will do my very best to answer all questions. It is my daughters birthday party tonight and I know you can ask tough questions!
 :)So if I don't get back until tomorrow I promise I am not ignoring. Just finding time to craft responsible responses.
Al Gerhart Fair enough Jon. Now here what I believe that House Leadership has agreed to according to your initial response. The first part is Perryman's list of conditions which I assume is what we are discussing. His list is numbered, I'll try to indent to keep his words separate from my remarks but formatting is difficult on this venue : 1. Copies of the Proposed Rules are released to committee members and the public;
If this is the case you will see that we have a copy, preferably before Sunday so the newsletter is as accurate and fair to all as possible? 2. The definition of Confidential Information is amended to include only Confidential Information that is deemed confidential under state or federal law; In light of that and being that you are an attorney I want you to reflect on the fact that you will run afoul of the NRLB, National Labor Relations Board, rulings if you attempt to stifle the speech of any of the employees involved. Specifically, any attempt to force state employees, AKA witnesses and representatives alike, to refrain from discussing the investigation and the complaints is illegal. House Leadership has put in place a policy of requiring confidentiality which is unlawful as it interferes with the employees’ right to discuss the terms and conditions of their employment. House Leadership cannot even recommend that employees keep the information confidential as it will have the same chilling effect unless of course if you add a disclaimer that all employees are free to disregard House Leadership’s demands or requests and discuss the investigation and the complaints. Now, my dad was a drill sergeant and one bit of advice he gave me was to never give an order that can’t be carried out to avoid undermining your credibility. In that same light perhaps McCall would be well advised to drop the confidentiality demands of any state employee which of course includes the Representatives themselves. 3. Members are allowed to attend the Committee Organizational Meeting prior to signing the Confidentiality Agreement solely for the purpose of discussing and debating the rules and then being allowed AFTER the rules are adopted to decide whether they wish to participate in the work of the Special Investigative Committee; Then are we to expect that the organizational meeting will be repeated to allow debating of the rules and that that meeting be open to the public after a reasonable public notice? And of course that any state employees be notified of their rights under NLRB rulings to discuss the investigation and complaints filed as well as any other terms or conditions of employment? 4. Committee members are given more time to adjust their schedules for committee meetings subsequent to the Committee Organizational meeting and the schedules of all members of the committee are respected; This should fall within the discussion of the rules and a consensus established and ratified by a vote which again should be a public meeting with proper notice given as required by the state open meeting laws. 5. The Rules are amended to reflect the charge actually given by Speaker McCall; If this has been addressed then just release the formal charge given by Speaker McCall to the committee. Again it would be best to have this done prior to Sunday if you want us to be as fair as possible. 6. The Rules are amended to allow all members of the Committee to call witnesses without unreasonable restraint; Then this would include current and former legislators that impacted the alleged harassment, negotiations to settle, or who had advised the victims in any form or fashion? And of course legislative subpoena powers will be used? 7. The Rules are amended to allow all members of the Committee to ask questions of the witnesses without unreasonable restraint; Sworn testimony under oath? And committee members are allowed to cross examine? 8. The Rules are amended to allow members to publicly dissent to the Majority Report of the Committee; and As they should be as to do otherwise will violate the NLRB rulings and subject the state to lawsuits. 9. The Rules are amended to allow dissenting members of the committee to draft a Minority Report. Ditto John I appreciate that you stated that my questions were respectful and fair and deserved an answer, you know that I do business that way unless the other party leaves no other choice or refuses to engage and the gloves come off. Cockcroft and Kevin West will be given a chance but at the same time if this conversation didn't occur then House Leadership would have ran with the star chamber that Perryman said was being set up. I I know you at all I would guess that you are going to go back to House Leadership and say "I told you this wouldn't fly" and something better will be pushed forward. As for the Democrats, Minority Leader Scott Inman has been quiet as a church mouse on this issue and I know that you are plugged in enough to know why. Inman will not return your calls but others like Perryman, Stone, Proctor, and a host of others will so you need to engage with them and draw the Democrats back in. As for a conclusion for all of this, it entails Kirby's alleged misdeeds or lack of same(and I'm plugged in enough to known a good part of that back story), the allegations against Fourkiller concerning the page (which I remain open minded about), any involvement or connection of Randy Grau in Kirby's allegations or settlement, and how a settlement was paid out using tax dollars when the employer in this case (State of Oklahoma) isn't automatically liable for damages in sexual harassment unless House Leadership in the past had neglected to CYA which would reflect upon all members of those House Leadership teams and their competency to be involved in the McCall team. Let's see how much of this we can settle before Sunday Jon. That much less work for me and less writing too. Enjoy that kid's birthday, they grow up and are gone before you realize it.
David Oldham Jon, Thank you for responding. Someone said the rules Perryman criticized have been made public. Is there a link to them so that we may see them?
Jon Echols David Oldham I don't know of a link but that is a good idea. I will work on finding one.
David Van Risseghem This looks like a big opportunity for more problems, just because it's essentially impossible to keep any secrets at the capitol.
We all want answers now, but we may also cause far more damage in the process of getting honest answers... Tough dilemma. ..
Al Gerhart LOL, remember back four or five years when Rep. Steve Martin was railing against me at the Shawnee caucus retreat, railing about "that tea party blogger" who knew everything that was happening? For every Charles McCall and for every lieutenant he wil...See More
Kevin West I certainly take this conversation in the spirit of respect. I certainly do NOT feel important, I am humbled and honored to serve District 54 and the people of the state of Oklahoma.
My response to the stated concerns are: 1) The rules were released without signed confidentiality agreements. 2) Change the definition of confidential info. This was discussed, debated and a vote was called to approve the rules as written, which passed. 3) Attend meeting, discuss, debate and vote on rules prior to signing confidentiality agreement. This was allowed. 4) Schedule. It is the goal of this committee to take care of these matters as soon as possible, with the decision to have the Rules Committee investigate these matters it was decided that the ratio make up would be 2:1 instead of matching the total house ratio which is 3:1 then the Democrat Leader requested to select the Democrat committee members, which was allowed, shortly afterwards the confidentiality agreement was sent out along with the date of the first meeting, everyone has had to adjust schedules. 5) Rules to match Speakers charge for the committee. The rules do match the charge given the committee. 6) The ability to call witnesses. This is like any other committee, the members can make recommendations as to witnesses, but cannot individually call witnesses ultimately this is arranged by the Chairman. 7) The ability to ask questions. Again, like any other committee, the members can ask questions, the Chairman has authority to maintain decorum. 8) Dissent majority report. I have not seen where this not allowed provided the dissent does not break the confidentiality agreement. 9) Draft minority report. Again, I have not seen where this is not allowed provided it does not break the confidentiality agreement. I think I can speak for all members in that none of us wanted to be dealing with these issues, we would much rather be working on legislation, constituent issues, etc., I am extremely disappointed with this entire discussion in that there is no regard for the individuals involved and issues 8 & 9 point out that the minority party is coming to the table with the expectation that we cannot agree.
David Oldham Thank you for your response. It is said that the rules have been made public. Is there a link so that we may examine them?
Kevin West David Oldham, I know they were given to the media, I will check on a link.
David Oldham Thank you! If nothing else, a .pdf of the rules may be posted in this discussion.
Al Gerhart 1. May we have a copy of the rules? Facebook allows files to be given via private message, you can post them here, or send them via email and I’ll post them and provide a link.
2. Your ideas of confidentiality must conform to NLRB rulings, to do oth...See More |
Kevin West 1. I do not have access to the rules this weekend, but since they were given to the media in our open meeting, I do not see any problem with this request.
2. Our rules on confidentiality comply with my understanding of the NLRB rulings, reference the Banner Health decision. 3. We initially met in closed session and a motion was made to open the discussion of the rules to the public, this motion passed and the media was allowed into the room while we discussed and debated the rules, they were also present when we voted to accept the rules as proposed. At that point everyone who had not signed the confidentiality agreement was asked to leave as we were returning to closed session, per the accepted rules. 4. The media has been at each meeting we have had so far. 5. The Speakers direction for our purpose on these matters have been published in several different outlets, newspapers, news and independent news outlets. 6 & 7. Committee Rules as well as House Rule 7 clearly gives this authority to the Chairman of each committee, without this authority there would be chaos. At no point has the Chairman censored any member from asking questions or requesting witnesses. 8 & 9. Upon issuing the report on the findings of the investigation, the rules for confidentiality will be as provided by state and federal laws of confidentiality. So, there is really very little that would not be allowed as far as dissent or a minority report. I feel it necessary to point out again that the democrat leader selected the democrat members, every effort has been made to include them and upon signing the confidentiality agreement as aforementioned, they are still welcome to be involved in the process. I certainly understand the desire to have this as open as possible, but like any investigation, we need to be afforded the ability to conduct our investigation with respect to everyone's privacy, if they decide to disclose their personal information or discuss information that has already been disclosed, they are free to do so, but we have to take every possible precaution to protect the privacy of those who do not wish to have this information disclosed, neither the accused or especially the accuser should have to endure having every piece of evidence in the media daily, all findings with be included in the final report. I also feel that it is important to point out that the minority party is coming to the table with the expectation that there can be no agreement and rather than be involved in the process, they have decided they will not participate but still claim they weren't given a voice.
Jon Echols I think Kevin did a good job answering the questions and I don't have a lot to add. But I would add this,
- the chairman has not denied a single question or request to interview a witness. - if the chairman were to do so this confidentiality agreement would not present anyone from saying that they were unreasonably denied access - this agreement would not apply to anything that someone had independent knowledge of outside of the committee. No one voice is silenced in any way. - it is also important to point out this is not the investigation committee required by federal law to be conducted when there are claims of harassment. That is done by HR. This committee is in addition to that. This is where members police other members. The fact that no committee like this has existed before is troubling. But I am glad one does now. - and finally, I very respectfully, do not agree that just because a woman files a claim of harassement with HR, her entire Personel file is open for the world to see. That is what the Dems are asking and I personally view that as morally wrong. Now any information gathered from a member is a different story. (Meaning members are entitled to way less privacy then staff) - bottom line is the democrats are still invited to participate, their voice is not hampered in any way if they chose to do so. I think the problem is if they participated they would see all questions answered, requested witnesses would be called and a full report would be written. And that my friend does not make for good political theater.
Al Gerhart Kevin West It appears that you are not reading or not comprehending what have been posting so forgive me if I have not been clear. But if you read and believe nothing else written on this page believe this one point: House Leadership will fight to the last drop of your blood. You were the mark in the room and haven't accepted that yet. You will be tossed away once you have been used and your credibility shredded. It is as simple as that. Now to address your reply: 1.) As the rules are not going to be released to us we must assume that Perryman’s complaints were valid. Unless of course someone cares to get us a copy of the rules before Sunday morning.
2.) As you are not providing the rules we can only guess and assume the worst as to if your rules violate the employees’ rights to have a open and honest investigation including their right to discuss the charges and the investigation freely. That includes any disciplinary proceedings or results or investigations of same. As for your understanding of the Banner Health Decision it is immaterial what your understanding of that decision is; what is germane is what the actual decision says and the employee legal rights it protects. What Banner did was clarify the Hyundai America Shipping Agency NLRB decision that gave a limited list of reasons that could be used to override the employees section 7 rights to discuss the terms and condition of their employment. What Banner did was make almost all confidentiality demands, or even requests, illegal. Under Banner there are NO categories of investigation presumptively appropriate for a forced or even suggested confidentiality, even sexual harassment cases, even sexual harassment cases that might lead to criminal charges. You (House Leadership and the committee) are going to have to prove “objectively reasonable grounds for believing that the integrity of the investigation will be compromised without confidentiality” and that “feared consequences would likely occur without confidentiality.” Too meet those goals there are five elements that MUST be met on objectively reasonable grounds: • Witnesses need protection; • Evidence is in danger of being destroyed; • Testimony is in danger of being fabricated; • There is a need to prevent a cover up; and • A corruption of the investigation would likely occur without confidentiality. What you will be allowed to do is to redact the names of the alleged victims and any contact information. 3.) I am apparently not being clear on this point Rep. West. But first an aside. It was smart to open the meeting to the press but you did that without notifying the public. I personally had people emailing and calling me to find out if they could attend but you (again all you’s refer to House Leadership and the committee). You violated the terms of the Open Meeting Acts by stating the committee hearing was closed to the public. The fact that you reversed your decision later is a moot point. But on to point #3, you not only required confidentiality of the proceedings in violation of the NLRB rulings but you forced the state employees to sign an an unlawful confidentiality agreement. What part of that have I not explained clearly? Your “accepted rules” don’t trump the rights of the employees or the right for the public to attend these meetings or the right of the witnesses and state employees to talk to the media about the investigation and charges. 4.) But the media is not being allowed inside the meetings so again you are doing exactly what the NLRB board has outlawed; conducting an investigation in secrecy in order to suppress the damage to the employer. 5.) Excellent, then please provide a link to any one of those stories that contain the charge. I certainly can’t find the document. I did find one paragraph but it omitted past legislators which illuminates the fact that Rep. Grau is being protected along with former Speaker Hickman and any of his lieutenants that are no longer working for the state. 6.) Without the media being present in with your illegal confidentiality agreements restraining the elected House members from revealing the proceedings how do we know the questions aren’t being censored or witnesses prevented from being called or testifying? Are we supposed to trust the same organization and in many cases the same men that allowed this scandal to occur? 7.) Skipping, see above 8.) Again, ad naseum, you are required and permitted only to redact the names of victims and their contact info. State laws do not trump NLRB rulings which cover employees where there is a union in place are not. You are NOT including or accommodating the Democrats. You are attempting to ram illegal confidentiality requirements down their throats. By your own words you are demanding these elected officials obey your illegal, unlawful, and immoral demand to sign a confidentially agreement. If you have read the Banner ruling and one would assume you have if you are being responsible, why do you continue to support an illegal act? Should they be subject to other demands to prove something to you and House Leadership? Perhaps sacrificing their first born or leaving them as hostages until the session is over? Maybe perform a little dance for the rest of the committee? I’m being facetious of course to drive the point home that what you are asking is illegal, immoral, and frankly ridiculous. No you do not have to take every precaution to protect the privacy of those that don’t this information disclosed. They are elected officials or people that pressed a legal claim after hiring a lawyer, they have no privacy rights BECAUSE they refused to go through the EEOC process which even then wouldn’t have accorded much of what you and House Leadership are demanding. What you have to do Rep. West is follow the NLRB rulings and obey the law. Even the EEOC warns those who file claims that little other than their name will be confidential and even then the second that woman hired an attorney and began the process of extorting tax collars all claims of confidentiality vanished. And your last point is hollow and frankly almost insulting. You are demanding that the Democrat legislators, men and women elected officials hired by popular vote, acceded to the illegal act of violating employees’ rights in order to participate. You and House Leadership are demanding they give up their rights and responsibilities as Representatives of their districts.
Jon Echols Al Gerhart EEOC claims are not public
https://www.quora.com/.../Discrimination-Is-a-complaint...
Jon Echols I respect you Al, but is strongly disagree with your legal analysis. I think the findings will include legal opinions that disagree. And I cannot find an attorney that does ageee. But I respect your opinion to fell however you wish.
Jon Echols You are also still confusing the HR investigation with the House investigation. Not the same thing.
Al Gerhart Jon Echols agreed, but you yourself stated that this is not an EEOC investigation but a process of House members or House Leadership policing their own members. And EEOC itself will not release the info but they go on to state this at the link you provided: The EEOC takes privacy seriously, but this does not mean that your information will stay private as this often depends on the employee and the choices made during the EEOC process.
If the employee decides to take part in a lawsuit either individually or within a class-action lawsuit, personal information could be made publicly available either within news stories or within the written judgement of the court. Even if an employees name is not made public, many people post sensitive and personal details on social media to family and friends which can easily be made public online either on purpose or by mistake. Once public, its difficult to remove the information from the internet. As with all online communication, only post information you don’t mind sharing with a current or future employer.
Jon Echols And so no one reading this is confused, Banner applied to a confidentiality provision given to a Complaining party. Clearly not applicable here.
In fact, and again, I signed the provision and I can still talk about the Kirby matter. I do all the time. I can talk about anything that is otherwise publicly known.
Al Gerhart Jon Echols The ethics and confidentiality link, the second one, the blue one is irrelevant as it addresses Federal agencies. And again, you did say that this was not an EEOC investigation.
Jon Echols Al Gerhart very good point. And I agree with you that the final report must be public (including details of what was reviewed. I actually think you and I agree on most points it is just the process to get there.
And I will admit, you have made me think a great deal about the process. At a minimum I think this discussion will lead to a much better final product.
Al Gerhart Jon Echols I know you have read the Banner Decision and probably the three previous decisions that Banner was predicated upon. If not here is a good executive version and I think that the title alone says otherwise. http://www.jacksonlewis.com/.../nlrb-doubles-down-curbing...
Al Gerhart Jon Echols Jon Echols You are also still confusing the HR investigation with the House investigation. Not the same thing. No, I am very clear on that and the fact that even though the Banner decision clearly outlaws these sort o...See More
Jon Echols Fair enough. And ironically even though the US congress uses similar provisions in its ethics panel it doesn't apply here because the Fed congress exempt themselves from employment laws !!!!! But I digress ....
I still don't read Banner as applying to anyone other then Kirby or complaining parties.
Jon Echols Banner was all about the "interview of complaintant" form. Again, I think you and I want the exact same thing. Staff must be free to complain if a member is inappropriate.
But I promise I will read Banner and its progeny again. And I will try to keep an open mind. Just because I'm responding I don't want to minimize that you have made good points that must be considered.
Al Gerhart Jon Echols And so no one reading this is confused, Banner applied to a confidentiality provision given to a Complaining party. Clearly not applicable here. Jon, not so unless the experts at many HR and legal websites are completely wrong about Banner. Banner applies to all employees who are free to discuss the charges, the investigation, including sexual harassment. Banner is a specific and clear prohibition upon the EMPLOYER, AKA the State of Oklahoma, AKA House Leadership or any subdivision of the same from muzzling participants in investigations to ensure that honest and fair investigations occur..
In fact, and again, I signed the provision and I can still talk about the Kirby matter. I do all the time. I can talk about anything that is otherwise publicly known. I believe that you would do what is right Jon but others, especially newbies like Rep. West are going to be intimidated by these unlawful demands. Regardless illegal is illegal and how we accomplish something is as important as what we accomplish.
Jon Echols "How we accomplish something is as important as what we accomplish"
I might make that a plaque and post it on the wall of my office. I literally have no response. I agree with your sentiment and will think on your points.
Al Gerhart Jon Echols Jon Echols Al Gerhart very good point. And I agree with you that the final report must be public (including details of what was reviewed. I actually think you and I agree on most points it is just the process to get there. Isn't this an awkward way of discussing something? Only way to keep confusion down is to copy and paste what I am replying too. Yes, the process is important and in this case I believe that Cockcroft and West either are afraid to buck House Leadership by making this entire process transparent or they are unaware of the legal complications of the Banner decision. Perhaps they are simply trying to please House Leadership Jon, but still the law is the law.
And I will admit, you have made me think a great deal about the process. At a minimum I think this discussion will lead to a much better final product. Thank you, dealing with an honorable person and having a n honest discussion on Facebook has become a rarity these days. I'll be more than willing to listen as I work on our article on this.
Al Gerhart Jon Echols Jon Echols Fair enough. And ironically even though the US congress uses similar provisions in its ethics panel it doesn't apply here because the Fed congress exempt themselves from employment laws !!!!! But I digress .... So t...See More
Al Gerhart Jon Echols Jon Echols "How we accomplish something is as important as what we accomplish"
I might make that a plaque and post it on the wall of my office. I literally have no response. I agree with your sentiment and will think on your points. Jon, Below is a link to one of the better discussions of Banner and again am no HR expert so am relying upon resources like this to clarify what seems to me as clear and precise language in the Banner decision. It is crucial to also remember that this is a group of state employees policing their own, not a formal EEOC mandated investigation by the Houses’s HR department. At the end of this article is this summation that I believe shows exactly why the demands for confidentiality have overstepped the law and common sense. Without casting aspersions upon either Cockcroft or West perhaps they would benefit from reading this article as well as the actual Banner decision. Here is the summation: Employers should consider reviewing their personnel policies with labor counsel to ensure that the policies are compliant with changing interpretations of the NLRA. A per se prohibition on employee discussions of investigations, regardless of circumstance, must be excised. Investigators must be trained on this issue and advised that any statements even requesting confidentiality should be made only after a detailed analysis of the scope of the investigation.http://www.jacksonlewis.com/.../mere-request-employee-not...
David Van Risseghem This is the kind of elevated discussion which makes me proud that :
1. we have this medium for communicating. 2. We have elected officials who are forthcoming with clear explanations of the process. Thanks, everyone; for making sense of this. |
