Rep Kevin West responded to the concerns of Oklahomans regarding the high level of secrecy that the House Rules Committee Chairman, Josh Cockroft; is proposing to the committee charged with investigation recent sexual harassment scandals and cash settlements paid out. He posted the sentiments in a reply to Sooner Politics' Facebook post. Republican leaders have joined the conversation and weighed in with concerns for transparency and accountability to the citizens. Sooner Tea Party President, Al Gerhart weighed in; as well as Presidential Elector, David Oldham. We posted Gerhart's sentiments further into this report. Readers may join the conversation at SoonerPolitics Facebook Group.
 Rep. Kevin West,(R-Moore) of the House Rules Committee 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. - Rep Kevin West, House Rules committee |
Shortly after, the President of Sooner Tea Party, Al Gerhart; responded to Rep. West's points with concerns which others are echoing.
Here are a few of those observations:
Here are a few of those observations:
 Al Gerhart, Sooner Tea Party Rep West, take these comments in the spirit of respect as you have yet had the chance to earn our disrespect. 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. 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. 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. 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, cover up, and embezzlement of state tax dollars to pay off harassed women and their lawyers? 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. | 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. - Al Gerhart, Sooner Tea Party |
