Posted on 12/19/2017 11:14:45 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Between the years of 2008 - 2012, three cases involving sexual harassment in offices of members of Congress were quietly settled and paid out a total of $115,000 in taxpayers' money in settlements, the House disclosed Tuesday. House Administration Committee Chairman Gregg Harper, R-Miss., made the revelation, after he received information on settlement and awards statistics from the Office of Compliance.
This was part of his request from OOC for a breakdown of the $17 million total that has been paid by the congressional Office of Compliance account to settle the claims. Of the 15 claims in that time period listed by the office, three involve sexual harassment. Those claims were settled for $85,000, $10,000 and $20,000.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
I think the Republicans are slow-walking the release of names because they do not want the resulting turmoil and potential resignations to affect critical votes, e.g. the tax cut bill.
If I’m right, it could happen soon after todays votes.
Congress has paid more than $700,000 in settlements in the last decade
http://therightscoop.com/congress-has-paid-more-than-700000-in-settlements-in-the-last-decade/
I thought that my distrust for politicians could not go any lower-——and then I heard about this.
Term limits !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
I want names!
I want to know which elected official received taxpayer largess as a result of their inability to control themselves. These people who are incapable of controlling themselves are writing laws and rules that control others. They need to be run out of town, but my guess is that some district would reelect them under any circumstance.
REFERENCE-—when NBC News directed questions about the Alcee Hastings $200,000 harassment settlement and payments to two congressional entities the documents showed were involved in establishing and approving them the Office of Compliance and the Senate Office of the Chief Counsel for Employment neither provided answers.
In an email, the Office of Compliances media representative wrote that the Congressional Accountability Act requires that the OOC maintain the confidentially of contacts made with the office. The OOC cannot comment on whether matters have or have not been filed with the office.
The Senate legal office did not respond to questions including why it reached a settlement in this case even though Hastings is a member of the House.
The Process
In the lessons memo, the counsel representing Hastings side, she argued that the manner in which the case was resolved was not ideal, and, going forward, we strongly recommend that the commission consider adopting regulations or policies to avoid this type of situation.
According to the “lessons” memo, Packer contacted the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment’s office and “indicated her interest in settling the case.” A draft confidentiality agreement between Packer and the commission, obtained by NBC News, forced Packer to resign in order to accept the settlement. She also had to agree to never seek employment with the commission again.
The agreement was also made with the commission, not Hastings, and required commission employees to attend a sexual harassment training session. Hastings was not required to attend. According to the settlement, the commission’s harassment politics also had to be redrafted and distributed them at the seminar.
The Senate office didnt communicate with the House office that first opened the case on the terms and details of the settlement, according to Lett’s lessons memo. Other than a conversation between Hastings and Cardin in 2014 that a settlement had been reached, Hastings was never provided any details of the settlement until it was reported in the press last week.
Until (last Friday) evening, I had not seen the settlement agreement between the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) and Ms. Packer, Hastings said. At no time was I consulted, nor did I know until after the fact that such a settlement was made.
Its not the first settlement where the accused was not made aware of the details. An attorney to former Rep. Eric Massa, D-N.Y., said the congressman was unaware of $100,000 worth of sexual harassment-related payments to former staffers in 2010, according to ABC News. Massa’s attorney, James D. Doyle, said that the process is unfair to both the victim and the accused.
Further shrouding this taxpayer-funded process and payouts is the lack of information provided to lawmakers and the public.
The amount of Packers settlement, $200,000, the largest known to date, was not included in recent details about sexual harassment settlements and payments given to the House Administration Committee, including an $84,000 settlement for an employee of Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas.
Congress has wrestled with these issues in a more urgent way since the recent wave of sexual misconduct allegations began sweeping through virtually every sector of America over the past months, including several high-profile cases that have brought down members of the House and Senate.
Rep. Gregg Harper, R-Miss., chairman of the House Administration Committee, told NBC News that he will introduce bipartisan legislation next week to reform the entire adjudication process for accusers and the accused as a way to provide more transparency to the public.
In the meantime, leaders on Capitol Hill continue to struggle to explain how these past settlements happened in the first place.
Fake News - the “chump change” strategy.
My guess, it’s in the millions and millions.
OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE
Web site https://www.compliance.gov/about-ooc/our-pledge
OUR PLEDGE
We appreciate that workplace rights issues can be stressful to deal with, difficult to manage, and challenging to understand. So when someone calls to speak to our counselors about a sensitive workplace issue, we are committed to providing prompt, courteous, and responsive information to help them better understand their rights and responsibilities. All counseling calls with the OOC are strictly confidential.
When we inspect properties to determine compliance with safety and health and disability access, we are committed to working with employing offices to help them understand the law and to provide the information necessary to cure any potential violations.
Finally, we strongly believe that understanding the laws incorporated in the Congressional Accountability Act is the best way to prevent workplace conflict, and as such, we are committed to being a vital, educational resource for Congressional Members, employing offices, and legislative branch employees through our publications and training programs.
The Office of Compliance is part of the legislative branch and is therefore not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
OOC’s Organizational Structure
The OOC has a five-member, non-partisan Board of Directors and four executive staff, appointed by the Board, who carry out the day-to-day functions of the Agency. The Office also employs an experienced professional staff on Capitol Hill who educate, communicate, inspect, litigate, and otherwise run its operations.
About the Office of Compliance
The Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA) protects over 30,000 employees of the legislative branch nationwide and establishes the Office of Compliance (OOC) to administer and ensure the integrity of the Act through its programs of dispute resolution, education, and enforcement. The OOC assists members of Congress, employing offices and employees, and visiting public in understanding their rights and responsibilities under the workplace and accessibility laws. The OOC advises Congress on needed changes and amendments to the CAA; and the OOC’s General Counsel has independent investigatory and enforcement authority for certain violations of the CAA.
OOC’s Organizational Structure
The OOC has a five-member, non-partisan Board of Directors and four executive staff, appointed by the Board, who carry out the day-to-day functions of the Agency. The Office also employs an experienced professional staff on Capitol Hill who educate, communicate, inspect, litigate, and otherwise run its operations.
John Adams Building
110 2nd Street SE, Room LA 200
Washington, DC 20540-1999
Phone: 202-724-9250
Fax: 202-426-1913
Who were involved
They sold their souls for an amount of money they could easily afford on their salaries. They all need to resign or get removed.
However, the Office of House Employment Counsel appears to have played a role in other delicate staff-related issues in addition to the one involving Farentholds office.
The Washington Times recently reported that Arizona Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva consulted the office on handling a dispute involving an employee who eventually accepted a $48,000 severance package, though Grijalva did not specify the nature of the complaint. On the advice of House Employment Counsel, I provided a severance package to a former employee who resigned, Grijalva told the newspaper. The severance did not involve the Office of Compliance and at no time was any allegation of sexual harassment made, and no sexual harassment occurred.
The offices investigation into Blake Farentholds chief of staff came only a year after the member himself had been accused himself of sexual harassment in a lawsuit and investigated by the Office of Congressional Ethics. It is unclear whether any details of the workplace investigation in 2016 were shared with other investigative bodies such as the ethics office or the House Ethics Committee. House leaders and the Office of House Employment Counsel declined to say whether the counsel shares information with other investigative bodies.
Citing attorney-client privilege, the Office of House Employment Counsel also declined to answer questions from POLITICO on how many investigations it helped facilitate and pay for in recent years, how much money it has paid to outside firms, and which law firms conducted the investigations.
As needed, OHEC may arrange for an independent firm to conduct investigations of an office so that a determination can be made whether there is a need for the office to take appropriate corrective actions, a House Office of Employment Counsel spokesperson said in an email.
Spokespeople for both House Speaker Paul Ryan and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi disclaimed any knowledge of the counsel offices investigations or policies. We have no independent knowledge of how or in what way OHEC/independent investigation was used or conducted, Ryan spokesperson AshLee Strong said in an email.
The Office of House Employment Counsel appears to have played a role in delicate staff-related issues. The Washington Times recently reported that Arizona Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva consulted the office on handling a dispute involving an employee who eventually accepted a $48,000 severance package, though Grijalva did not specify the nature of the complaint.
On the advice of House Employment Counsel, I provided a severance package to a former employee who resigned, Grijalva told the newspaper. The severance did not involve the Office of Compliance and at no time was any allegation of sexual harassment made, and no sexual harassment occurred.
The offices investigation into Farentholds chief of staff came only a year after the member himself had been accused himself of sexual harassment in a lawsuit and investigated by the Office of Congressional Ethics. It is unclear whether any details of the workplace investigation in 2016 were shared with other investigative bodies such as the ethics office or the House Ethics Committee.
House leaders and the Office of House Employment Counsel declined to say whether the counsel shares information with other investigative bodies. Citing attorney-client privilege, the Office of House Employment Counsel also declined to answer questions from POLITICO on how many investigations it helped facilitate and pay for in recent years, how much money it has paid to outside firms, and which law firms conducted the investigations.
As needed, OHEC may arrange for an independent firm to conduct investigations of an office so that a determination can be made whether there is a need for the office to take appropriate corrective actions, a House Office of Employment Counsel spokesperson said in an email. Spokespeople for both House Speaker Paul Ryan and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi disclaimed any knowledge of the counsel offices investigations or policies. We have no independent knowledge of how or in what way OHEC/independent investigation was used or conducted, Ryan spokesperson AshLee Strong said in an email.
The Office of House Employment Counsel operates under the auspices of the House clerks office and advises members on employment practices. It also facilitates investigations into employee complaints, a spokesperson confirmed to POLITICO. But what happens afterward is murky: The office appears to serve House members and their offices not necessarily the employees and makes no public accounting of its determinations or its expenditures.
A spokesperson for the office declined to say how many sexual harassment complaints or other investigations its handled in recent years, citing attorney-client privilege. It also declined to reveal the firms that it hired or the amount paid to them.
In addition, both Democratic and Republican House leadership offices declined to answer questions about the internal investigations.
=======================================
The revelation that there is a separate office facilitating and paying for sexual harassment investigations, with little transparency and apparently little oversight, rankled critics of Congress handling of sexual harassment, who said that without established procedures and a commitment to transparency, the office may be playing more of a role covering up offenses than revealing them.
=====================================
House leaders and the Office of House Employment Counsel declined to say whether the counsel shares information with other investigative bodies. Citing attorney-client privilege, the Office of House Employment Counsel also declined to answer questions from POLITICO on how many investigations it helped facilitate and pay for in recent years, how much money it has paid to outside firms, and which law firms conducted the investigations.
Do they still get free postage stamps and check kiting services ?
Yes - the whole situation is a classic, textbook example of “Abuse of Power”!!!
Thanks for the info.
All this, and we are only talking about the House. Don’t you think the Senate has their own slush fund(s)?
Tip of the iceberg.
I agree, compared with what settlements against large corporations have been, this is chicken feed. Even a low-level female with a good case could walk away with a few hundred $K from a Fortune 100 company, and they settle these cases all the time.
Astonishing-——and thanks.
.
Until we get names, none of it matters.
These lowlife conmen think up varied ways to extort our tax dollars to cover-up their twitching penises and roaming hands.
Alcee Hastings, Conyers, Grijlava, and Farenthold pigged out on tax dollars in entirely different ways......to cover-up the fact they dont belong in Congress.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.