It seems there is some confusion about whether an "official" complaint was filed by "Jane Doe" regarding Dow Constantine. Part of this confusion lies in what your definition of "official" is.
I've recently acquired another court document that delves a little deeper into this story. While "Jane Doe" didn't file a "formal" complaint, it seems to me that going to one's supervisor to complain about an unfair practice, is pretty official.
In related news, I've just learned that the Seattle Times has filed legal documents to intervene in this matter. A court date could be set for as soon as Monday.
Recent posts on this topic here and here.
Posted by MarkGriswold at October 30, 2009 09:27 AM | Email This----
RCW 49.60 does not cover sexual harassment, Mark. Are you ready to withdraw your completely fictitious accusations?
Posted by: John Jensen on October 30, 2009 10:15 AMBut did Jane Doe file an official report? Clearly not.
So, should every communication between public employee and supervisor be a matter of public record?
Posted by: John Jensen on October 30, 2009 10:24 AMWho exactly is making excuses here? And who precisely has proven that this is sexual harassment? There is no evidence of anything here. Once evidence comes out, I have no problems judging on that basis, but assuming that a candidate should respond to every charge leveled by a random blogger is ludicrous.
Posted by: demo kid on October 30, 2009 10:29 AMWashington State statutes against discrimination in employment are contained in ch. 49.60 RCW. This chapter establishes the Human Rights Commission and defines conduct that constitutes unfair practices for public or private employers. RCW 49.60.180 establishes a legal right for an employee to sue an employer for hostile work environment sexual harassment, quid pro quo sexual harassment, and disparate treatment based upon gender. [Emphasis added]Until the interview notes are released, we don't know specifically what is involved here. However, we do know that this public document is being withheld based on the fact that it contains "inappropriate or offensive" comments made by Dow Constantine. Posted by: benny on October 30, 2009 10:34 AM
No, it is not the supervisor's job to decide if a subordinates reported incident should be investigated or just 'noted'. They are simply required to report the incident to HR for review and THEY will decide if the action can be considered a 'liability' to the Company and take appropriate steps. Not reporting could result in the company being a co-defendant in a lawsuit by the employee.
Use your head instead of your emotional argument.
Posted by: Rick D. on October 30, 2009 10:34 AMHutchison has Republican values. She doesn't believe more roads, but not in mass transit.
Hutchison has Republican values. She believes in creationism.
Hutchison has Republican values. She doesn't think that global climate change is real.
These Republican values are fine for other areas of the county. But they aren't King County values.
Hutchison has Republican values, and she is unelectable in this county. Desperate times and bad poll results call for desperate tactics like the ones that have appeared on this blog.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 30, 2009 10:36 AMEXACTLY.
However, we do know that this public document is being withheld based on the fact that it contains "inappropriate or offensive" comments made by Dow Constantine.
And you know that by virtue of what, exactly? Did you see records that we haven't?
Posted by: demo kid on October 30, 2009 10:41 AMWhat does this have to do with anything I said? Jane Doe did not file an official report. Neither did her supervisor. Neither did HR. You use the word "required" above, but that requirement does not exist.
benny, Thanks for the correction -- but: we do know that this public document is being withheld based on the fact that it contains "inappropriate or offensive" comments made by Dow Constantine.
No, it's being withheld because Jane Doe filed a restraining order. Constantine has absolutely no say whether it is withheld or not.
Susan Hutchison has a Republican. She doesn't like mass transit, doesn't believe in climate change, and thinks creationism is science. These are Republican values that don't fit in King County.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 30, 2009 10:42 AM"Records relating to any complaints alleging inappropriate comments or behavior by County Councilmember Dow Constantine toward any employee."
The notes of Jane Doe's supervisor apparently fall under this documents request. Ergo, the notes contain "inappropriate comments or behavior" by Constantine towards Jane Doe. It's logic. Stupid.
Posted by: benny on October 30, 2009 10:49 AMSo will you be calling all your talk radio friends again today to retract your slanderous unfounded stories from yesterday?
Posted by: lulu on October 30, 2009 10:49 AMStick with the topic Johnny. EVERYONE believes that climate change is real. It changes all the time. In fact it has been changing for the last 10 years - getting cooler - and all the scientists figure that will happen for another 20 years. Most of them are even pretty sure that the change has nothing at all to do with man.
Posted by: Jay on October 30, 2009 10:50 AMNot seeing where Griswold has slandered or libeled anyone. Dow Constantine is a public official, and candidate for public office.
The claims that Constantine may have acted inappropriately towards a staffer should be public record. Instead, those records are being blocked, and the Times is apparently doing some legal maneuvering to get them unsealed.
Obviously, you don't want this to become public, and neither does Constantine.
Posted by: benny on October 30, 2009 11:20 AMWashington State statutes against discrimination in employment are contained in ch. 49.60 RCW. This chapter establishes the Human Rights Commission and defines conduct that constitutes unfair practices for public or private employers. RCW 49.60.180 establishes a legal right for an employee to sue an employer for hostile work environment sexual harassment, quid pro quo sexual harassment, and disparate treatment based upon gender.
Not investigating this incident and just letting the lech continue in another capacity will open up the state to a law suit by the Jane Doe(s). They are both public employees and as such, the public should be allowed to see what allegations have been leveled. This isn't a private company. I'm their employer and as such, I want to see what transpired by two public employees paid by my tax dollars. If they don't like those rules, there is always the private sector where they'll have to work for a change.
Posted by: Rick D. on October 30, 2009 11:29 AMNo, the notes relate to official documents filed according to relevant sections of the RCW. Government officials aren't going to express their own personal opinion here.
But hey, this can also cover groundless, baseless accusations as well! Without proof, there's no way of knowing which it is.
@18: Obviously, you don't want this to become public, and neither does Constantine.
Now you're just engaging in misrepresentation. If there is evidence of wrongdoing, then yes, I'd love to hear it. I doubt that ANYTHING short of a felony would make me want to vote for Hutchison at this point, but it's good to get that out on the table.
However, a responsible blogger / reporter checks his or her work before making serious allegations. I have no problems with Mark's factfinding mission, but blogging about it when there's nothing there is pointless.
Posted by: demo kid on October 30, 2009 11:36 AMIt does in most private companies employee manual and to ignore it could result in your termination from the company. I'm assuming public employees/ers are also obligated to report such infractions if they occur as it opens that employer up to legal action if they do not.
The Washington state Human rights commission on Sexual harrassment is very clear:
http://www.hum.wa.gov/FAQ/FAQSexualHarasment3.html
Q. Who am I supposed to tell about this unwanted behavior?
The employer is legally responsible for actions that may break the law but only after it knows about them. So telling someone that can stop the unwanted actions is important.
Some examples of the right people to tell [if you feel you are a victim of sexual harrassment] are: • The supervisor • The operations manager • Human resource manager • President or vice-president If a manager does this type of action then the employer may be liable for the manager's actions. emphasis added
If the groper Constantine were to continue this behavior in another capacity, that leaves us taxpayer on the hook for a lawsuit. Vote Hutchison and send the groping councilmember out the door- he's a liability to Washington state.
Notice that none of them have ever uttered any reason to vote FOR Constantine.
Posted by: yaddacubed on October 30, 2009 12:17 PMI did in just the previous thread. He's better on the issues. She doesn't know what she's talking about half the time.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 30, 2009 12:44 PMWho said I'd advocate FOR voting for Constantine? I'd much prefer voting against the bucket of warm spit that is Hutchison.
Posted by: demo kid on October 30, 2009 01:15 PMHey trolls - what about the use of public TVW footage in your political smear ads. How much of a fine do you think that will bring to you?
http://www.tvw.org/modules/articles/TVWStatementOnConstantineAd.pdf
Conceal public records, misuse public records, disrespect public records . . . blah, blah, blah (isn't that what your boss wrote in about the importance of responding to a public records request).
Posted by: aliciacr on October 30, 2009 01:22 PMIf Jane Doe didn't feel at the time that her employment was at risk, I wonder why she would have felt a need to file a restraining order against the county which apparently alleged that she might suffer immediate loss of employment?
Posted by: itsonlywords on October 30, 2009 01:44 PMIf you don't know the details of the case, speculation means nothing.
And yet AGAIN, I'm amazed that idiot conservatives are so quick to leap on this as a conspiracy from the Dow camp, and completely ignore the possibility of an "October Surprise" smear job. I'm quite willing to keep an open mind once evidence is on the table, but it seems like the resident nutjobs here love to take a lack of evidence as evidence.
Posted by: demo kid on October 30, 2009 02:16 PMhttp://www.kirotv.com/video/21476616/index.html
Posted by: Let's be fair on October 30, 2009 03:48 PMthis is hilarious watching the last minute faux controversy fall flat on hutchison's face.
don't you think if the 'administrator' had shelved the 'complaint' - the 'administrator' would have kept their job?
if ellen was laid off, that would fly in the face of retaliation. i know, maybe you should call her @ home and ask...
Posted by: mike on October 30, 2009 06:50 PMWatching this interview almost made me feel bad for the guy.
Let's hope the truth comes out on Monday... This county can't afford a womanizer at its helm.
Posted by: uh-oh-DOW on October 30, 2009 07:40 PMit's not a story about his 'womanizing' - can you wingnuts ever NOT lie?
when will mark eat his humble pie?
Posted by: mike on October 30, 2009 07:55 PMI have always believed in voting for the person over the party but am not sure if that many people do this today. I doubt if either of them have voted for a candidate with an R beside their name. I want the sewer of corruption that King County represents to be transformed into something better - that's why I'll be voting for Susan Hutchison (there's more to it than the hope and change mantra).
Posted by: KDS on October 30, 2009 07:58 PMWhy people assume politician's would ever be squeaky clean is beyond me, but no one cares enough to enforce deeper probes or to change the current system
Posted by: nope on October 31, 2009 10:01 AMThat's your misconception. I don't believe either party is exempt, but when I see a boatload of character flaws for Dow and fewer character flaws for the other candidate and I also look at judgment based on what they have said, I'll vote for the lesser flawed candidate. Nope is a rank and file lib prog. He'll vote for the ideology every time and with less consideration about character, as evidenced here. Character counts as does judgment and that is why Hutchison would be better for the residents of King County.
Posted by: KDS on October 31, 2009 10:55 AMI want integrity in our party and I am confident enough in my principles to agree that Dow is part of the problem. The last thing taxpayers need is a lawsuit with a big payout to dig our deficit even deeper.
Posted by: ThisDemocrat on October 31, 2009 11:11 AMso apparently lying and not respecting what the voters approved aren't 'character flaws' then?
cos suzie's got some major issues with the truth. and the realities of the KC constituency.
Posted by: mike on October 31, 2009 04:15 PM"so apparently lying and not respecting what the voters approved aren't 'character flaws' then?"
Blanket assertion - what are you trying to contrive here ? Show me the documentation about that assertion from somewhere other than Dow's ads. otherwise you are being unspecific and just manufacturing more Dow propaganda. Are you working as an operative for him ?
Posted by: KDS on October 31, 2009 04:56 PMlet's count up some of her tall tales.
there's the 'bleeding hemorrhoids'
co-workers engaging in sexual misconduct
not knowing who mike huckabee was, after introducing him at a function
claimed the WA policy center is 'moderate'
lied about supporting the BIAW
the symphony being better off after she was hired (it was left in debt - even after a gift from her her previous employer)
as well as flip-flopping on 1033
the woman has zero principles (coincidentally, the number of people she represents in KC) why is she running away from her conservative past?
Posted by: mike on October 31, 2009 05:46 PMYou do know that Dow has "bleeding hemorrhoids" from his "clubbing" on Capital Hill.
Apparently Dow likes to engage in co-worker "hump day" celebrations too.
Dow claims he can work on behalf of the taxpayers when negotiating with the unions. Completely ignoring a couple hundred thousand in donations to him. That doesn't even pass the smell test.
Lied about extorting the foot ferry funding for withholding the vote on the flood district.
Claiming he has been a "reformer" at the county. While driving the budget into multi-year deficits, and watching costs and project spiral out of control.
Dow is telling the truth about being a party boy.
He is a radical left wing enviro-progressive, who has never supported anyone who wasn't a Democrat or paying him.
Dow doesn't have any principles and he hates people that do.
well, he's got my vote, then.
better than an anti-science, reality denying loon like hutchison, smokie.
btw, i guess all those times sneaking off to the cuff on cap hill finally paid off for something, right?
bigot.
Posted by: mike on October 31, 2009 10:05 PMDow's lies;
"Lied about extorting the foot ferry funding for withholding the vote on the flood district.
Claiming he has been a "reformer" at the county. While driving the budget into multi-year deficits, and watching costs and project spiral out of control."
I'd say those lies by Dow are more significant than the ones you pointed out from susan - (some of which are questionable), because they had a potential effect on a whole lot more people.
What difference does whether or not she allegedly didn't know who Mike Huckabee was adversely affect people ? (I'm sure she knows now)
