Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Politics / Woods Why Is Harassment Tolerated at the Capitol?
Posted by Jeff Woods on Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 9:22 AM
The first time, the memo says, a tipsy Williams approached Lynn in the legislative garage and told her, "I will give a week's pay just to see you naked." Isn't that charming? Also in the garage, Rep. Debra Maggart says he leered into her car and stared at her breasts. Afterward, in a meeting with Lynn and House Republican leader Jason Mumpower, Williams apologized and promised not to do it again. Eight days later, according to the memo, he did harass Lynn again in what seemed like an attempt to intimidate her. Another meeting was held, and Williams again assured Lynn it wouldn't happen anymore, the memo says.
Already, liberal bloggers are dismissing all this as merely part of the Republican effort to demonize Williams for his betrayal of the party. Sean Braisted writes, "It appears the knives are coming out from the House GOP caucus in regards to Speaker Williams." And Southern Beale comments, "They eat their own. Utterly predictable. Let's throw the most salacious and reprehensible allegations we can find at the hated Republican traitor."
But there's no evidence this is part of any Republican smear campaign. It looks like Post Politics' Adam Kleinheider went after this memo on his own initiative. The memo wasn't leaked. Kleinheider says he made an open records request for it. The existence of the complaint, but not the details of it, has been common knowledge at the Capitol. Kudos to Kleinheider for getting to the bottom of it.
Williams apparently is right about one thing: He was never reprimanded for his behavior. Bloggers (and the rest of the state's media) should ask how Williams got away with this. Why was an apology and a promise not to harass again all that was required of him? Even if Lynn wanted the matter handled privately, as she says she did, the complaint could have been made public, with the names of the victims kept confidential. Then voters could judge for themselves. Lawmakers of both parties are notorious for sexually harassing female colleagues, lobbyists, secretaries and staffers. It's despicible. As long as there are no repercussions, it won't ever stop.
Comments (6)
Showing 1-6 of 6
Jeff --
The memo is indeed very credible. I can say this because I have been fortunate enough to have been given a copy. Others are not so lucky because The Nashville Post has this insane policy of having people pay for their stuff.
When can the Scene post a copy for everyone? (I assume that journalistic etiquette requires a certain amount of time to pass before you can piggyback on someone else's work. But I'm just guessing.)
like
dislike
Perhaps Kleinheider dug this up all by his lonesome; if that is the case, kudos to him. However, given the fact that News Channel 5 had a piece on this for the 6 o'clock news, and the person behind the camera referenced a denial from Williams the day prior, the timeline doesn't exactly match up.
The most likely scenario is that Mumpower, or someone associated with Mumpower, shopped the story around and told them to ask for this letter filed away in Mumpower's cabinet, that nobody outside of Mumpower and his lawyer would know about.
Which is all fine and good, if I were in his position, I'd do the same damned thing...but why pretend as if Mumpower reluctantly divulged this information to the press, when we all know it was done with glee.
Hey Brainsdead.....Don't you read well?.......It was clearly stated above, and known all around the statehouse, that something occured....seems to me that this "gossip" would have come up again hot and heavy after the disgrace of last week.......and then news agencies filed the request......must be hard to see and hear clearly on the left side of the earth.......
Oh, well, hell...if there were rumors floated in 2007, that must be the reason for the release of this information in 2009. I'm sure nobody tipped off the Nashville Post and Channel 5 about the letter written by Mumpower and his lawyer and filed away "in case of emergency".
There was no "public records request." The legislature isn't subject to the open records law.
It's a leak, pure and simple.
Doesn't make it true or untrue, doesn't make it important or unimportant. But it doesn't mean a journalist should make up a story about the means by which he got the story.
Why not simply write: "Reporters were tipped to the existence of the document Monday by........." It denies the reporter some of the sexiness of "breaking" a leak to a dozen or so people, but it makes for a fuller story. From the reader's perspective, I know which I care about and which makes me trust the reporter's judgment more.
If I had a nickel for everytime somebody had too much to drink and said something stupid, I would have a lot of nickels. To me, this is not "harassment." Harassment is a pattern, not an event. The event, to be sure, warranted an apology at the time. And the person warranted a warning at the time, as well as more careful watching to see if it was a pattern. But come on, people, if the aggrieved party did not stand up at the time, and is not standing up now, this can only been seen as 3rd parties with an axe to grind.
If this doesn't blow over, and soon, similar stupidities are going to start coming out of the woodwork about a lot of people on both sides of the aisle. Do they really want that?
