(STATE HOUSE, BOSTON) March 1, 2018 – Responding to an “overarching perception” that there are minimal confidentiality protections for people who report sexual harassment in the Massachusetts House, a team of lawyers on Thursday unveiled a series of recommended internal policy changes.
The recommendations, including a new investigation process for harassment claims and new human resources employees, will be detailed to House lawmakers at a 1 p.m. joint caucus Thursday.
House Counsel James Kennedy, with the aid of outside lawyers including former Attorney General Martha Coakley, in October embarked on a review of the chamber’s policies dealing harassment reporting and prevention.
Based on listening sessions with staff and members, the review noted an embedded power dynamic that can discourage staff from reporting harassment and said staffers had “extensive concerns about a lack of confidentiality.”
“People feel that if they report it, it's all but immediately out there that they have done so,” Kennedy said. “One of the reasons they don’t feel comfortable, we have been told, in terms of reporting, is they feel that their identity will be out there in very short order.”
The current process for reporting sexual harassment allegations against a House lawmaker — in which complaints would be referred to the House Ethics Committee — has limits on how much confidentiality it can afford, Kennedy said.
The review recommends the hiring of a new “equal employment opportunity officer,” to whom all harassment complaints would be referred for investigation, as well as moving the human resources office out of the State House’s isolated sub-basement.
“We heard repeatedly from staff that they feel very uncomfortable going to the sub-basement, that there's only one reason for them to be in the sub-basement, and that's to go to HR,” Kennedy said.
Under the proposed structure, every complaint that is filed will be directed to the EEO officer who will take the first step of conducting a “plausibility review” of the complaint. Kennedy described this step as having a “very low threshold” and said it is intended to screen out complaints that have no merit.
If the EEO officer deems a complaint plausible, he or she will begin a confidential investigation and prepare a confidential set of findings and recommendations. If the complaint is against a House member, the EEO officer would be able to confidentially recommend either private or public discipline.
If the recommendation is for private discipline, the EEO officer will take confidential action against the member, like requiring them to apologize or undergo additional training. The House member would then have 10 days to request that a confidential Special Committee on Professional Conduct, comprised of seven House members appointed by the speaker and the House minority leader, be established to review the EEO officer’s recommendations. The special committee, which would be created on an ad hoc basis, could uphold the EEO ruling or make a superseding ruling of its own.
An EEO officer recommendation for public discipline of a member would automatically trigger a confidential Special Committee on Professional Conduct review and the committee could elect to either confidentially recommend no action be taken, or recommend that the member be publicly reprimanded, officially censured, removed from a House leadership position, be suspended from the House or be expelled from the House.
If the complaint is against a House staff member, the process follows a different path after the EEO officer determines the complaint is plausible and finishes an investigation. The EEO officer could recommend that the staff member either be terminated or be disciplined without being terminated.
Termination of a House staffer would require the EEO officer to notify the House counsel’s office and receive the House counsel’s approval. If the House counsel disagrees with the recommendation to fire the staffer, the final decision would be made by the House speaker, who would be given a pseudonym for the victim. Non-termination discipline would involve a confidential report to the staffer’s appointing authority.
“Something we heard from members and staff repeatedly is staff feel concerned and have concerns about filing complaints because they obviously fear retaliation, they fear the negative impacts to their career, they'’ve also said repeatedly they fear the potential negative impacts to their boss’ career if they file,” Kennedy said. “So what we have done here is remove any member or other employees of the House other than the EEO officer from the decision-making process.”
At Thursday’s joint caucus, Kennedy plans to discuss his findings and detail the process he has proposed. For the new structure to take effect, the House will have to adopt a new bundle of rules. Kennedy included a proposed rules package with his report but said it is important that the House put the proposal through the committee process and be able to openly debate and amend them.
Kennedy will also ask that the House adopt a revised anti-harassment policy by May 1. He projected a timeline following the adoption of new rules that would have the House hire its director of human resources, EEO officer, and director of employee engagement by Aug. 1. Kennedy said he expects the new system for receiving, investigating and resolving complaints will be in full effect by the start of 2019.
Once members are briefed on the proposed new structure, Kennedy and his office plan to hold similar sessions in coming weeks for staffers and will make the full report available to each House office.
The report Kennedy released Thursday also recommends conducting a multi-year, confidential sexual harassment climate survey and holding mandatory, annual, in-person sexual harassment training for all members, staff and interns.
The policy review was launched after a Boston Globe column detailed the experiences of a dozen women — activists, aides, lobbyists and lawmakers — recounting their experiences with sexual harassment in the State House, including instances of inappropriate touching and sexual remarks by men who have left politics and some who are still in office.
Men make up a majority of House lawmakers, with women currently holding 39 seats, representing about a quarter of the 160-member body. About 55 percent of the House's 480 employees are women, and about 56 percent are under the age of 35, according to the review.
The review says the attorneys found “no evidence” that any of the roughly 860 House staff departures since 2010 were related to or resulted from sexual harassment. “However, we do not discount the possibility that some employees may have left because they were dissatisfied with their workplace,” the report said.
