Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x2 - Radogno opposes *** Budget address to be delayed until late March
Next Post: Caption contest!
Posted in:
* Sun-Times…
The Illinois State Treasurer employee behind allegations against State Treasurer Dan Rutherford resigned from his position Monday, the employee told the Sun-Times.
The man, who asked that his name not yet be used, said he submitted his resignation letter Monday following what he called an “intimidating” news conference held by Rutherford on Friday, with a former FBI agent at his side. […]
The employee told the Sun-Times in an interview Monday that his complaint entailed harassment claims and pressure to do political work.
Apparently, the employee took compensatory time, so his resignation doesn’t become official until Feb. 10, meaning the treasurer’s office can’t yet comment.
*** UPDATE *** WUIS…
A man who says he was a victim of sexual harassment by Treasurer Dan Rutherford has submitted a letter of resignation. […]
The alleged victim describes unwanted advances by Treasurer Rutherford, and accuses him of trying to force state employees to work on behalf of his campaign for governor.
Oy.
We are all really in for it now.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 4:58 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x2 - Radogno opposes *** Budget address to be delayed until late March
Next Post: Caption contest!
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Longest 8 days for Dan Rutherford’s campaign.
Kinda boxed both the political and governmental.
“Intimidating”. Ugliness at every turn.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 5:06 pm
how does the effective date affect the time when they can comment. Is that what they’re saying? I would think it to be irrelevant.
Comment by All is fair Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 5:16 pm
Interesting. Don’t claimants usually hang out, daring their employer to fire or lay them off so that they can further substantiate their claim with a retaliatory discharge–or just hang around doing nothing, fully aware that their safe because the employer doesn’t want to be seen as retaliating?
It’s a pretty effective strategy in Corporate American nowadays.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 5:22 pm
==how does the effective date affect the time when they can comment.==
He’s an active employee still. You don’t comment on personnel matters.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 5:24 pm
=It’s a pretty effective strategy in Corporate American nowadays. =
I’ll add, explaining why it is that everyone who has not filed a sex, sex harassment, or national origin claim/suit or has not suddenly decided to run to the MD to get their knees fixed are laid off instead.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 5:28 pm
You just as typically don’t comment on personnel matters after people are fired. That’s why I’m wondering why they said this. Do we really believe that we’ll get more info in 8 days? I doubt it. Should have just said it’s a personnel issue. no comment.
Which maybe is what they did say. That’s what I’m curious about
Comment by All is fair Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 5:29 pm
Hey, if he’s saying he was forced to do political work, I don’t understand why his name is being kept secret. This is starting to smell.
Comment by Soccermom Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 5:29 pm
Rutherford is just too much of a Boy Scout to have knowingly had people doing politics on the payroll. He saw all the ugly stuff that happened with Tristano, so I doubt he would be so stupid. There are very simple legal standards to apply there, so if someone stepped over the line, no problem in resolving that pretty quickly. Being part of the vast uninformed, what is disturbing to me is that the ST seems to be enabling the impression of some kind of sex scandal. If the goods are not there, this should stop. A great newspaper does not do that.
Comment by Chad Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 5:31 pm
Rutherford is done as soon as the complaint is formally filed by the accuser. The details will put the Rutherford campaign in perma explainin’ mode until the final, humiliating numbers come in on the evening of March 18.
Comment by Madge Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 5:33 pm
=That’s why I’m wondering why they said this. =
Well that part is pretty obvious, I think from the text that’s been provided. They are stating that the “claimant/plaintiff/whatever he is right now” was intimidated by Rutherford’s press conference which included the two “official-looking” gentlemen standing on either side of Mr. Rutherford–and I’d imagine that pains to which Mr. Rutherford went to explain their backgrounds.
You can agree and/or disagree as to whether it’s heartfelt and/or a tactic, but I’d argue that it did seem quite unusual.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 5:37 pm
actually that FBI guy on the right kinda scared me too. and knowing he is about to be taken through the ringer, maybe another week or so to settle his nerves is needed.
Comment by PoolGuy Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 5:43 pm
*wringer
Comment by PoolGuy Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 5:44 pm
=A great newspaper does not do that. =
Perhaps your Mr. Rutherford should not have held such a bizarre press conference then. It seems that he’s the one who’s opened the door.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 5:45 pm
every single politician gets this nonsense thrown at him. Jim Thompson got married as he campaigned for Governor or shortly after he won, but as a long term bachelor there were always whispers…
Comment by Capitol View Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 5:46 pm
I can’t seem to get past these two nagging questions: 1) why didn’t the employee file a report with the Inspector General (and still hasn’t); and 2) how can the attorney, as an officer of the courts, willingly offer a hush money settlement without facing serious ARDC sanctions? I’m not an attorney and maybe I don’t understand the intricacies, but as an observer of the process, there are too many things that are not adding up on this.
Comment by woodchuck Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 5:46 pm
The timeline (and timing) of recent damaging events concerning Rutherford seems contrived, especially as new developments are coming out daily. I won’t say set-up, but it would be hard to convince me otherwise.
Comment by Wensicia Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 5:47 pm
Give it up Danny, you’re time is over.
Comment by Mrs. Rauner Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 5:50 pm
==Perhaps your Mr. Rutherford should not have held such a bizarre press conference then. It seems that he’s the one who’s opened the door. ==
Whose Mr. Rutherford? He doesn’t belong to anyone. It is highly unlikely that he opened the door willingly. It is much more likely that the complainant threatened to go to the media or that a reporter called Rutherford for comment. Rutherford then had to decide whether to wait for the story to come out or to go on the offensive. He chose the latter.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 5:52 pm
Anon: People can disagree over whether his press conference was well-calculated. The guy has denied harrassment, but the ST titilates in response. Pretty low.
Comment by Chad Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 5:52 pm
I’m sorry. I obviously missed the denial of harassment charges. Do you have a link to the article?
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 5:54 pm
=Whose Mr. Rutherford?=
My, my, Pot. It was merely a typo. Didn’t mean to insult anyone’s sensitivities.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 5:57 pm
There are no sanctions if an attorney offers a settlement proposal for a civil case in good faith. I am not defending her, but that’s how it works.
Comment by Cheswick Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 5:57 pm
He said it at the Trib event. Global denial of everything.
Comment by Chad Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 5:57 pm
Next thing you know, people are going to begin screaming over someone welcoming someone “home” from a trip.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 5:59 pm
Sorry. Who said what at the Trib event?
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 6:00 pm
all of the Constitutionals have people who work for them doing political work. You can’t do it on state time, but you can do it on your own time. It’s probably illegal for almost all of them (maybe all) to have their employment tied to their outside political activities. But reality is that large numbers of these employees are in that situation.
Now when you start putting the squeeze on people, especially lower paid people, you get problems
Comment by All is fair Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 6:01 pm
I don’t know where you folks are coming from who say the attorney could face sanctions. An out of court settlement with a non disclosure clause is fairly common in civil litigation.
Comment by So... Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 6:04 pm
I don’t understand what length of employment would shed on the situation. It’s not as if there’s some sort of magical “if-then-else” script to follow–even when speculating that will result in a valid determination or verdict.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 6:29 pm
It is not “common” when the money is demanded by an attorney to prevent exposure of purportedly criminal conduct. That makes a big difference.
Comment by Percival Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 6:34 pm
I guess I’m done with this thread. I do believe in our legal process and some of these questions are irritating enough to almost prejudice me against Mr. Rutherford. And full disclosure: I have no clue as to whether the attorney involved is a friend of Dan Proft (current or otherwise) and if on the off-chance I’ve ever met her, it was obviously long ago and brief.
But keep speculating along those lines, “Dan Fans” and see how much support it does or does not get you.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 6:37 pm
===…the employee told the Sun-Times.===
Between the lawyer and the accuser, there seems to be a great deal of chatter with one side of the table, and the press at large, (radio, and newspapers it seems).
To that point, the Friday morning presser, in the context of how the lawyer and the accuser seem to freely talk within the boundaries, and really not running to far away from a spotlight they could control, …
it doesn’t seem too out of the realm of possibility that Rutherford felt very compelled to have that Friday presser.
The presser was hasty, and vague, and tried to get in front of what, maybe a more sharper version of what we are seeing right now?
The Sun Times may have called to check on the accuser, or the accuser may have dropped the info in a call to the Sun Times, to let them know what was going on, and with the 8 day window, gives everyone pause to possibly come up with a solution.
The whole thing is just tasteless. I do think the reporting of the resignation by the accuser, (or was it a call by the Times, and the accuser ‘droppped’ the info, I don’t know) keeps this out there until end of business on the 10th, with probably what we are getting know, the piece by piece dropping of what could be critical info to find out what is really going on.
The Plot Thickens, Indeed.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 6:38 pm
The strong link between this attorney and Proft has existed for years and is common knowledge in GOP circles in Chicago. That is not speculation. What is speculation is to say that this hit is in fact coming from Proft.
Comment by Percival Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 6:57 pm
Like Soccermom, I am wondering why this person’s name is a secret if all that is being alleged is the political work angle.
I know that Rutherford’s weird press conference got this all started, but this breathless report
from a secret person about an undetailed allegation of unspecified impropriety to be put into a formalized complaint at a future date is just annoying. This headline could just as well be: “Unnamed person resigns from unknown position for unknown reasons”
Comment by hisgirlfriday Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 7:16 pm
I find it so hard to believe that Rutherford would be stupid enough to encourage state employees to do political work while on state time. It just seems unfathomable to me.
Comment by Just Me Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 7:17 pm
Oh and just as I post that we get the UIS report with the additional angle.
So this person doesn’t want to be named, but is reaching out to both the Sun-Times and WUIS to make sure this story gets out there? So bizarre.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 7:19 pm
The question, which seems to have been deleted, seemed to try to insinuate that because there’s a friendship between the two, the answer to the second is obvious.
I can’t tell you how sick to death I already am regarding “sources of the hit” and all the drama. The questions that matter are: Is there a claim/complaint? What is the nature of the allegations? And everything else then becomes obvious, including the general timeline associated with obtaining a determination and/or verdict–unless a settlement is negotiated and made. If “others” were in fact possibly somehow involved and it’s relevant to any of the cases or the claims, those people will probably be included in discovery assuming a civil case.
In the meantime, voters will obviously just have to decide for themselves as to whether they have concerns or not based on the facts that are revealed.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 7:20 pm
Oh they’ve got out their story to the Tribune too.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-employee-at-center-of-rutherford-allegations-resigns-20140203,0,5894948.story?track=rss
Just curious if these reporters would be keeping the accuser’s name a secret if it was a woman?
Comment by hisgirlfriday Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 7:22 pm
=I find it so hard to believe that Rutherford would be stupid enough to encourage state employees to do political work while on state time=
I would imagine that if you’re scheduling both official “state” events and campaign events and bringing staff with you who are either one or the other, things could get a little unclear just from a work scheduling perspective alone.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 7:26 pm
===if it was a woman? ===
I would.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 7:27 pm
if you are being frugal with your somewhat limited campaign funds and don’t want campaign staff driving all over the state to sit around at state events and hope your work staff will fill in the blanks, things could get a little fishy at times.
Comment by PoolGuy Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 7:33 pm
After reading the updated stories, I’m left with the analysis that there’s a key distinction in the attorney’s language — and that distinction is the difference between the words “may” and “shall”. She “may” have a complaint. She “may” have additional people come out of the woodwork. The word “may” is just a word to drive speculation, sell newspapers, and most importantly, a word to attempt people to be nervous. The word “may” in a bill, is a way to get more votes. The word “shall” is way more definitive about one’s intentions. I’ve know Dan for some time and he is so conscientious about separating governing and politics. In all his campaigns, for the House, the Senate, the Secretary of State, Treasurer, and never a complaint from all the people who worked for him. Not one. Zero. Now, we’re led to believe he has turned in Tristano. No way. I don’t buy it. If he had a pattern of doing that, it would have been exposed a long time ago. There would have been complaints. Like most people, I’m waiting until all the facts come out and I hope he’s exonerated. If he did something wrong, then he should pay the costs, but in my experience and history, he’s just not going to change decades of attention to detail and ethics for … this.
Comment by woodchuck Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 7:41 pm
@Rich -
Fair enough. I am just thinking of past scandals involving pols and published sexual harassment allegations and at the moment am having trouble thinking of cases where the accuser’s name was not also published with the allegations. Like Anita Hill or the women who accused Bill Clinton or Herman Cain.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 7:42 pm
It’s not necessarily about working on state time. It could be about being forced to do political work on your own time. In fact, that’s where the beef often has come in these cases. Hell, they don’t care if they’re working politics on the government dime. It’s being forced to march in a parade on a saturday or lose your job that gets some people ticked.
although this guy pretty clearly got his job based on politics, right?
He’s a dem. maybe he was a pat quinn plant.
Comment by All is fair Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 7:43 pm
Regarding confidentiality and whether this is a shake down or a settlement –
It will depend on whether Rutherford has any proof as to who brought up confidentiality first.
If the plaintiff’s counsel offers it up front, then she’s got ARDC issues (and maybe worse).
Confidentiality is something that is almost always demanded by the defense and typically it has an extra cost. In fact, the settlement paperwork would need to establish confidentiality is a paid for term of the settlement (whether or not that’s true is another matter — often a dollar figure is reached and then part of it is allocated to confidentiality).
While the clauses are routine (I tend to include them in just about any case I settle for a defendant unless the settlement is so low that it shows the case was frivolous) it is always the defense guy making the demand of confidentiality.
When the plaintiff’s attorney demands it, all sorts of red flags go off.
But again, this goes to proof. If it is simply Rutherford saying she offered it, and the plaintiff’s counsel saying that Rutherford demanded it, then it is not going anywhere.
Comment by Smoggie Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 7:51 pm
Oh boy, hate to just say it, but…this is gonna take Rutherford down this Election Cycle, ‘cuz it’s not so much who’ll be telling the truth right now–it’s just the nature of the alleGAtion that’ll prove too much of a taint on him, even it turns out to be utter nonsense eventually–because there won’t be enough time for DR to recover…!
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 7:59 pm
- Capitol View - Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 5:46 pm:
every single politician gets this nonsense thrown at him. Jim Thompson got married as he campaigned for Governor or shortly after he won, but as a long term bachelor there were always whispers…
I just want to say that things aren’t always “nonsense” to people in the know (EPU).
Comment by Tony U Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 8:25 pm
This is complete horse (you know what) Politically driven slurs timed perfectly to take a guy out. I really hope it back fires. It probably will if Rutherford just hangs in there.
Comment by Bobo Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 8:39 pm
I’m sorry, but I think this story has reached the point where it’s fundamentally unfair to Rutherford for Rich, among many others, to keep the supposed accuser’s name ’secret’ as privileged ‘private knowledge.’ Put it out there so that everyone has a better ability to judge just what’s really going on here, whether from Proft or others.
Comment by The Historian Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 8:40 pm
“In the meantime, voters will obviously just have to decide for themselves as to whether they have concerns or not based on the facts that are revealed.” Wouldn’t the fact that the story came out of an opposition campaign be relevant to voters in deciding what is true and what is not? I suppose it could happen, but I doubt that this soap opera will be resolved by Primary Day, the voters will have to decide.
Comment by Percival Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 8:51 pm
I asked a friend who works in politics which was worse for Rutherford, to be semi-outed/rumoured or to be accused of the political/official misconduct. His answer — in the Republican world, it’s the former.
Comment by xxtofer Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 9:05 pm
So on the day of the Presser Rauner says,
“Treasurer Rutherford should spend his time answering the serious claims made against him by a state employee,”
today he says “he doesn’t even know what the allegations are about..it’s silly”
Obviously, he seems to have known more about this Friday than today
Comment by Bobo Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 9:12 pm
=Wouldn’t the fact that the story came out of an opposition campaign be relevant to voters in deciding what is true and what is not?=
Percival, I’m going to guess you already know the answer to that question. If not, just read it again and I’m sure you’ll figure it out.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 9:31 pm
Okay. The Trib ran this guy’s name.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10-03/news/ct-met-des-plaines-police-harassment-lawsuit-20131004_1_lawsuit-sexual-harassment-sergeant
And this woman’s name
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-11-08/news/chi-chicago-police-officer-says-sergeant-forced-her-to-have-sex-20131107_1_federal-lawsuit-civil-lawsuit-chicago-police-officer
and this woman’s name
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-12-27/news/chi-south-side-alderman-files-lawsuit-alleging-extortion-20131227_1_alderman-anthony-beale-cps-officials
and this woman’s name
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-08-23/entertainment/chi-deal-to-dismiss-paula-deen-sexual-harassment-discrimination-lawsuit-signed-20130823_1_paula-deen-bubba-hiers-plantation-themed-wedding
Oh, you get the idea…
Comment by Soccermom Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 10:16 pm
Bobo,
It wasn’t Rauner who said “Treasurer Rutherford should spend his time answering the serious claims made against him by a state employee”, it was a campaign spokesman. Two different people.
Comment by Anon Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 10:17 pm
I’m definitly going to get some movie theater butter popcorn, a extra large coke, sit back and enjoy the show!
Comment by an innocent observer Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 10:17 pm
The accuser is reportedly in a whole lotta debt. Motive, anyone? http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20140203/BLOGS02/140209983
Comment by IbendahlLuvsJBT Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 10:25 pm
Anon - Shrimpf is speaking for Rauner. That means he ostensibly had the comments vetted before he spoke them. Did Rauner refute Shrimpf? Oh yeah, today he did. He said he didn’t know about it. So his campaign mouthpiece says one thing and the candidate, with all of Kirk’s staff behind him, claims the spokesperson was wrong? The same Rauner who is going to run state government like a business? A business who says one thing on a Friday and different thing on a Monday? It doesn’t add up. If Rauner had said today that his spokesperson misspoke, it would have been okay. It would have allowed him to save face, but he didn’t. Saying nothing today said everything.
Comment by woodchuck Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 10:27 pm
Rauner is a very close friend of Rahm. He is pointers from the best.
Comment by Rollo Tomasi Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 10:49 pm
I need to go to bed. This all seems to convenient (or inconvenient) and I’m having visions of some elaborate set up against Rutherford. I think I have seen too many episodes of Mission Impossible or House of Cards. My head is spinning and I need to walk away before I start making tinfoil hats.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Feb 3, 14 @ 11:04 pm
Pot, AA feels the same way. The House of Cards (show and grammatical versions) theme rings so true here.
Just to get the pot stirring even better, the S-T leads tomorrow with two hits at BR and charters, including a blurb suggesting his dough helped keep UNO afloat while PQ had bricked their approps.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 12:56 am
I highly doubt anyone was sexually harrassed by someone who attended their wedding.
Comment by Juvenal Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 8:30 am
Are you basing that on an opinion, statistic, job, or payment, Juvenal? Or are you dropping crumbs that everyone’s already seen, but not willing to nibble on?
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 6:47 pm