Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » Panel releases model anti-harassment policy for campaigns
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      About     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact Rich Miller
CapitolFax.com
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
Panel releases model anti-harassment policy for campaigns

Wednesday, Sep 26, 2018 - Posted by Rich Miller

* The Illinois Anti-Harassment, Equality and Access panel released its full report today. You can read some newspaper coverage here and here.

Press release excerpt…

The Illinois Anti-Harassment, Equality and Access (AHEA) Panel today released its report that outlines recommendations for political party leaders and campaigns to adopt in order to change the culture and behaviors that have allowed sexual harassment to pervade our political system and stunt the advancement of women for decades.

A non-partisan organization led by State Comptroller Susana A.​ ​Mendoza, State Sen. Melinda Bush (31s​ t District, Grayslake) and State Rep. Carol Ammons (103r​ d​ District, Champaign), the Panel sent its report to Democratic, Green, Libertarian, and Republican party leaders at the state and county level as well as all statewide and state-level campaigns registered with the State Board of Elections. The Panel is asking them to adopt the tenets of the report and offering to meet with leaders to provide feedback, guidance and input on its recommendations as well as next steps. The panel has asked county chairs to share the report with other county and municipal campaigns and party leaders.

* The full report is pretty big, so we’re going to look at it in chunks today. Let’s start with some excerpts from the panel’s model anti-harassment policy for campaigns

We, [Name of Campaign], are committed to creating a respectful and safe working environment for every individual that works on this campaign, including campaign staff, independent contractors, volunteers, vendors, consultants, fundraisers, interns, and candidates (“Campaign Workers”). [Name of Campaign] does not tolerate harassment, bullying, or discrimination of any kind, in the workplace or in work-related situations. To achieve an environment that is free of harassment, bullying, and discrimination, it is essential that Campaign Workers feel comfortable raising complaints about harassment or other misconduct when they see or experience it. Therefore, [Name of Campaign] strictly prohibits any form of retaliation against a Campaign Worker who reports or assists in reporting a concern regarding a violation of this Policy.

I. Who is Covered
This Policy applies to all individuals that work on this campaign, including but not limited to candidates, campaign staff, independent contractors, volunteers, vendors, consultants, and fundraisers. […]

Managers, supervisors, and any other individuals with supervisory authority must report suspected violations of this Policy when they become aware of such a violation. […]

III. Prohibition Against Harassment
This Policy prohibits harassment. For the purposes of this Policy, harassment is conduct that creates a disrespectful, intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for a Campaign Worker based on that Campaign Worker’s protected status. […]

While not an exhaustive list, harassment can include the following types of conduct:

    ● Derogatory or insensitive jokes, comments, or pranks;
    ● Sharing the derogatory or insensitive jokes, comments, or pranks from others;
    ● Use of slurs or epithets;
    ● Inappropriate familiarity, invasive questions about personal lives or relationships;
    ● Unwelcome sexual or romantic advances or invitations (including asking a Campaign Worker out more than once if the Campaign Worker declines the first invitation);
    ● Displaying or sharing images such as posters, videos, photos, cartoons, screensavers, emails, or drawings that are derogatory or sexual;
    ● Comments about appearance, or other personal or physical characteristics, such as sexually charged comments or comments on someone’s physical disability;
    ● Comments about the appearance, or other personal or physical characteristics, even if it is about other people; or
    ● Unwanted bodily contact such as groping or massaging, blocking normal movement, unnecessary touching, or physically interfering with the work of another individual.

IV. Prohibition Against Bullying
This Policy prohibits bullying. Bullying is repeated behavior that a reasonable Campaign Worker would find disrespectful, intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive, regardless of whether the conduct is based on a Campaign Worker’s protected status.

While this is not an exhaustive list, bullying behavior can appear as the following:

    ● Excessive monitoring or micromanaging of a Campaign Worker;
    ● Deliberately excluding a Campaign Worker or isolating him or her from work-related activities that he or she would normally be included in;
    ● Singling out a Campaign Worker for unfavorable work assignments or demands;
    ● Regularly teasing or making a Campaign Worker the brunt of pranks or practical jokes;
    ● Publicly reprimanding, embarrassing, or shouting at a Campaign Worker; […]

VI. Role of Bystanders
Bystanders should speak up if they see or hear something that they believe violates the Policy, or something that they think is inappropriate, including suspected instances of retaliation. Bystanders are encouraged to intervene on the spot when they see inappropriate behavior unless doing so would risk the bystander’s physical safety. If bystanders do not believe that they can safely intervene – for example, if the offender is threatening violence – bystanders are expected to call law enforcement. […]

VII. Prohibition Against Retaliation
[Name of the Campaign] strictly prohibits any form of retaliation against a Campaign Worker, who reports or assists in reporting a concern regarding a violation of this Policy. Retaliation against a Campaign Worker is a violation of this Policy and the retaliating individual will be subject to discipline under this Policy. […]

VIII. Procedures for Reporting a Violation of the Policy
If you suspect harassment, bullying, discrimination, or retaliation has occurred, you are encouraged (and supervisors are required) to promptly provide a written or oral complaint internally to your immediate supervisor, the Campaign Manager, or [another option internal to the campaign]. In addition or alternatively, you may also report the conduct to the Independent Body of the State Party which has been formed to fairly and neutrally investigate these claims from campaigns that are affiliated with the Party. […]

IX. Possible Outcomes from Violations
The Independent Body of the State Party is committed to investigations that have just and fair outcomes. If an investigation reveals that a violation of this Policy occurred, the offender will be disciplined, but the punishment will be proportional to the violation, with repeat offenses receiving increasing discipline. The Independent Body of the State Party will prepare and publish a matrix of the possible outcomes that will be imposed based on a range of behaviors and repeat offenses.

Discuss.

       

15 Comments
  1. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Sep 26, 18 @ 9:30 am:

    “The Independent Body of the State Party” appears to be the recommended hammer. Will wait to see the details.


  2. - G'Kar - Wednesday, Sep 26, 18 @ 9:36 am:

    Some one should send this to Jerry Long./s


  3. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Sep 26, 18 @ 9:36 am:

    Making campaigns behave like corporate entities feels strange. It’s probably necessary and overdue, but it still makes me a little sad to see. I started working in campaign offices when I was 16 and they are amazing and energetic places. All the skills needed for any kind of start-up business apply to campaigns. It’s one of the very few places where young people are given enormous responsibility. The training wheels come off very early for campaign staff.

    And yet, people (OK, men) continue to behave badly. We need rules and guidelines because too many of us haven’t learned how to behave appropriately. Just as many fraternities had to be sued or closed to change cultures, I’m sad that these problems have persisted for so long that it’s come to this.

    I’m happy that this will make campaigns a better work place for the many talented women who’ve been treated so poorly. My preference would have been for us men to recognize this decades ago and change. But since that hasn’t happened, this is the result.

    I think, from what I’ve seen so far, the commission got this mostly right.


  4. - JoanP - Wednesday, Sep 26, 18 @ 9:47 am:

    Rich, I just want to say “thanks” for breaking this down and giving the report the space and analysis it deserves. Truly appreciated and this is the kind of thing that brought me to this blog and keeps me here.


  5. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Sep 26, 18 @ 9:49 am:

    There’s a whole lot here in all these posts.

    To state the obvious, it being Sept. 26, I’m guessing this isn’t going to get a hard look by political types of any stripes until sometime after the election.


  6. - Jane Fonda - Wednesday, Sep 26, 18 @ 9:53 am:

    ==Making campaigns behave like corporate entities feels strange.==

    Agree and agree that change is necessary to create a professional working environment everywhere and all the time for all workers.

    That said, can you treat a campaign the same as a corporate entity without violating the 1st amendment?

    Do we currently regulate private employers in the same manner? If not, why not?

    Also, won’t all this regulation just empower wealthy and sophisticated candidates and organizations who have the resources to comply with these new rules and deter or worse, knock out, good but underfunded and unsophisticated candidates?

    The expense and regulatory burden proposed hear should spur a discussion of publicly funding campaigns.


  7. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Sep 26, 18 @ 9:56 am:

    ===Do we currently regulate private employers in the same manner===

    This is voluntary and would be a condition of receiving campaign finance support from party organizations. If a campaign opts out, fine, but then they can’t get party $$.


  8. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Sep 26, 18 @ 9:56 am:

    ===Do we currently regulate private employers in the same manner===

    This is voluntary and would be a condition of receiving campaign finance support from party organizations. If a campaign opts out, fine, but then they can’t get party $$.


  9. - Jane Fonda - Wednesday, Sep 26, 18 @ 9:59 am:

    ==If a campaign opts out, fine, but then they can’t get party $$.==

    What is party $$?


  10. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Sep 26, 18 @ 10:00 am:

    ===What is party $$?===

    You must be new here, lol.


  11. - Jane Fonda - Wednesday, Sep 26, 18 @ 10:06 am:

    ==You must be new here, lol.==

    Sorry, does party money include leadership PACs, local committees that use a Party name, PACs and campaign committees that only support candidates from one party. Does it apply to new parties and local, “non-partisan” parties, etc. Where does it start and where does it stop? How do we prevent candidates from taking party $$ using pass through entities?


  12. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Sep 26, 18 @ 10:34 am:

    –Orwellian.–

    LOL, it’s been a while since I’ve read it, but I don’t believe the rules of Oceania were voluntary and without any force of law.


  13. - Shytown - Wednesday, Sep 26, 18 @ 10:41 am:

    I think this is really exciting and long overdue. Let’s use this as an opportunity to get something tangible done in our campaigns and politics. There’s so much political divisiveness among the parties, but this is something we can and should rally around.


  14. - zatoichi - Wednesday, Sep 26, 18 @ 10:42 am:

    Guess my mom can’t tell the ‘Aristocrats’ joke at her next party meeting?


  15. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Sep 26, 18 @ 12:56 pm:

    == anti-harassment policy for campaigns ==

    It’s certainly not my policy to harass campaigns even they harass my land line phone.


Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.


* Reader comments closed for the weekend
* Isabel’s afternoon roundup
* The Waukegan City Clerk was railroaded
* Whatever happened, the city has a $40 million budget hole it didn't disclose until now
* Manar gives state agencies budget guidance: Cut, cut, cut
* Roundup: Ex-Chicago Ald. Danny Solis testifies in Madigan corruption trial
* Open thread
* Isabel’s morning briefing
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
* Live coverage
* Selected press releases (Live updates)
* Yesterday's stories

Support CapitolFax.com
Visit our advertisers...

...............

...............

...............

...............

...............

...............


Loading


Main Menu
Home
Illinois
YouTube
Pundit rankings
Obama
Subscriber Content
Durbin
Burris
Blagojevich Trial
Advertising
Updated Posts
Polls

Archives
November 2024
October 2024
September 2024
August 2024
July 2024
June 2024
May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005

Syndication

RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0




Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller