Today, JB Pritzker and Juliana Stratton unveiled their higher education plan at Illinois State University in Normal.
Bruce Rauner’s budget crisis took a toll on public colleges and universities — 7,500 higher ed-related jobs were lost, tuition spiked by an average of 7 percent, and enrollment plunged by over 72,000 students. The failed governor also proposed steep cuts to higher education, and it’s clear that real leadership is necessary to chart a new path for Illinois students. Here are highlights from JB and Juliana’s plan:
Increasing College Affordability
Increase funding for the Monetary Award Program (MAP) by 50 percent and raise the maximum MAP award each student can receive.
Using best practices from other states, establish a new state-administered student loan refinancing program.
Restore funding for community colleges and public universities to pre-Rauner levels.
Create a task force to put Illinois on a path to free college education.
Keeping Illinois Students in State
Expand eligibility for the new AIM-HIGH merit-based financial aid program so that 90 percent of Illinois households can benefit.
Create a common application process for all public universities in Illinois.
Ensure that community college credits transfer to public universities here in Illinois.
Increase promotion of Illinois’ public universities and community colleges to Illinois high school students.
Expanding Economic Opportunity and Promoting Innovation
Expand career and technical education and apprenticeship programs.
Create a new college completion program that bolsters student support services and expands bridge programs.
Launch new statewide competitions among students that reward and encourage entrepreneurship and innovation.
Provide small state-funded matching grants to university-based start-ups.
Support non-traditional students pursuing a degree or work certification.
* I’m told they’re not planning to implement all these programs in the first year, so while I don’t know how much I should include in my revenue-need “guesstimate” (which is currently at $9 billion), I’ll just guesstimate it at $150 million. That puts him at $9.15 billion, without a pension plan.
I’m also told that Pritzker wants to use marijuana and sports betting money to pay for it, but that’s probably not gonna be enough and he’s already promised that money for other stuff.
The campaign wouldn’t release a price list, but increasing MAP funding by 50 percent will cost $200 million. Increasing the size of MAP awards is unknown.
Restoring funding to pre-Rauner levels would cost $100 million.
Expanding eligibility of AIM-HIGH so that 90 percent of households qualify could be costly. Currently, the $25 million pilot program is reserved for those who do not have a family income higher than six times the national poverty rate.
Of local right-to-work zones, Rauner said he’d like to have “a few areas where’s it labor flexible,” such as some impoverished Chicago neighborhoods or suburbs as well as Downstate. He said African-American lawmakers should back such a move.
“Why does one size have to fit all? Pick 10 counties, and pick them in remote parts of the state, frankly. You watch and five years from now which counties have more jobs, which counties are running surpluses, which counties can fund their schools properly?” Rauner said.
“How about if we pick Harvey, Dolton, Blue Island? Let them do it. I will bring two manufacturing plants right there. You watch the jobs go up and the wages go up. How about it?” he said.
“We should be where all the auto plants are coming,” Rauner said, “but you can’t get a new auto plant to come to a forced-union state.” […]
The governor plugged “right-to-work zones,” an idea he’s been championing since at least 2015, as one way to lure new manufacturers. Having failed to get the state’s General Assembly to take up the idea, Rauner said he hopes the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on a pending case over whether states can bar towns from establishing themselves as union-optional zones.
In what may be a first for unions nationwide, the Illinois State AFL-CIO has drafted – and is getting state legislative candidates to sign – a “Contract with the Middle Class,” pledging support for specific workers’ rights issues.
One recent signing was in Collinsville, Ill., east of St. Louis, the day after Labor Day. Similar ceremonies occurred in Peoria and the Quad Cities, with others scheduled for Chicago and elsewhere, state federation President Michael Carrigan said.
While the AFL-CIO nationally drafted a workers’ rights agenda more than a year ago and asked congressional candidates to sign on as a condition for statewide endorsements, a check of such “contracts” on Google shows the Illinois pact is apparently the first one drafted and offered to state legislative candidates.
* A poll conducted July 3rd through August 15th of registered voters who weren’t asked all four candidates’ names has precisely zero value when discussing the September 26th campaign climate. Some of those results are almost three months old, for crying out loud. So, we’re skipping the Illinois Issues Survey’s campaign results. They never should’ve even bothered to release them.
• Term limits popular
Eight in ten (80%) of those surveyed support legislative term limits compared to just 14% who oppose them. Democratic respondents are only slightly less likely to support limits (77%) than Republicans (85%) or independents (84%).
• Many think Illinois is on the wrong track, nearly half say state is doing about the same as last year
Nearly Three-quarters (74%) of respondents think Illinois is off on the wrong track compared to 14% who say it is headed in the right direction and 11% who can’t say. But not as many respondents think things are worse now than one year ago; nearly half (47%) say that the state is doing about the same as last year while 37% say it is getting worse and 13% say the state is doing better than one year ago.
• Half say they have considered leaving, youngest most likely to say so
When asked if they have considered leaving the state in the past year, just over half (53%) of those surveyed say “yes.” Those between the ages of 18 and 34 are more likely (67%) to say so than those 35 or older (51%).
• A majority favor a graduated income tax
Overall, 57% of survey respondents say they favor a proposed graduated income tax in which those with higher incomes are taxed at a higher rate while 36% favor the current flat-rate tax system. Majorities of Democrats (69%) and independents (56%) favor graduated income tax whereas a minority of Republicans (41%) do.
• Most say immigrants help Illinois rather than hurt it
Over three times as many respondents say they believe immigrants help (63%) rather than hurt (20%) Illinois. Republicans (36%) are much less likely than Democrats (83%) or independents (62%) to say immigrants help Illinois.
• Respondents say funding higher education a priority as high cost and uncertainty of state funding drives high school grads away
Over three-quarters (76%) say that increasing state funding to public colleges and universities to keep the cost of tuition from growing is a “high priority.” Regarding high school graduates leaving the state, four in ten (40%) say the reason these individuals are doing this is because college in Illinois is too expensive while 37% say state funding to colleges is uncertain in Illinois. […]
• Respondents split on whether they trust others, the mass media Slightly fewer of those polled say they trust others (44%) than say you cannot be too careful in dealing with people (50%). The breakdown is similar regarding the media; about half (48%) of those surveyed say they trust the media either a “great deal” or a “fair amount” to report the news “fully, accurately, and fairly,” and half (50%) say they have “not very much” trust or “none at all.” Democrats (67%) are much more likely than either independents (47%) or Republicans (27%) to say they trust the mass media. […]
When asked whether things in Illinois are heading in the right direction or off on the wrong track, nearly three- quarters (74%) say things are off on the wrong track, while only 14% think things are going in the right direction. […]
The survey also asks respondents whether they think that compared to one year ago, Illinois is getting better, is about the same, or is getting worse. The survey finds that most respondents think Illinois is about the same as it was last year (47%) or getting worse (37%), while a small minority (13%) think Illinois is doing better compared to one year ago.
That 14 percent “right track” and 13 percent “Illinois is doing better” are slim pickings, indeed.
And, by the way the college is too expensive and state funding is uncertain answers are basically the same thing.
Because of the fact that the state of Illinois lost nearly 34,000 individuals from 2016 to 2017, the survey asked respondents about whether they have considered leaving the state.5 Overall, just over half (53%) of those surveyed report considering leaving in the past year and it is those who are younger who are most likely to say this. Survey respondents between the ages of 18 and 34 are more likely to say they have considered leaving (67%) than those in other age cohorts. Those who are at least 65 years old, the typical age for retirement, are the least likely to say they have considered leaving (32%).
In addition to age, other factors — such as having more income — appear to play a role in whether respondents have considered leaving Illinois. While 46% of those with household income of less than $30,000 have considered leaving, nearly two-thirds (64%) of those earning between $60,000 and $100,000 and 59% of those with income of more than $100,000 have considered leaving the state. […]
Those who say they are considering leaving were asked to provide a “primary reason” for why they have considered doing so. Many respondents (39%) mention lower taxes as the primary reason, whereas 14% cite state government or politics, 15% cite better job opportunities and 7% say the primary reason they have considered leaving is lower crime. Additionally, some say better weather elsewhere (7%) or a family or personal reason (10%) is the primary reason they’ve considered going elsewhere.
State Rep. Jerry Long, R-Streator, released an apology Tuesday to a former co-worker who said she was physically harassed, among other complaints, leading the state GOP to pull resources from his campaign and ask for his resignation.
Long said Sept. 19 he touched a former co-worker on her neck, denying any wrongdoing and vowing to stay in his race against Democratic opponent Lance Yednock, of Ottawa, for the 76th District house seat.
The House Republican Organization has said Long’s story does not match the one found in an independent investigation corroborated by a witness. The organization said it has a zero tolerance policy for harassment.
Tuesday’s apology is the first from Long regarding this incident.
“Although I feel that the non-threatening touch of my co-worker was nothing more than act of concern, and it was never conveyed to me that it was a problem, I want to say that I never want to ever put anyone in that position of being uneasy,” Long said Tuesday afternoon. “I, therefore, reach out with a sincere apology to my co-worker of the situation that I have put her into.”
I checked and he hasn’t actually apologized to the complainant, so this means almost nothing. It’s mostly just political backside-covering.
* Also, does this mean he’s saying the allegations are legitimate and that the goofy conspiracy theories he and his few remaining allies have been floating are wrong? Well, no. He’s still talking about how his support for Rep. Jeanne Ives’ primary campaign against Gov. Rauner and his fights with HRO led to his banishment…
State Rep. Jerry Long said his support of gubernatorial primary candidate Jeanne Ives led the House Republican Organization to pull its support. […]
While Long was critical of Gov. Bruce Rauner in an Oct. 14, 2017, article, I couldn’t find any record of him supporting Ives. […]
Long clarified Tuesday he was not behind the governor, and almost endorsed Ives, but didn’t do so on record. […]
Long believes his contentious relationship with the House Republican Organization played a role in either the complaint or their reaction to the complaint
Democratic congressional candidate Sean Casten has been less than fully candid about a soured business deal that apparently left dozens of investors suffering millions of dollars in losses, financial records made available to Crain’s suggest.
Letters to shareholders sent by the Casten-headed Recycled Energy Development in late 2016 indicate that while preferred interest holders in the LLC would get their principal back with 15 percent annual interest when the sale of the company closed, common interest holders would get little if any return on their investment.
In fact, the roughly three dozen common interest holders in the company lost their entire stake, according to individuals close to the privately held firm. That differs from what Casten strongly implied in an earlier blog post and statement in response to inquiries about the company.
* Roskam campaign…
While “successful entrepreneur” Sean Casten has denied his investors’ lawsuit against him citing business mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duty, Crain’s Political Reporter Greg Hinz dug deeper to find that shareholders of his failed company, Recycled Energy Development, reported the meltdown cost them millions of dollars—but while they lost it all, Casten still made millions.
Crain’s obtained financial documents and letters that show Casten wasn’t being truthful when he said the lawsuits against him were nothing more than “an attempt at a hostile takeover,” “it ended amicably,” and his investors “still made money.” […]
“Casten has been sued for mismanagement, misconduct and a breach of fiduciary duty, which he has tried to cover up repeatedly as an amicable disagreement,” said Roskam for Congress Spokesman Veronica Vera. “Amidst his energy business meltdown, Casten chose to protect himself and his money over his investors.”
Illinois PIRG Education Fund today released first-of-its-kind analysis of new data obtained from the Illinois Department of Public Health finding that 78% of suburban Cook County schools tested positive for lead in at least one water fixture. The data, acquired through a Freedom of Information Act Request, includes testing results from schools across the state that tested school water fixtures using a 2 parts per billion (ppb) standard.
Illinois PIRG Education Fund also offered a new toolkit to help parents, teachers, and administrators get the lead out of schools’ drinking water and encouraged parents and teachers to put the toolkit on their “back to school” reading list.
“Our kids deserve safe drinking water at school,” said Abe Scarr, Director of Illinois PIRG Education Fund. “We want to give parents, teachers, and school administrators the tools they need to get the lead out.”
The data, yet to be aggregated by IDPH, came in the form of hundreds of documents, using different file types and formats for presenting data. In order to complete initial analysis in a timely manner, Illinois PIRG Education Fund focused on test results for suburban Cook County Schools. Of the 155 suburban Cook County schools identified in the data set, 121, or 78%, tested above the 2 ppb threshold for at least one water fixture.
There is no safe level of lead. Lead in drinking water can result in a number of health risks such as harm to brain development and the nervous system. Exposure to lead can inhibit growth and development, damage the nervous and brain system, and can result in hearing, speech, learning, and behavioral problems.
Medical researchers estimate that more than 24 million children in America today risk losing IQ points due to low levels of lead. ADHD, anxiety and depression are also linked to exposure of even very low levels of lead.
Some schools had lead results of 50 ppb or higher. For example River Grove SD 85-5 had fixtures testing as high as 610 ppb. Stuart R Paddock School in Palatine had fixtures testing as high as 128 ppb. Thomas Jefferson Elementary School in Hoffman Estates had fixtures testing as high as 578 ppb.
Many schools also had a significant number of their fixtures test positive for lead. For example, 59 of the 155 schools had 25% or more of their fixtures test above the 2 ppb threshold.
A state law passed in January of 2017 requires testing for lead in Illinois schools built prior to 1987 within the 2017 year. Schools built between 1987 and 2000 are required to have tested by the end of 2018. IDPH requires schools take remediation action for fixtures testing positive for lead.
ARE THE DEMOCRATS’ BIG LEADS IN IL-GOV AND MI-GOV PUTTING MORE HOUSE SEATS IN PLAY?
Speaking of leading gubernatorial candidates pulling the rest of their ticket, don’t lose sight of how Democrats running ahead in the GOV contests in Illinois and Michigan are making House races in those states much more difficult for Republicans. In Illinois, think IL-6, IL-12, IL-13 and IL-14. … Just something to keep an eye on…
That would be Peter Roskam, Mike Bost, Rodney Davis and Randy Hultgren.
If that Hultgren race tightens up, watch out, GOP.
* Speaking of the Bost campaign…
End Citizens United (ECU) today launched two new TV ads in IL-12. “Crisis” shines a light on campaign contributions Rep. Mike Bost has taken from drug companies that are profiting from the opioid crisis and the tax break he gave big pharma in Congress. While “Leadership” focuses on Brendan Kelly’s record as a State Attorney in Illinois where he fought corruption and was the first attorney in the state to sue Big Pharma for its role in opioid epidemic.
The ads, titled “Crisis” and “Leadership,” are part of a $594,000 ad campaign that includes television ads, digital ads, and direct mail. […]
The $594,000 ad buy includes: $306,000 in broadcast and cable television ads, which will run from September 26-October 8; $60,000 in digital ads; and $228,000 in direct mail.
* Gov. Rauner was asked about Minnesota during his Crain’s Chicago Business interview. The state has a progressive tax structure with a high top rate and plenty of state regulations, but it’s attracting businesses at a fast clip and has a 2.9 percent unemployment rate…
“So, Minnesota,” Rauner said, “I’m sorry, they’re not doing all that well and they are not dependent, they are not dependent upon manufacturing anywhere near to the degree that we are. Manufacturing is our lifeblood in so many ways, and we are getting crushed. Minnesota is never dependent upon manufacturing like we have.”
According to the National Association of Manufacturers, manufacturing in Minnesota accounted for 14.4 percent of its gross state product and nearly 11 percent of its nonfarm employment, based on 2016 statistics.
By comparison, manufacturing in Illinois accounted for 12.7 percent of its gross state product and 9.5 percent of the state’s nonfarm employment.
Maplewood, Minn., a suburb of Minneapolis-St. Paul, is also the headquarters of 3M Co. The firm’s name came from its founding more than a century ago as Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.
Oops.
* Also, this…
RAUNER: "Minnesota, I'm sorry, they're not doing all that well"
* From the Illinois Anti-Harassment, Equality and Access panel’s report…
The key to improving the culture for women in politics is to engage more women in politics and advance them to leadership positions. Even though Illinois’ percentage of female legislators at 35.6% ranks comparatively well among other states, women, particularly women of color, are still underrepresented throughout the ranks of Illinois politics, including on legislative staffs, on the local level, and in party leadership. For example, of the female legislators in Illinois in 2017, only 23% were Black women, or 8.5% of Illinois’ total number of state legislators.
The initial step toward growing the number of women involved in all of Illinois politics is committing to a concrete goal so that we can develop policies to achieve the goal, measure our progress, and hold ourselves and our parties accountable. We recommend that political leaders across Illinois come together and adopt a collective goal of increasing the number of female state legislators as well as all state, county, and municipal officeholders in Illinois to at least 50%, and towards similar goals for other diverse candidates.
To achieve this goal, we need buy-in from all the state political parties, and we need to build the pipeline of qualified female candidates by effectively recruiting them, training them, and supporting them when they run, as described with more specificity below.
On the staff level, women accounted for only 22% of staff-level research and policy positions in the General Assembly.7 On the local level, only 21% of the mayors in 2017 of U.S. cities with populations of 30,000 and above were women and only 14 of those 286 female mayors were in Illinois.8 It is well-documented that the culture and outcomes for women are improved when more women are in leadership positions. It is crucial that our male allies be equally invested in the overall mission of improving culture for women and play an active role in recruiting, developing, and supporting women to run for election.
We know women are qualified to fill elected positions and that they want the opportunity to run, but in practice, women are less likely to run for political office than their male counterparts. The reasons for this are complex and ingrained in society and women themselves. Regardless of the source of the problem, many women need to be expressly recruited and encouraged to run in order to actually enter the race. The state parties need to respond to that reality and organize targeted recruitment efforts to overcome the real and perceived obstacles that prevent women from running. Specifically, the state parties should dedicate top-level staff to working on recruitment of women and other diverse candidates, including people of color, members of the LGBTQ community, and people with disabilities.
The state parties can address the lack of support for women candidates by being cognizant of the bias women face and acting intentionally to counter it. To do so, the parties must assign a manager-level staff person to act as a Director of Diversity, who is responsible for working with the party chair and leadership throughout the ranks of the party with the goal of recruiting and developing diverse candidates, with a focus on female candidates, for General Assembly spots as well as local level elected positions. These recruitment efforts should not stop at the candidate level. The Director of Diversity should also work on recruiting diverse candidates, particularly women, for top-level staff, campaign management, and board and commission positions.
We want to increase the number of diverse people – particularly women – at every level of politics. Therefore, any political leader or staff member with the power to fill vacancies – from a position on the board of the public library or a city council vacancy to statewide commission positions to appointed positions within the state parties and everything in between – should require that the person be selected from a slate of diverse candidates. This rule should also apply to any hiring decisions for paid staff positions on campaigns and elected official’s staffs. Although similar to the “Rooney Rule” adopted by the NFL requiring a single diverse candidate to be considered for all head coaching jobs, our recommendation goes beyond that to require several diverse candidates to be considered for all hiring or appointment opportunities. This is a concrete measure for overcoming the age-old excuse of a lack of qualified female or diverse applicants. Beyond requiring a diverse pool of candidates, political leaders should also require that those handling the interview process and hiring/appointment decision are also diverse.
Each political party should establish an Advisory Board to implement the policies described above and hold the party accountable to the participation, funding, and culture goals it aspires to.
The Advisory Board should collect, retain, and monitor demographic data regarding recruitment, hiring, and promotion of employees within the party. Based on that data, the Advisory Board can assess the party’s progress towards its goals, hold the party accountable, and adjust its policies based on the actual outcomes in terms of the number of diverse candidates running for office, winning office, and holding leadership positions within political offices and campaigns.
There’s more in the report, so click here to read it all.
…Adding… House Speaker and DPI Chairman Michael Madigan…
“Addressing harassment, increasing access and ensuring equality of all forms are issues of great importance to the Democratic Party of Illinois, and the time and commitment that Comptroller Mendoza, Senator Bush and Representative Ammons showed in assembling these recommendations underscores the priority we put on getting this right. I’m truly grateful for all who shared their time, their personal experiences, and their commitment for change with the Anti-Harassment, Equality, and Access Panel.
“A great number of the Panel’s recommendations are now in place within the Democratic Party of Illinois, including adopting a new zero tolerance policy for harassment of any kind, requiring mandatory training for staff and candidates receiving financial assistance, and hiring outside counsel to conduct independent investigations of any allegations. Additional steps to curb unacceptable behavior and make our party a welcoming place for all will continue to be considered and implemented going forward.
“There is more work to be done to create legislative bodies that truly represent the diversity of our state. This has been a priority for me as a Democrat and as the leader of the House Democratic Caucus. Today, women account for more than 50 percent of our House Democratic Caucus and nearly half are women of color. But unfortunately this is a distinction no other large legislative caucus in the country can claim. In fact, no other legislative caucus in Illinois – outside the House Democratic caucus – is even 40 percent female.
“Diversity, equality and representation don’t happen by accident. It requires commitment, effort and time to make sure our governmental bodies – and our political parties – reflect the rich diversity of Illinois, and the different experiences, viewpoints and perspectives from those diverse voices. There remains work to be done, and I look forward to continuing to work with my fellow Democrats to make our party a welcoming place for all.”
* The Illinois Anti-Harassment, Equality and Access panel’s report on the “one ask” policy…
Crafting feasible and effective policies regarding consensual romantic relationships on campaigns is challenging. Consensual relationships between peers are not inherently problematic. In fact, many campaign workers are drawn to campaign work in the first place because of the close camaraderie and fellowship among co-workers. However, romantic relationships that are coerced or lack consent are always illegal, and problems can also develop when relationships involve a disparity in power positions, which is a typical feature of campaigns.
Over-regulation of this issue may discourage the friendship and camaraderie that is a hallmark of a well-run campaign and may be impossible to enforce, but ignoring the potential problem can breed poor workplace culture and may be an obstacle to women advancing in politics.
The comprehensive policies from the state parties should establish a rule or policy that is a one-invitation policy: campaign workers and volunteers are allowed to ask co-workers out one time, but if the invitation is declined, the inviter is not permitted to ask again; and strongly discourages dating relationships between superiors and direct reports. We stop at recommending an outright ban because of the fluid organizational structure that is prevalent in campaigns.
Facebook has adopted a one-invitation policy, and has clarified that if the response is “ambiguous” – like “I’m busy” or “I can’t that night” – that counts as a “no.”5 One ask policies are becoming more prevalent in corporate workplaces and are a reasonable balance between appropriate behavior and preventing harassment.
We recommend that campaigns consider the risks that alcohol consumption can present and adopt a policy acknowledging that alcohol use is not banned at work-related events or among co-workers, but prohibiting consumption to the extent it interferes with a campaign worker’s ability to perform his or her job or exercise proper judgment.
For example, Google’s Code of Conduct states “Consumption of alcohol is not banned at our offices, but use good judgment and never drink in a way that leads to impaired performance or inappropriate behavior, endangers the safety of others, or violates the law,” and it permits managers that have a “reasonable suspicion” that an employee’s alcohol use may be impairing his job performance or endangering others to request an alcohol screening.
Regardless of the exact policy language, alcohol use should never be used to justify harassing and inappropriate behavior or used to discredit a victim.
* From the Illinois Anti-Harassment, Equality and Access panel’s report…
State parties should not use themselves and should prohibit campaigns from using, non-disclosure agreements or mandatory arbitration clauses in any employment agreements. A key way to improve the workplace culture in politics and campaigns is to attack the culture of silence that keeps sexual harassment and other misconduct shrouded in secrecy, so state parties should not use non-disclosure agreements or mandatory arbitration clauses in employment agreements and should prohibit campaigns from using them as well
The recommendations came from a National Women’s Law Center report entitled “10 Ways Your Company Can Help Prevent Harassment in the Workplace.”
This could get interesting. I think I’m going to ask the statewide campaigns and parties whether they use NDAs and why.
…Adding… From a panel spokesperson…
The report isn’t calling for campaigns to not sign NDAs at all, but just when it comes to settling sexual harassment issues.
Well, that’s different. I’ll adjust my question accordingly.
Provides that each candidate for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Comptroller, Treasurer, or Attorney General shall, at the time he or she files a statement of candidacy for that position, file a Statement of Nondisclosure Agreements. Provides that the Statement of Nondisclosure Agreements shall disclose whether or not the candidate is a party to, a signatory to, or a beneficiary of any nondisclosure agreement at the time of the filing.
* From the Illinois Anti-Harassment, Equality and Access panel’s report…
We recommend that the state parties provide anti-harassment training and workplace culture training to everyone involved in the campaign, from the candidate to the volunteers; that all campaigns and candidates prioritize this training; and that the training should cover strategies for handling difficult and realistic hypotheticals as well as bystander training.
The state parties should offer these trainings on at least a quarterly basis, and should provide enhanced training for candidates and supervisors, emphasizing their reporting roles. Again, the state parties should enforce participation in training by conditioning funding on complying with the training requirement. As it becomes more commonplace for candidates and their campaigns to commit to participating in training, voters will start putting pressure on other candidates and their campaigns to do so as well. No one in a campaign apparatus should be exempt from attending the training at least once per year.
“Workers on my campaign were required to complete two sexual harassment trainings. The first was completed online and a co-worker joked about doing other tasks at home while the training was running on his computer. I found the second training, which was in person, to be more effective.”
-Paraphrased Comment From Campaign Listening Session Participant
One of the most resounding pieces of feedback from Listening Session participants and online survey respondents was the need for an improved reporting structure because misconduct often goes unreported because victims are terrified to report out of fear of retaliation. Other reasons that misconduct may not be reported include sense of loyalty to the cause/ campaign, unsure of whether the conduct is legally permissible or whether the law protects the victim, unsure of who to report to, unable to report to a neutral party, belief that conduct has already been condoned by superiors, skeptical that anything will be done, and concern about ruining victim’s own career or the career of the perpetrator.
We recommend that campaigns provide workers with multiple discrete avenues for reporting suspected policy violations. The avenues should be internal to the campaign in order to create the opportunity to report without damaging the campaign. There should be at least two internal options for reporting concerns, as some staff may not be comfortable reporting to the campaign manager or other assigned person because he or she might be close to the perpetrator.
Campaigns must post the contact information for reporting violations of the anti-harassment policy in a noticeable, accessible location at the campaign headquarters and ideally on their website. The posting should make it clear that retaliation of any kind will not be permitted.
State parties should establish an Independent Body, which is independent of party leadership, to receive complaints of misconduct, whether from their own staff or from campaigns, and to promptly investigate and resolve all complaints.
Listening Session participants described a profound lack of trust and skepticism in the investigation process and whether campaigns would do anything to address reported misconduct. To gain trust and facilitate appropriate responses to founded misconduct, we call on the state parties to establish an Independent Body to act as a reporting avenue for campaign workers and to properly investigate any reported misconduct. The Independent Body should be made of experienced leaders who are not part of party leadership and should be appointed in a way to ensure independence from the party and leadership.3 In addition to receiving complaints, the Independent Body must neutrally and fairly investigate any allegation of misconduct, regardless of the severity. The Independent Body should establish and use clear guidelines that outline the investigation process, including timelines for completing an investigation, and interim milestones.
Listening Session participants reported concerns about being smeared or discredited in the investigation process. The Independent Body should conduct investigations that are fair and thorough, and the investigations should be focused on determining the veracity of the complaint, not attempting to undermine or discredit the victim. When the allegations require interim protective measures (i.e. reorganizing duties and responsibilities to keep the victim and perpetrator apart), steps should be taken to ensure that the victim is not adversely affected.
After an investigation is completed, the state party’s Independent Body should be as transparent as possible with the complainant and the accused of the outcome of the investigation, recognizing the potential tension with defamation liability. The Independent Body should inform the individuals that a thorough investigation was completed; whether a violation of the policy was found; and if a violation was found, the remedial action that will be taken in response to the violation. […]
Where possible, all campaigns and state parties should respond to founded violations with just and fair outcomes. Sometimes a campaign or state party may not have a remedial mechanism because the offender may be a volunteer or the campaign may be over by the time the investigation is done, but where possible, offenders must be disciplined with remedial measures that are proportional to the seriousness of the offense, with repeated offenses receiving increasing discipline. These measures must be applied consistently and must be undertaken against any offender, regardless of his or her identity. Considering these parameters, the Independent Body should prepare a matrix of possible outcomes that should be used to respond to prohibited conduct, which lays out proportional responses and escalating disciplinary measures for repeated offenses. As with any interim protective measures, steps should be taken to ensure that the complainant, or any bystander reporting a violation, is not punished or retaliated against for coming forward and speaking up.
Campaigns and state parties should also provide support services for the victims of sexual harassment. As an initial step, we recommend that the Independent Body work with existing advocates like the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault (ICASA) to identify and make available appropriate services.
* The Illinois Anti-Harassment, Equality and Access panel’s full report includes this line: “Campaigns have unique characteristics that can be obstacles to changing culture.”
First, campaigns rely heavily on volunteers, consultants, and independent contractors, who are not protected by federal and state employment discrimination laws, and many of the smaller campaigns do not qualify as employers under the law. The laboring force of volunteers and independent consultants often lacks power in other ways as well, due to their positions within campaigns, and sometimes age and inexperience.
The current campaign structure gives the candidate, campaign management, and key donors disproportionate power. The party culture of idolizing the favored candidates or those within the inner circle can lead to a belief that those in power have a license to prey on the more vulnerable people in the campaign. To complicate things further, individuals with significant power or authority can be volunteers or not employed by the campaign. And sometimes, campaign workers do not know who their boss is, making reporting misconduct even more difficult.
Second, campaigns are transient or temporary with limited resources. The financial reality of politics is that most campaigns prioritize their time and money on persuasion, not hiring full-time campaign employees or creating the infrastructure required for a positive workplace culture, including formal anti-harassment policies, training, reporting mechanisms, or investigation procedures. The time and money factors might also encourage taking the path of least resistance when addressing complaints about workplace culture, which may have the effect of penalizing the victim or perpetuating the problem by not fully resolving complaints and allowing other organizations to rehire the accused.
Third, campaign workers work rigorous hours pursuing a cause they believe is worthy and important. As one participant from the Chicago Listening Session put it, the intensity of a campaign makes people forget about the larger issues. Campaign workers and volunteers dedicate hours of personal time and energy to the cause. This creates a sense of loyalty to the candidate and a desire to protect him or her from any negative press. The investment and all-consuming nature of a campaign can make people singularly focus on the ultimate goal of winning the election, at the expense of other principles.
Finally, campaigns have unique geographical and environmental factors that can lead to risk. Campaign work can sometimes be isolating, giving workers little contact with co-workers or with anyone other than a direct supervisor. Communication may be performed at odd hours, on personal devices, blurring the lines between private and work communications. The social nature of campaign work may lead to an environment of tolerating or encouraging alcohol consumption.
Again, we’ll get to more of the recommendations in other posts. Your thoughts on this one?
* 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.
