Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Rotheimer says Sen. Silverstein should resign

Posted in:

Illinois

* AP..

The political activist who has accused an Illinois Senate Democratic leader of sexually harassing her said Thursday that she wants to know why Sen. Ira Silverstein faced no repercussions until after she went public this week.

Denise Rotheimer said Silverstein, who relinquished his leadership post and its $21,000 stipend Wednesday night, should resign the Senate seat representing Chicago that he’s held since 1999.

Rotheimer, a victims-rights advocate from Ingleside, testified on Tuesday before a House Committee considering sexual-harassment training for lawmakers, staff, and lobbyists. She described how the 57-year-old Silverstein sent her inappropriate social-media messages, paid her unwanted compliments and called her late at night last year while they were working on legislation.

We’ll circle back to that story in a bit. But first, remember this Silverstein comment to Rotheimer on November 21, 2016 at 10:49pm CST?…

i will check to see if u r a true blond

* Rep. Rita Mayfield (D-Waukegan) sparked quite a conversation on Kyle Hillman’s Facebook page by saying this…

That’s not sexual harassment, that’s bad flirting.

More…

Rita Mayfield: If she actively engaged in the conversation how is that harrassment? Ir appeared she was flirting back. I didnt get a sense of unwanted advances from the dialogue

Kyle Hillman: …the Senator was sponsoring her bill and the ability to advance or kill it. That exchange above coupled with power to kill her bill is textbook sexual harassment.

Rita Mayfield: Your stating that the bill was used as power to force her to flirt with him? I dont buy it. She could have easily found another sponsor. This is not her first bill.

Kyle Hillman: wow.

[female private citizen]: victim blaming…a huge reason most women don’t come forward

Rita Mayfield: No not victim blaming just looking at it objectively. We dont have all the facts. Leys wait for the full investigation before we start with the tar and feathering

Thoughts?

posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 1:55 pm

Comments

Sometimes less is more Rita.

Comment by Nice Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 2:05 pm
Not helping there, Rita.

Comment by Responsa Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 2:06 pm
I am holding my judgement on the Silverstein issue, but let’s not pretend the legislator/lobbyist dynamic is a one way street regarding power. Plenty of legislators work to please lobbyists, whether it is for good PR, help with other legislation, endorsements, and access to potential campaign contributors.

Comment by anomnomnom Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 2:09 pm
This is Exhibit number 5,409,221 of why elected officials should never use social media.

Comment by Fax Machine Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 2:09 pm
As I stated the other day, if my mother or sister had come to me and told me they were being sexually harassed, I would put an end to it. But, and I hate to say but, I would also ask them if they told the person to stop and they felt they were being harassed? Also, if they were taking part in some sort of text messaging or email or even public flirting, they would be wrong in doing so.

Sexual harassment is WRONG, plain and simple. But, one does wonder if Rotheimer was actively taking part, why didn’t she say ENOUGH? Just to save the bill? Go to another legislator and have them sponsor the bill. Go to the people you are lobbying on behalf of and ask them to get someone else to go to the legislator.

Sorry, having a hard time wrapping my head around this one. I have seen and heard incidents and I have stopped it in its tracks with people I worked with in the past. I made it clear in no uncertain terms to the person doing the harassing to knock it off and I conducted a full investigation.

Comment by Honeybadger Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 2:13 pm
Silverstein is 100 percent out of line here. But, based on that Facebook chat, her conduct was inappropriate and unprofessional. I would not want a lobbyist working for me who engages in that kind of dialogue with a legislator.

Comment by Talk Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 2:13 pm
Why would he face repercussions before anyone went public?
Who would know?
Also get very tired of these stipends. 21 thousand dollars is a nice some of money. Especially when it factors into a pension
Of course with his wife’s aldermanic pension maybe won’t be missed

Comment by DuPage Saint Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 2:14 pm
This potato is too hot. Let it cool off Rita.

Comment by allknowingmasterofracoondom Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 2:15 pm
It really doesn’t look like Rita is looking at this “objectively”. It looks like she’s defending her colleague, which in the case, reinforces this ongoing statehouse culture…Don’t be a part of the problem.

Comment by Ambassador Abe Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 2:16 pm
–The political activist who has accused an Illinois Senate Democratic leader of sexually harassing her said Thursday that she wants to know why Sen. Ira Silverstein faced no repercussions until after she went public this week.–

I would like to add a question for the Legislative Ethics Commission, the Four Tops and every GA member:

Was it a physically moving experience, the sudden realization this week there hadn’t been a legislative inspector general and complaints had piling up for three years? A Road to Damascus moment, perhaps?

Or did you know that all along (you should have) and were just hoping no one else did?

Comment by wordslinger Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 2:17 pm
Rita is right. Moreover, how much indignation would there be if it had been Bill Clinton?

Comment by Just sayin Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 2:17 pm
For those that say sexual harassment training is a waste of time, I have two words for you, Rita Mayfield. When we narrowly frame the problem of harassment by saying to the perpetrators “you should know better” we’re also encouraging enablers like Mayfield. And yes, even though she is a women she is in fact enabling this behavior when she’s dismissively says this isn’t harassment it’s flirting. Hillman is right, this is “textbook”. Time to study up Ms. Mayfield.

Comment by Pundent Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 2:17 pm
Maybe sit this one out Rita.

Comment by Iggy Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 2:20 pm
I don’t think Rotheimer is the ingenue she’s making herself out to be. There is clearly flirting back from her on many occasions and not just the type to get the person to stop. The more of her stuff I see the more I see a jilted lover trying to get her public revenge. Silverstein clearly crossed many lines and should be rightfully punished. Rothfield though has turned women coming together to fight a massive problem, to a juicy he said she said story. There is a reason the other women didn’t want to name names as a group.

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 2:21 pm
Rita is so far off base here. It’s infuriating and disgusting.

Comment by MacombMike Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 2:22 pm
Pundent beat me to it and said it better. Text book example of why training is necessary.

Comment by Huh? Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 2:22 pm
It’s not that easy to just find a new sponsor - bills don’t work that way. Activists are very passionate about their cause/legislation. I’m sure this started small - a little flirting. But then it snowballed into an unprofessional exchange. The passionate activist might be causght up in this exchange and being so close to having their bill passed would be willing to keep it going until the bill is passed. At the end of the day, he is a Senator and should behave like a senator and keep it professional.He did not, and I view him as having more of the blame.

Comment by Paul Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 2:22 pm
As a reisdent of the 50th ward were Ira is ward committee man I wish for him to resign this position.Hopefully we can find someone not tied to his wife to fill this position

Comment by Dad Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 2:25 pm
Has anyone actually looked at the bill status of SB 2151? Looks like Hastings was on the sub-committee. Do we know why he was removed as a co-sponsor after the bill passed out with 2 yes votes and 1 present? That to me indicates the bill had problems. Do we know who the opponents were?
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=2151&GAID=13&GA=99&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=91852&SessionID=88

Based on some of the messages released, it appears that she was flirting back- she told him her weight, etc. Didn’t I read somewhere that she was even contacting him for help with victim cases where a parent had contacted her or she asked Rich not to share victim information???

Can Denise confirm what Inspector General she actually filed her complaint with?

This is a case of inappropriate conversations, but I have’t seen the evidence yet, where he killed her bill Bc he thought she had a boyfriend. Maybe there is more to come.

Comment by Sigh Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 2:25 pm
The pivotal question for me is when did Rotheimer tell Silverstein that she felt that his behavior or comments had crossed the line, and how did he respond?

It struck me as more than odd when she told him that she would know whether he was worthy of her - or words to that effect - based on whether the bill passed or not. Almost as is she were some sort of chaste medieval maiden and he were a night being sent on a quest.

I also take into consideration the fact that he was not her state senator. And if she felt comfortable enough calling up Senator Bush to accuse Silverstein of harassment, I am not sure why she didn’t feel comfortable asking Bush to sponsor the bill in the first place or to takeover the bill at some point.

A timeline that tracks the bills progress along side the conversations and events would be helpful.

Is there a news group that hasn’t FOIA’d everything of Silverstein’s yet?

Comment by Juvenal Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 2:26 pm
Mary Ann Langston long ago advised everyone in her division at DHS never to put anything into an email that they would not like to see used as evidence. That said what we have read so far can be taken at least two ways…The lady was a willing participant or the lady was creating a record. Human nature being what it is even a gentleman may occasionally need to hear or read a firm “No”. Where and when did the lady call out “Hey Rube”?

Comment by Matthew Vernau Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 2:27 pm
Agree with Rep. Mayfield, from the exchanges printed on Cap Fax, need a full investigation. (No investigation needed as to how juvenile and unprofessional the whole thing was, but the issue of sexual harassment is something else.) Also agree with Fax Machine, unless you give a lot of thought to how something looks now, how it’s going to look five years from now, and do I want my mother to see this, social media is no one’s friend, especially politicians.

Comment by West Side the Best Side Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 2:27 pm
Petitions are being printed for a challenger. Mark my words

Comment by Circulator Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 2:30 pm
In the corporate private sector or military of today if an individual ever put that statement in writing –right alongside business related items over which he held power or sway in another’s success — he would not last out the week. The eye opening nature of the casual acceptance all along the way of how “business” is apparently being conducted in our statehouse is genuinely shocking people who quite honestly thought they were beyond being shocked.

Comment by Responsa Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 2:37 pm
Brave remarks by Ms. Mayfield.

Comment by Saluki Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 2:38 pm
Its possible that Rotheimer was sincerely going along with the flirting. Like a 0.1% chance, but a non-zero probability. However she now says that isn’t true, that all advances were unwanted. There is no proof, I don’t think there can be proof, that she is lying. And it is very, very possible that she pretended to go along to get her bill passed. Whether or not that’s what happened, just the fact that it COULD have been what happened means that the behavior is absolutely unacceptable and that Silverstein needs to go. That’s where I’ve landed on this, anyway.

Comment by Perrid Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 2:45 pm
I would just like to point out that sexual harassment statutes don’t require the victim to tell the perpetrator to end the behavior. If the behavior is unwelcome, then its unwelcome.

Not every interaction they had needed to be unwelcome for it to cross into harassment. That Rothmeier may have flirted with Silverstein does not preclude his behavior from being harassment.

Which highlights why it is important to have training. A lawyer friend who conducts these trainings for companies told me one of the biggest points he makes with trainees is that, yes, sometimes there are gray areas, so DON’T RISK IT. Some of the conversations may have been mutual flirtation, and some may have been harassment. Silverstein should have known not to engage in that behavior at all. Training won’t solve the problem completely, but it ain’t gonna make it worse.

Comment by Actual Red Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 2:56 pm
If Silverstein should resign, the Rotheimer should stop circulating her petitions to run in the 62nd. A “Coquette” with a big ol’ chip on her shoulder is about the last thing Springfield needs.

Comment by Springfieldish Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 2:58 pm
Listen to her interview with Proft. Since she testified at the hearing, we have heard that Silverstein sent her messages late at night and they would meet at his office and other places. In the interview, she was asked did he ever touch you? She said NO. Yet, I believe she has said he was obsessed with her, or something like that.

Since we are playing jury, let’s think about this. If a man is constantly texting or calling a female and having some inappropriate conversations and he is truly obsessed with her, wouldn’t we expect him to at some point have touched her?

Here is the interview from this morning: http://morninganswerchicago.com/2017/11/03/denise-rotheimer-talks-sexual-harassment-springfield/

Comment by Sigh Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 3:00 pm
This is an example of why women do not come forward more often. If they do, they are put on the spot for not dealing with it more effectively or, in this case, even encouraging it.

Comment by fed up Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 3:14 pm
Rep Mayfield is 100% incorrect.

Comment by Just Visiting Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 3:15 pm
Rita is 95% correct.

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 3:17 pm
===we’re also encouraging enablers like Mayfield. And yes, even though she is a women she is in fact enabling this behavior when she’s dismissively says this isn’t harassment it’s flirting. ====
I’m not going to defend Ira and whether his actions were harassment or not they were still inappropriate in my eyes (and I’m guessing his wife’s). On the other hand anyone who has had a conversation with Rita will know that she has some interesting comments that roll out her mouth. The first time I met her some of her comments about the size of the meatball I was eating wouldn’t be fit for publishing here.

Comment by Been There Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 3:18 pm
Mayfield is demonstrating the entitlement culture at the legislature. They draw their own districts, make their own rules and then obfuscate when there is any hint of accountability. I’m sure the Democratic party will project her in a primary and the district is drawn so secure she does not worry about a challenger but she should be voted out of office in shame.

Comment by Ahoy! Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 3:23 pm
=== I would just like to point out that sexual harassment statutes don’t require the victim to tell the perpetrator to end the behavior. If the behavior is unwelcome, then its unwelcome. ===

Soooo…. if a high school boy attempts to woo a high school girl with little love notes slipped in her locker, flirty texts, small gifts, etc. and she kinda smiles at it but doesn’t really welcome it but says nothing, this kid is now a sexual harasser?

Comment by Just Observing Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 3:25 pm
I’m struggling to rectify what is unwanted flirting and what is harassment. How many times do you see a guy flirting with a girl and she clearly wants no part of the guy. She listens to his shtick for a while and then gets herself out of the situation with an excuse. I don’t think many of us would see that and think the guy is a harasser who should be punished.

I think in a professional setting what both of these individuals did was wrong and there is no place for flirting in the office, but when these people work starts spilling into personal time the situation could get messy.

Also if this incident really shook her the way she says it did, why is she running straight to a Proft radio show. Cause she thinks this is the best place to get the truth out?

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 3:33 pm
Just Observing–if your best defense of this statehouse behavior is to try to compare two fictitious highschoolers with a potty-mouthed married elected official who helps shape public policy and votes on bills, you are in some kind of a bubble.

Comment by Responsa Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 3:50 pm
This is such a toxic subject. I agree completely with Rita. It was awkward, inappropriate flirting. If it was unwelcome, I could think of about 100 easy ways to shut Ira down. Ira is not my favorite legislator (I actually think he’s a real jerk) and he was way over the line here. But solely based on the conversations Rich has posted, I’m having a hard time seeing the sexual harassment. I’ve showed this conversation to several people including women. Same thing.

Was she flirting with him because she thought it would help get his attention? Maybe. But then doesn’t she bear some responsibility here?

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 3:52 pm
Faceplant

Comment by Shytown Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 3:55 pm
Again: show me the parts where she was flirting back and the parts where she wasn’t. Whatever was going on there, from Rich’s posts it sure doesn’t seem unwelcome.

With all of the electronic messaging she has produced, you would think there might be atleast one contemporaneous email to a friend asking for advice out of desperation because this Silverstein just won’t leave her alone. Has a friend come forward yet?

Because I am still stunned by the Candidate questionnaire where she said that Silverstein was the lawmaker she most admired. And listed her occupation as “legislative author.”

I would like to know what Kyle makes of that.

Comment by Juvenal Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 4:07 pm
We must understand unequal power relationships as part of this issue.

Comment by walker Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 4:15 pm
We’re a society that’s supposed to presume innocence until guilt is proven and at this time what’s been publicly released is very once sided and frankly it outside of the bounds of traditional case law for sexual harassment and may not even meet the standard for a prima facia case.

The way this is handled will establish the benchmark for how things are handled in the future. We should make sure this is something that we get right.

Especially since there are examples of real tit for tat sexual harassment including arranging for employment for folks that have slept with other folks — but we’re not naming names.

And some of those folks are the ones that haven’t come forward.

Comment by Anon Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 4:16 pm
This seems to be a case of two wrongs don’t make a right. Rotheimer was clearly flirting–for what purpose is beyond me to judge. Frankly, I don’t care. Silverstein, a married man, heavily flirted back crossing the line to become inappropriate. Both were wrong, but what I can’t figure out is if it is harassment. Harassment, in my mind, is about power, i.e., if you sleep with me, I’ll give you a promotion/raise/job; a supervisor making comments about clothing/looks/hair; those are obvious. But two people engaging in flirtatious behavior doesn’t seem like harassment unless there is a threat in there that I’m not aware of. I don’t think this is as black and white as many people are making it out to be.

Comment by Steve Rogers Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 4:17 pm
==Because I am still stunned by the Candidate questionnaire where she said that Silverstein was the lawmaker she most admired. And listed her occupation as “legislative author.”

Ever hear of the name Eddie Haskell? He was an in-joke for a particular archetype to a couple generations of TV viewers.

Comment by Responsa Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 4:19 pm
No, this is not Anita Hill all over again. Anita was in a job she loved, working for a jerk who is now (thanks to Joe Biden) on the U.S. Supreme Court. Anita had some deep and horrible grievances. This is a case of a lobbyist, and here that term is loose because she is pursuing her own bill, who is openly flirting with the sponsor of her bill. He rightly is out of leadership. She is taking up the oxygen of cases of sexual harassment that don’t involve a sponsor flirting with a lobbyist in text and her flirting back. they are gross.

Comment by Amalia Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 4:20 pm
I read it the way Rita did.

Comment by OldIllini Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 4:25 pm
===It is Anita Hill all over again===

Take a deep breath. Did Anita Hill exchange 4,000 messages with Clarence Thomas? Did Anita Hill describe a tattoo on her backside to him? Did she tell Clarence that he didn’t “love anymore more than her?”

Give. me. a . break.

Comment by Boone's is Back Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 4:26 pm
anyone*

Comment by Boone's is Back Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 4:26 pm
Bottom line, which participant used “bad flirting” to get what he or she wanted? Was it appropriate in either case?

Comment by Wensicia Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 4:28 pm
Seems like a lot of people commenting on this thread need sexual harassment training.

Comment by Priscilla Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 4:38 pm
Priscilla is correct.

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Nov 3, 17 @ 4:40 pm