Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Frerichs scores big win with override of Life Insurance Reform Act veto
Next Post: Veto session by the numbers
Posted in:
…Adding… I just noticed that the House has its ethics training program online. Click here to see the study materials and take the test yourself.
* House members received some sexual harassment training yesterday, provided by the Department of Human Rights…
Two sessions were held behind closed doors in a Capitol room normally reserved for House committee hearings, with Democrats gathering in the morning and Republicans meeting in the afternoon. Senators are scheduled to get the same training Thursday.
The curriculum consisted primarily of a roughly hour-long slideshow presentation, which included an introduction to the idea of the “grandma filter” — if you wouldn’t do something or say something in front of your grandma, then you shouldn’t at work, either.
The presentation defined two types of sexual harassment. “Quid pro quo” harassment, the slides said, happens when sexual favors are requested in exchange for support of legislation, campaign contributions or employment opportunities. And a “hostile work environment” is when inappropriate or offensive jokes are the norm or there are instances of verbal or physical conduct that is sexual in nature.
The slides present various scenarios and ask if they qualify as sexual harassment. They also say that violations are “based on the perception of the victim, not the intentions of the accused.” The department also highlighted “third party harassment,” in which anyone affected by unwelcome conduct can also be considered a victim. Lawmakers were told to take immediate and documented steps to resolve incidents of sexual harassment.
* Good insight…
Lawmakers sexual harassment training includes 10 page powerpoint. This slide speaks volumes about the heart of the problem @ABC7Chicago pic.twitter.com/YDQYLvEzUe
— Craig Wall ABC 7 (@craigrwall) November 8, 2017
* Mary Ann Ahern had these excerpts from the House training in her report…
Rep. Jeanne Ives told Ahern that she’d had similar training before, so she decided to skip yesterday’s training. She was the only House Republican to do so. Rep. Steve Reick (R-Harvard) had said he would boycott the training, but then changed his mind.
* From Craig Wall’s story…
Some lawmakers said the increased awareness of the problem of sexual harassment in the capital is having a positive impact already and that the training will help.
“I think that will be very beneficial for everybody, but I’ve noticed a big difference just in the couple of days that we’ve been down here,” said Patty Bellock, R-Westmont.
Same here.
* But Guzzardi could be right…
Sexual harassment has gone from a topic that wasn’t talked about at the Capitol to one that is now the subject of awkward jokes.
Since allegations of rampant sexual harassment have surfaced in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal in Hollywood, compliments at the Capitol are doled out with a caveat, and hugs come with a disclaimer that the hugger isn’t trying to offend.
“I’ve noticed people being more reserved in their interactions, particularly with women colleagues, almost to the point of farce, like making jokes about ‘Should I even hug you?’ ” said state Rep. Will Guzzardi, D-Chicago.
“I am glad it’s on people’s minds, I am glad people are thinking twice before they touch people,” Guzzardi said. “My worry is that when this isn’t under the bright lights, that people will just revert to their old ways of doing things.”
* Meanwhile, Politifact took a look at something Speaker Madigan said…
Madigan said the Illinois Legislative Ethics Commission continued to function for nearly three years while the Office of Legislative Inspector General was vacant.
To the extent that the eight-member commission continued to schedule monthly meetings and saw to internal matters, it did “continue to function.” This included its executive director receiving numerous reports of alleged ethics violations.
But without an inspector general, it could not function in its capacity to take substantive action on alleged ethics violations. This is why Denise Rotheimer’s complaint saw no action until she went public with her allegations in a House committee hearing.
There’s an element of truth in Madigan’s statement but there’s a lot more that’s missing. We rate it Mostly False.
* Related…
* Public defenders file lawsuit over harassment by inmates
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 9:55 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Frerichs scores big win with override of Life Insurance Reform Act veto
Next Post: Veto session by the numbers
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“Rep. Jeanne Ives told Ahern that she’d had similar training before, so she decided to skip yesterday’s training.”
That was a very poor decision. She fails to realize that she should have attended the training along with all of her colleagues if nothing else to show that this is an important issue and non-partisan especially since she is running for Governor. What type of signal is she sending to her staff or her constituents? This was a very foolish decision on her part, and I hope it has repercussions for her.
Comment by Anon221 Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 10:03 am
“Two sessions were held behind closed doors”
I wonder if they were seated by seniority ?
Comment by Texas Red Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 10:07 am
–like making jokes about ‘Should I even hug you?’–
It’s a workplace. A simple handshake is sufficient.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 10:12 am
Harrassment prevention training. Changing the culture starts with using words that we are opposed to harassment instead of educating people how to do it 😁
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 10:14 am
Smart move by Ives.
Lets everyone talk about her.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 10:16 am
I bet this is the same training offered to agencies.
And the same trainer. And the same PowerPoint.
It’s awful training. Devoid of any complexity or expertise.
Comment by Anoniphone Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 10:17 am
People talk about the person with atrocious halitosis, but that doesn’t make them smart.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 10:19 am
It is ironic that IDHR is providing the training considering how prevalent sexual harassment is within the agency.
Comment by Nesh Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 10:19 am
To the related article about public defenders- what exactly is the jail supposed to do to stop the inmates from touching themselves? Restraints for everyone while talking with a lawyer? Chastity belts (only partially joking)? I get it’s a problem but what is the ask there.
Comment by Perrid Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 10:21 am
Guzzardi is right, behavior will ease as the controversy fades. But I think the baseline will probably be better, and it’s also probably going to be a spell before the controversy fades.
Comment by Arsenal Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 10:22 am
Skipped?
Did SingleMom sign off on this PR gambit?
Any other laws or pending laws bein’ skipped by Ives?.
Comment by Annonin' Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 10:25 am
– Anoniphone - Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 10:17 am:
I bet this is the same training offered to agencies.–
As soon as I saw the picture of the slides I chuckled.
Comment by Logan Squared Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 10:35 am
I’ve seen similar training before too. It’s still mandatory training at my agency every year. What makes Rep. Ives more special than me? It’s that sense of being special that is a big cause of sexual harassment. Perhaps she might consider acting as if she’s no better than the non elected state employees.
Comment by Thoughts Matter Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 10:35 am
=Smart move by Ives.
Lets everyone talk about her.=
Yeah, while everyone else acknowledges the need to send a signal that they take this seriously Ives goes against the grain. Brilliant.
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 10:36 am
Maybe we should all take this training. I’m learning some things from these snippets. Example: I hate it when people hug me at work or in social situations, and it has nothing to do with feeling harassed. At least in the work context, there is recognition that our huggy culture is problematic for some and may be perceived as harassment by some too.
Comment by Cassandra Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 10:37 am
this all reminds me of the second episode of the office, “Diversity Day”. The parallels are phenomenal, Michael Scott’s brash behavior in the office forces Corporate to send a diversity rep to train the office. and in our case the Speaker ignored the creep culture that has been going on forever and now all of the legislators must undergo sexual harassment training… Really the only difference here is that Michael Scott was hilarious.
Comment by Iggy Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 10:39 am
To the public defender lawsuit — The issue there is not usually with the public defender’s client. It’s the other detainees present in the “bullpen” behind the courtroom who are also awaiting appearances that morning. The way it works there is that all of the defendants up for court that morning are walked over from their jail division early in the a.m. and held in the holding cell or “bullpen” until their case is called. The way at least 26th and Cal is set up it’s an old building and there are no places for a lawyer to reasonably confer with their client right before court. So what happens is they have a hushed conversation with them at the front of the bullpen in full view of the other 20, 30 or so defendants up that day. There are no rooms for private conversations and it would be a ton of work for Sheriff’s deputies to keep track of all the defendants and watch them if they were moving around to other rooms. I can see how detainees would take an opportunity to be disruptive to a female attorney when they likely haven’t seen many women in months. Not a good situation but I don’t have a good solution.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 10:41 am
I had a deputy chief slap me on the back last December. I’m still incensed. He was a transfer for embarrassing his previous department. A week after the incident he emailed me to ask if I would help a colleague. I responded “sure, can you not slap me on my back?”. He clearly reported ME to the chief, who then emailed me stating I was thisclose to insubordibation. Now he’s the chief. *yes, I told a,colleague but was too scared to make an issue if it.
Comment by Veyizmir Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 10:42 am
Ives is the only woman running for an office that hasn’t held a woman. This is a woman’s safety issue. She becomes more important the more everyone talks about her. This issue becomes more important and she rises with it.
When a poster says something snide - don’t matter. She’s ahead, thanks to your snide comments.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 10:48 am
Not so sure the old adage ‘There’s no such thing as bad press’ applies to Ives in this instance. Very poor decision on her part for the reasons other commenters have pointed out.
Comment by Cubs in '16 Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 10:52 am
Once you’ve had the training, you can’t say you didn’t get it. That’s a big step in and of itself.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 10:53 am
VM- Would it be better to ignore her choice not to attend the training? Isn’t ignoring things what has caused a lot of continued and even ramped up harassment issues? She, and you, may think she “rises” every time she is connected to an issue and talked about, snidely or otherwise, but failing to point out her failings is not the answer.
Comment by Anon221 Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 10:54 am
Reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry gets shunned by the other tenants in his apartment building when he takes a stand against the “kiss hello”.
Comment by SAP Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 10:54 am
Ives: Leaders go to this training, so that others will follow. Doesn’t matter if they had similar training before, or believe they already know better.
Comment by walker Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 10:57 am
Walker at 10:57 sais it perfectly. If nothing else, skipping the training is bad politics for a statewide candidate.
Comment by SAP Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 10:59 am
Seriously, they had two sessions, one for dems and one for repubs. How can we expect anything to get done in Springfield if these guys can’t even take a training course together. Or maybe I’m looking at it wrong, maybe harassment parameters differ by party line.
Comment by BigLou Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 11:03 am
I recall when harassment training first started at State Gov. for us peons.. The explanation of unwanted behavior was something like….”Acts, gestures, behaviors that a reasonable woman would conclude were inappropriate”. I’m sorry to admit there was great laughter to the concept of “reasonable woman”. It was quietly changed to person in following years… and yes I know this is a real and serious matter….and any of you laughing at reasonable woman should be ashamed of yourselves…
Comment by Anotheretiree Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 11:08 am
Unbelievable that this far into the 21st century these clods still need this kind of basic training. Just when you thought Springfield couldn’t be more embarrassing.
Comment by Chris P. Bacon Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 11:11 am
As far as we yet know, Sen. Silverstein is the only one who ever may have sexually harassed anyone in Springfield. Or not. May have been harmless flirtation, mutual even. We’ll never really know. Too hard to say.
But trust us: There was a rampant problem. And we’ve fixed it now. So no need to ruin any other powerful person’s day over this silliness.
And let’s make this all about Ives now. Nothing else to talk about here. Nothing at all.
Comment by JB13 Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 11:15 am
JB13, do you have medicine for when those incoherent voices in your head get on a roll like that?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 11:22 am
Could the lawyers be given the option of interviewing their clients remotely, via Skype or similar video, while the inmates are still back in the jail section. This would reduce the amount of time they have to be in the physical presence of the defendants.
Comment by Cassandra Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 11:24 am
It doesn’t mention sniffing…there are some workplace creeps who get in close for a sniff…some are way too obvious…the target seldom notices..disgusting!
Comment by Purr plexed Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 11:35 am
–Just when you thought Springfield couldn’t be more embarrassing.–
You might want to check the news around the country, and not just in politics.
Plenty more to come, I bet.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 11:40 am
This training seems to be the same that was presented to most if not all public employees in Illinois (many) years ago.
Comment by DuPage Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 11:42 am
–Could the lawyers be given the option of interviewing their clients remotely, via Skype or similar video, while the inmates are still back in the jail section. This would reduce the amount of time they have to be in the physical presence of the defendants.–
The problem with that is sometimes they need to talk to their clients right before court, say after discussing a deal with prosecutors outside just a few minutes before. Or things change and they need to explain to their client what is going to happen at their appearance in a few minutes.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 11:58 am
–“I’ve noticed people being more reserved in their interactions, particularly with women colleagues, almost to the point of farce, like making jokes about ‘Should I even hug you?’ ” said state Rep. Will Guzzardi, D-Chicago.–
Guzzardi’s comment highlights an unintended consequence of (or backlash against) the overwhelming amount of attention that sexual harassment/assault in the workplace has received lately. Men are now making comments to women in a “joking” manner about “not wanting to sexually harass them” during interactions where no such commentary is necessary.
Saying “You look nice today - wait, am I aloud to say that?” to a female colleagues in a joking/condescending way isn’t progress. Rather, it indicates that you don’t know how to approach an adult women in a respectful manner without drawing attention to the fact that she’s a woman, and you are a man, and you’re used to being able to say whatever you want with impunity (and perhaps you secretly think you should still be able to.)
Here’s a bit of advice, guys, if you are now acting differently toward female colleagues because you are afraid to harass or offend them, you don’t need to share this with them. That just has the effect of making them feel awkward and *gasp* offended that you think they’re going to overreact to what could have been a perfectly uneventful interaction.
Women are just as tired of talking about sexual harassment as you. We all have work to do, so let’s treat each other with respect so that we can move on.
Comment by Dr. M Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 12:10 pm
VM - If the only way that Ives gets attention is by constantly going against the grain simply to get noticed, she doesn’t look like a reasonable alternative to Rauner, she looks like a nut job.
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 12:14 pm
=== The presentation defined two types of sexual harassment. “Quid pro quo” harassment, the slides said, happens when sexual favors are requested in exchange for support of legislation, campaign contributions or employment opportunities. And a “hostile work environment” is when inappropriate or offensive jokes are the norm or there are instances of verbal or physical conduct that is sexual in nature. ===
Did any of Sen. Silverstein’s messages fall under either quid pro quo or hostile workplace harassment?
Comment by anon2 Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 12:17 pm
I should add to my prior comment. Both public defenders and private attorneys in crowded Cook County criminal dockets, if you are there for a morning call your case is called, you approach the bench (if not already there), your client is brought out from the back, and it’s “Go Time.” There is no “can I have 5 minutes to talk to my client” when 20 other cases are waiting. You either talk to them briefly in the bullpen beforehand or not at all in my experience.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 12:18 pm
The latest possible claim of sexual harassment is now upon Springfield Exposed in regards to Lashawn Ford, though do not know if there is any merit to the claim.
Comment by My thoughts Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 12:36 pm
“Did any of Sen. Silverstein’s messages fall under either quid pro quo or hostile workplace harassment?”
If a person perceives that you have to flirt with him in order for your bill to advance, then yes.
Comment by Montrose Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 12:46 pm
=== If a person perceives that you have to flirt with him in order for your bill to advance, then yes. ===
Could a person’s perception, in the absence of concrete evidence, ever be wrong? Or is the accused automatically guilty based upon what could be a misperception?
Comment by anon2 Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 1:20 pm
=If a person perceives that you have to flirt with him in order for your bill to advance, then yes.=
That is completely incorrect.
Comment by m Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 1:35 pm
=This is why Denise Rotheimer’s complaint saw no action until she went public with her allegations in a House committee hearing=
Can someone actually confirm that her complaint was made with the Legislative Inspector General? We know Cullerton forwarded the complaint to LIG, but can someone confirm what Inspector General she supposedly filed her complaint with? The documentation that I’ve seen indicated that she filed her complaint with the WRONG Inspector General (OEIG, which has no authority over the legislative branch) BUT the media keeps reporting that there was NO action on her complaint.
Comment by Sigh Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 1:36 pm
All of us are misperceived at times about one thing or another. If guilt is established solely by another person’s perception — not upon any actual evidence — then no one is safe from being labeled a harasser.
Comment by anon2 Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 1:48 pm
BigLou–The separate sessions were probably needed to get around Open Meetings Act posting requirements.
Comment by SAP Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 2:00 pm
==VM- Would it be better to ignore her choice not to attend the training?==
If you oppose her - definately yes.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 2:07 pm
https://www.npr.org/2017/11/08/562641787/trainers-lawyers-say-sexual-harassment-training-fails
Comment by My New Handle Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 2:07 pm
==VM - If the only way that Ives gets attention is by constantly going against the grain simply to get noticed, she doesn’t look like a reasonable alternative to Rauner, she looks like a nut job.==
She’s a woman, so she gets a pass on this issue.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 2:09 pm
Her solitary refusal to attend elevates her to newsworthy enough to be given a platform other legislators don’t get.
What she says about this issue ends up carrying more weight.
She’s a woman
A traditional conservative.
She isn’t willing to be a lemming.
She’s playing off this situation very well.
Hope she has something outrageous to say, conflating her role in this hot topic further.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 2:15 pm
The Perception Police will be on duty full time now that training is complete. Was that sniff a harassment, or a cold? Be on the lookout for glances, gestures, noises….they might be ‘suggestive’. Nail abusers/harassers with a vengeance, but have something to do it with. When it’s said, as it was by a few commenters when this hit the Silverstein fan, all men are guilty of it (either because they did it or didn’t do anything when they were presumably aware of it), a backlash is being fed. Read/ Google the profound piece “Desiderata”. Written in 1927, and has more wisdom about life than anything you’ve read in some time, I’d bet.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 2:20 pm
=She’s a woman, so she gets a pass on this issue.=
Absolute nonsense. Rita Mayfield showed us last week that ignorance and enabling behavior is not gender specific.
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 2:43 pm
VanillaMan—- it’s been shown in previous weeks that men can also be the victims of sexual harassment and misconduct, either by another man or woman.
She still get a pass? Really? Attention matters more over substance?
Comment by Baloneymous Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 3:01 pm
Rita Who?
Because of her action on this issue, we’re discussing Jeanne Ives.
So guess who wins?
The one with details, yet took this class, or the one who made it known that she won’t because she won’t waste her time with a ridiculous CYA political stand?
Rita who?
==Attention matters over substance?==
Every.Damn.Time.
CapFax vets know this to be completely true.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 3:14 pm
“Rep. Jeanne Ives told Ahern that she’d had similar training before, so she decided to skip yesterday’s training.”
So Ives votes for the sexual harassment training mandate, but skips the actual training {sigh} Usually those with a military background follow the law.
Comment by Sigh Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 3:21 pm
=The one with details, yet took this class, or the one who made it known that she won’t because she won’t waste her time with a ridiculous CYA political stand?=
And if Ives was taking a principled plan and saying this maybe I’d buy your argument. But you seem more intent on drawing an inference from Ives actions than pointing to anything specific that she’s actually said on the topic.
I get it that you believe the goal is to get us talking about Ives. But if the only time Ives gets attention is when she does something whacky it doesn’t instill any confidence that she’s capable of governing.
We should have basic expectations for all elected or would be elected officials. Just because Rauner has failed doesn’t mean that we should hold Jeanne Ives to a lower standard.
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 3:22 pm
I think it’s her attention to pro-life that matters to you more. To me she should be fined for skipping a mandatory training she voted for. You know, to like uphold the law.
Comment by Baloneymous Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 3:42 pm
== But if the only time Ives gets attention is when she does something whacky it doesn’t instill any confidence that she’s capable of governing.
We should have basic expectations for all elected or would be elected officials.==
Cute little world you live in.
A year ago, Trump was elected.
That’s the world the rest of us live in.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 3:45 pm
Oh please.
Arrest her.
Fine her.
Put her in jail.
Over this.
Guys are acting like it’s runting season under the dome, but you arrest, fine or jail the only woman running for governor.
LOL
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 3:49 pm
I’m perfectly fine with a woman running for Governor. I don’t have an issue with that even though you are trying to make it the issue here. I just think everyone can find a reason to skip the training if they want to.
Comment by Baloneymous Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 3:55 pm
“Could a person’s perception, in the absence of concrete evidence, ever be wrong? Or is the accused automatically guilty based upon what could be a misperception?”
Of course it could be wrong. I didn’t mean it as an absolute. What I meant was that it doesn’t have to be some black & white quid pro quo to be harassment. And the power dynamic is baked into the relationship whether Silverstein or anyone else in his position acknowledges it. If she felt she had to go along to get along, that is a real thing. As I have said in other threads, this case is messy. Messy is going to be the reality of most these cases.
Comment by Montrose Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 4:16 pm
I swear this is the same PowerPoint and “training curriculum” that AA participated in at least 10 years ago. Very marginal value.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 4:21 pm
=== the power dynamic is baked into the relationship ===
Because a person has power does not automatically mean an accuser’s perception, without a word or other concrete evidence about quid pro quo, must be accurate. I don’t deny the feeling is real, but the genuineness of a belief does not mean it’s a correct belief.
Comment by anon2 Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 4:35 pm
=Cute little world you live in.
A year ago, Trump was elected.
That’s the world the rest of us live in.=
Nope. In my world I don’t overlook the flaws and shortcomings of Jeanne Ives because I dislike Bruce Rauner.
I understand your motivation but you look foolish in trying to make this tortured case for Ives.
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Nov 9, 17 @ 4:40 pm