Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Controversy over state GOP’s marriage plank
Next Post: Exelon, How Dumb Do You Think We Are?
Posted in:
* Greg Hinz…
We now know more about one of the oddest but most meaningful events in the 2014 race for Illinois governor: allegations of sexual harassment that torpedoed the candidacy of then-Illinois Treasurer Dan Rutherford for governor against then-businessman Bruce Rauner.
Results of an outside investigation into whether Rutherford harassed male subordinates and coerced them to do political work have been made public after an agreement among lawyers in two lawsuits ended a protective order that had kept it secret. I have obtained a copy.
The report, by investigator Ron Braver, concludes there is “no evidence” that former top Rutherford aide Edmund Michalowski was retaliated against for failing to acquiesce to alleged sexual advances, “no supporting evidence” that he actually was sexually harassed and “no evidence” that he was forced to do political work.
In a statement, Rutherford’s attorney, Daniel Fahner, who was assigned the case by the attorney general’s office, said the Braver report “finds conclusively that Michalowski’s allegations were unfounded, and also suggests that the allegations were driven by political agendas and personal desperation.”
But the report, which was prepared for Neil Olson, then-general counsel for the treasurer’s office, contains allegations from unnamed office workers that Rutherford made “uncomfortable comments or suggestions” about a staffer, though no formal complaints ever were filed.
The full report is here.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, May 19, 16 @ 1:56 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Controversy over state GOP’s marriage plank
Next Post: Exelon, How Dumb Do You Think We Are?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Rauner’s primary challenger?
Comment by Person 8 Thursday, May 19, 16 @ 1:59 pm
More proof that Rutherford was railroaded out of the race.
Comment by DGD Thursday, May 19, 16 @ 2:04 pm
And now Rauner wants to railroad the whole state.
Comment by Crispy Critter Thursday, May 19, 16 @ 2:07 pm
You mean the investigator hand-picked by Rutherford to conduct an investigation - instead of the office’s IG - reported a conclusion favorable to his client?
Shocking. /s
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, May 19, 16 @ 2:09 pm
This report is garbage and a total waste of taxpayer dollars.
Comment by Lovie Thursday, May 19, 16 @ 2:12 pm
The damage is done.
No one ever reads the retractions, just the accusations, and if you don’t respond, timely…
You’re a former state Treasurer…
That Friday Fiasco sunk Rutherford more than anything. That is textbook, “What Not To Do Ever”. That fiasco ended a campaign and a career, not the report, not the accusations. It was Amateur Hour, and however it was agreed to DO that, that’s malpractice, no other way to describe how that Friday Fiasco was the real destroyer of Dan Rutherford.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, May 19, 16 @ 2:13 pm
It may offer a tiny bit of solace in case anyone ever wants to appoint him to something. I agree with Willy that his Freaky Friday ended any career that relies on getting votes from an electorate.
Comment by A guy Thursday, May 19, 16 @ 2:28 pm
@Oswego Willy - nails it. The Friday Fiasco is etched in lore.
==taxpayer dollars==
Nearly $30K of =taxpayer dollars= for this outside report iirc. That will look cheap by comparison to the $ owed if he ends up with a guilty verdict.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, May 19, 16 @ 2:42 pm
Why was this released now? I thought that the reason for withholding it was the pending litigation. Is the lawsuit done?
Comment by Anonymouth Thursday, May 19, 16 @ 2:51 pm
Guessing it was released now because Greg Hinz as a journalist sought to find out what a taxpayer funded report about a public official said
Comment by hisgirlfriday Thursday, May 19, 16 @ 4:01 pm
=== Guessing it was released now because Greg Hinz as a journalist sought to find out what a taxpayer funded report about a public official said ===
Is that snark?
Comment by Anonymouth Thursday, May 19, 16 @ 4:09 pm
If the court finds that this was a frivolous and malicious suit, I sure hope plaintiff isn’t retained at the other government job he landed in.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 19, 16 @ 4:09 pm