Harassment investigations incomplete, inconsistent

NASHVILLE ? When Tennessee state employees complain about sexual harassment or other workplace misconduct, the state for years has had no consistent procedure for conducting investigations, maintaining records or imposing uniform punishments.

An Associated Press review of more than 600 harassment investigation files going back to late 2002 ? just before Gov. Phil Bredesen took office ? found investigation procedures varied from agency to agency, and even within departments.

Some investigations were handled so informally that supervisors conducting interviews jotted down responses on Post-it notes.

A leading expert on sexual harassment in the workplace said this method is unforgivable for state government.

“They would never dream of having such inconsistency in procurement or some other measurable outcome,” said Ellen Bravo, author of “The 9to5 Guide to Combating Sexual Harassment.”

“Why on earth would they allow this to be so inconsistent?”

The AP found that scores of files on harassment investigations, which are public records by state law, were incomplete, missing documentation of the complaint, investigative notes and even the outcome of an investigation.

“If there’s a case in which a complaint is filed and there’s paper in the file, but the file doesn’t show what happened to the complaint, it seems to me that would be suspicious,” said Frank Gibson, executive director of the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government.

The AP also found that complaints made by or against high-ranking officials were investigated more thoroughly and more privately than those involving lower-level civil service employees.

The higher-profile cases were usually handled by top-ranking state attorneys, while other complaints were handled by a variety of people ? an assistant state commissioner, a department-level lawyer or an employee’s immediate supervisor.

Criticism over his administration’s handling of those high-profile investigations prompted Bredesen to order the creation of formal policies dictating how claims would be handled in the future.

“There is obviously a lot of human judgment that goes into how these cases are handled,” Bredesen told the AP. “Inevitably it is hard to pick up all the facts. Having said that, I think there is more inconsistency than you can justify that way, and it’s something we have begun to try addressing.”

The problems appear to have been part of the culture in state government for a long time.

An employee of the Department of Economic and Community Development accused of sexual harassment told officials investigating the claim that prior to Bredesen’s administration “there was an atmosphere within the department to do and say pretty much anything regardless if it was derogatory or not. But that kind of behavior has toned down and everyone is more businesslike.”

That employee said workplace harassment training ordered by Bredesen in 2004 led to changing attitudes toward harassment.

For some state employees, that training may not have been enough.

Records show a current Department of Safety employee has been the subject of three separate sexual harassment investigations and was suspended for each one. In several other departments, employees who filed harassment complaints ultimately chose to resign because they felt they continued to be harassed.

Board of Probation and Parole employee Sherrell Johnson said she and other employees have been retaliated against and belittled when they reported being harassed. She said harassment complaints often are ignored by what she calls a “good ol’ boy” system.

“I’m probably going to be fired for talking about it, I’m probably going to be retaliated against, but I’m going to stand because I know that I’m right,” Johnson said.

Board of Probation and Parole Administrator Jack Elder said the board has a strict policy against workplace harassment.

“Employees receive mandatory, yearly training on harassment issues,” he said. “Employees are disciplined for harassment. Discipline ranges from written warnings, suspension to termination.”

But punishments often vary among similar cases ? both between different state departments and within the same department.

In one Finance and Administration case, an employee accused of using a state computer to view sexually explicit photographs was issued a written warning. Written warnings are placed in an employee’s file and are considered when he or she qualifies for a promotion or raise or if the employee is the subject of future conduct problems.

In another case in the same department, an employee accused of sending a sexually harassing e-mail to a co-worker was merely spoken to by supervisors. The employee accused of sending the e-mail had already informed supervisors he was leaving his job, and no formal complaint or reprimand was documented in the file.

“The individual accused of harassing another individual was a week away from leaving state government and officials felt the problem would take care of itself,” said Lola Potter, a spokeswoman for the Department of Finance and Administration.

A Department of Children’s Services employee accused of sending a sexually harassing e-mail to a co-worker was forced by supervisors to apologize to her.

Bredesen said the important thing is that offenders are punished appropriately, not that they’re punished similarly from case to case.

“In the cases that I have looked at, I don’t have a lot of complaints with the results. In fact, I think the state has been pretty tough on people who have done this,” he said.

When the governor’s top lobbyist, Robert “Mack” Cooper, was accused of sexual harassment, he was publicly demoted, but the investigative notes taken by Department of Personnel lawyer Kae Carpenter were shredded. The notes from an old, unsubstantiated harassment allegation against former Correction Commissioner Quenton White were also shredded.

Carpenter also looked at a complaint made against a high-ranking official at the Tennessee Arts Commission.

She found no evidence supporting the claims of sexual harassment in that case, but her notes filled several boxes. In lower level harassment investigations, sometimes the files contain just a few sheets of paper.

About a month after the AP’s request to review harassment files, Department of Personnel Commissioner Randy Camp instructed each department to set a standard policy for investigating harassment.

The new policy requires each department to designate who is responsible for investigating complaints. It also makes employees fill out a standard complaint form, and requires agencies to send a letter to the complainant and accused about the outcome.

And all documents now must be preserved ? no more shredding.

Mary Moody, a lawyer for the Department of Commerce and Insurance, said gathering files for the AP’s request proved to be educational because the department has never paid much attention to how its infrequent harassment claims are handled.

“While we believe that all previous complaints have been properly handled, we have taken this opportunity to adopt new policies and procedures that should insure uniformity in processing and documenting such complaints going forward,” she wrote in an e-mail response.

Dick Williams, director of watchdog group Tennessee Common Cause, said clearer records need to be kept for all investigations and steps should be taken to protect victims’ names from the public, but without shredding files.

Employees who are accused of harassment should be subjected to a standard investigation process with minimal exceptions, he said. Exceptions to a statewide policy should be reviewed and approved by an independent group, possibly an ethics panel, Williams said.

“The state should apply as much consistency as possible to all cases for the benefit of everybody,” Williams said.

‘

Associated Press writer Matt Gouras in Nashville contributed to this report.