To the Editor:
It’s not surprising that state officials recently bypassed the state Controlling Board to pay almost a half million dollars of taxpayers’ money to Cindy Stankoski and Vanessa Stout, who allege they were sexually harassed by Anthony Gutierrez when he was general services director in the attorney general’s office.
Those officials know that if the Controlling Board examines the matter with care, the idiocy and injustice of the settlement could be publicly exposed, leaving them looking like fools for agreeing to it.
While serving as interim attorney general, Nancy Rogers had about seven months to examine the circumstances of the allegations. She was unable to conclude that the women deserve an award anywhere near that large.
The state inspector general had almost the same amount of time to investigate the matter. His report undermines the validity of the complaints.
The report indicates that Stankoski engaged in “provocative dress” and “other unprofessional behavior” at the attorney general’s office. It further relates: “During our investigation, we found several risqué photos of Cindy Stankoski on Mariellen Aranda’s cell phone. In each, Stankoski flirtatiously sported Gutierrez’s Attorney General-issued badge at her bosom. Stankoski is now claiming that she was sexually harassed by Gutierrez.”
Stankoski would not have been dressing provocatively and acting unprofessionally in an environment where she was concerned about sexual harassment. And a victim of sexual harassment would not use her harasser’s state-issued badge as the main prop in her own provocative and flirtatious photos.
Moreover, in possessing Gutierrez’s badge, Stankoski almost surely had a close relationship with him. By showing off the badge like a trophy to coworkers, she apparently wanted them to believe she was tight with the boss. And the photos certainly didn’t send them or Gutierrez a message that she was opposed to all sexually oriented behavior in the office.
Regarding Vanessa Stout, the report says she and Gutierrez were neighbors who had a casual relationship before he hired her to work in the attorney general’s office. They were friendly enough that Gutierrez said he learned that Stout’s boyfriend had become jealous of her sex toy and broken it. Gutierrez therefore bought her a new one as a replacement. As for his alleged questions about her subsequent use of the gift, she has told the media she laughed at those comments (which he denies making).
The report goes on to state: “This conduct suggests that Stout and Gutierrez had an overly familiar relationship that began long before Stout accused Gutierrez of sexual harassment, raising serious questions about the merits of Stout’s EEO complaint.”
Stout’s credibility is further damaged by her extensive criminal history. The report lists her pre-hiring convictions for assault, driving under the influence, harassment and theft. It states that after being hired, she was convicted of disorderly conduct while intoxicated. The media has reported that the number of her pre-hiring convictions for theft is actually three, and her post-hiring record also includes an arrest for drug possession. Additionally, Stout falsified her application for employment at the attorney general’s office by omitting her theft convictions.
State officials know they foolishly rushed to judgment by assuming the women’s allegations were valid and using the complaints as the basis for driving Marc Dann, the people’s elected attorney general, from office. By reacting to the allegations in a panicked and cowardly manner, they failed to use common sense and ignored basic standards of fairness. The result has been extreme injustice to many people, including the taxpayers.
The officials responsible for this travesty have been doing everything they can to prevent the public from learning about their outrageous mishandling of the situation. Trying to keep the Controlling Board from examining the ridiculous settlement is their latest tactic.
Joseph C. Sommer
Attorney at Law
Columbus, OH
<<Back>> |
