January 4, 2011
Mayor denies sexual harassment allegations in statement to media
By Abbey Doyle
The Herald Bulletin
ANDERSON, Ind. — In response to sexual harassment allegations from a parks department employee, Anderson Mayor Kris Ockomon issued the following statement at 1 p.m. Tuesday:
"I feel it is important that the public hear directly from me about this matter. Accordingly, I want to make it clear that I adamantly and unconditionally deny all such allegations.
"I have never engaged in any behavior with any person which could be remotely construed as sexual harassment.
"I am confident that the conclusion of the investigation and legal process will result in these claims being completely discredited, and I look forward to a speedy resolution."
Teresa Spencer, who transferred from the mayor's office to the city parks department in June 2009 to become business manager, alleges in a complaint to the Indiana Civil Rights Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission signed Dec. 31, 2009, that Ockomon subjected her "to quid pro quo and hostile work environment sexual harassment.
"These acts of sexual harassment include, but are not limited to: sexually suggestive comments regarding (Spencer's) appearance and clothing, requests for (Spencer) to get rooms at hotels with Mayor Ockomon, requests for (Spencer) to go to an amusement park with Mayor Ockomon and 'ride his roller coaster,' and Mayor Ockomon telling (Spencer) he has sexual dreams about her," the complaint alleges.
The Herald Bulletin obtained a copy of the complaint Monday.
Contacted Monday, Ockomon said "obviously not" when asked if the allegations were true. He referred questions to his Indianapolis attorney, Michael Cork. Ockomon demanded to know the source of the document; The Herald Bulletin has agreed to protect the identity of the person who provided it.
The revelation comes at the dawn of a mayoral campaign in which at least three Republicans have announced their candidacy. Ockomon, a Democrat, has not formally announced his intention to seek re-election, but he said recently that an announcement would come in the new year.
Cork said he was not at liberty to discuss Spencer's complaint in detail because of the confidential nature of the EEOC mediation process. But he said, "Based upon the available information, I do not believe there is a shred of truth to the charges, the allegations in Teresa Spencer's complaint." He called her allegations "politically and personally motivated."
"I have looked into the matter and have had full cooperation not only from Mayor Ockomon but from the entire staff of the City of Anderson," Cork said, "and I do not find one scintilla of evidence to support the allegations contained in that charge."
Spencer's complaint is still in a confidential process, Cork said. "The charge is currently in investigation with the EEOC. They have not made a determination yet, and I don't believe that they have begun much of an internal investigation." Cork also said he expected Spencer to file a federal lawsuit.
An EEOC representative said Monday that the commission does not discuss cases that are in the confidential stage, and that the time required to resolve complaints can range from three months to two years or more based on the nature of the allegations.
The complaint says the alleged harassment and retaliation took place between November 2007 and when the complaint was signed. "On each occasion, (Spencer) has rebuffed Mayor Ockomon's sexual advances and informed him that the advances were unwelcomed," the complaint says.
Spencer's complaint alleges that she "has been damaged as a result of (Ockomon's) discriminatory and retaliatory actions, including but not limited to, back pay and other financial damages, embarrassment, humiliation and emotional distress."
Spencer said Monday that she could not comment about the allegations on the advice of her attorney, Meghan Lehner of Indianapolis. Lehner did not return telephone messages seeking comment.
"Basically, I just want to do my job — that's what I want to do," Spencer said.
In October, a judge granted Spencer's request for a temporary restraining order against the city after she was suspended without pay for two days by Parks Department Superintendent John Gates. Gates said Spencer was late in paying bills, but Spencer said she lacked proper invoices to pay them. The restraining order barred the city from taking further disciplinary actions against Spencer.
That court case is one of at least three that have been brought against Ockomon, the city or officials by past and present parks officials:
Former Parks Superintendent Fred Reese was recently awarded more than $54,000 in back wages and benefits that he claimed as a result of his firing a year ago. No attorney appeared in court to represent the city in a hearing last month; city attorneys say notice of the hearing was not provided.
In August, Park Board Chairman Darin Foltz sued and blocked a hearing that Ockomon had called to present evidence for Foltz's removal from office.
Former Madison Circuit Court Judge Fredrick Spencer has represented Foltz, Reese and Teresa Spencer — his daughter-in-law — in each of the lawsuits.
City attorney Tim Lanane on Monday confirmed the city is paying Cork's legal fees to defend Ockomon against the harassment allegations. He said because the City Building was closed Monday, he did not have access to information about how much has been paid.
http://heraldbulletin.com/local/x1961024144/Mayor-denies-sexual-harassment-allegations-in-statement-to-media (http://heraldbulletin.com/local/x1961024144/Mayor-denies-sexual-harassment-allegations-in-statement-to-media)
One point, since the city of Anderson has at least 4 attorneys on staff, why is the city having to foot the bill for an Indianapolis attorney to represent Ocky in this "latest" suit? Will the citizens of this city now be forced to pay a "legal fee" being tacked onto their monthly city utility bills?
You'll note this suit was filed in December of 2009, if the HB didn't commit another in its string of editorial errors. So it has now been over a year since the complaint was filed; why has there been no progress made in connection with this complaint in that time? The article states the investigation is just getting under way, so why has it taken so long? Typical of how our government entities react to civilian allegations of harassment and a hostile working environment! :mad: :mad: :mad:
This suit coming to light makes one wonder if it isn't the main driver behind Ocky's initiatives against the parks department in the first place!
This all goes back to the voters from my perspective. Despite the red flag of residency, "we the people" voted the current mayor into office. And all of a sudden allegations of sexual harassment and other potential actions of a discriminatory nature surprise us? Why?
The mayor represents this city and its citizens, and as such any potential actionable performance is required to be subsidized by us surrounding legal representation, when said actions are performed during the course of the duties of the office.
In this day and age when a city is required to retain legal counsel surrounding a myriad of potential liabilities, I find it disturbing that any city would hire an attorney that doesn't have a well rounded experience base that is diversified to include human rights and civil rights issues. At least have a couple of part timers on retainer to include this area of specialization. But that responsibility, if we are to believe Lanane, rests solely upon the mayor him/her self.
The voting citizens of this city have a personal responsibility to make an informed choice when placing their vote. Buying into the emotional flotsam our political process has become does not lend itself toward an educated decision process; and should the current allegations prove true, I believe it is incumbent upon each one of us to do better job in educating ourselves surrounding the candidates, for ourselves and this city in the next election.
Voting based upon a personal history with an individual is not always a good practice; in fact it is just as bad as buying into the political propaganda that floods the media and airwaves during every single election we encounter.
Minus a truly neutral and unbiased local media source, which the public can trust to ask the hard questions and dig for the truth, the job is left to the voters themselves; and unfortunately very few of the citizens within this city seem to be armed with the critical thinking skills with which to accomplish such a task. And those that do possess these skills are frequently subjected to the emotional fallout of the propaganda machine, in an attempt to quash the truth with emotional turmoil and volumes of it.
The current lawsuit will be resolved, eventually, but the voters of this city had better do their homework well in advance of the next election; lest we vote someone into office who will potentially do worse than what has already been done in the present administration.
And now, as if this isn't ugly enough, the brother of the Mayor, Roger Ockomon, has had an order of protection entered against him by Teresa Spenser, because of postings Roger made on his facebook page.
http://heraldbulletin.com/crime/x233315120/Mayor-s-brother-named-in-protective-order (http://heraldbulletin.com/crime/x233315120/Mayor-s-brother-named-in-protective-order)
He is also highly critical of mayoral candidate, and former mayor Kevin Smith, and makes commentary that seems to insinuate that he has "dirt" on Kevin as well!
Well I not going to get to excited about this sexual Harassment case. I seen to many of them at work where the women made them up to get even with a guy. They have been playing around telling each other sexual thing. But one day she come in with PMS and goes up front and files a sexual harassment charge.
Since he change her job, that might be the reason she said anything and it all bullshit.
Those poor innocent men! It's a shame that they allow women into the workplace. </sarcasm> :rolleyes:
Some men don't believe there is such a thing as sexual harassment.
Quote from: Anne on January 15, 2011, 04:55:57 PM
Some men don't believe there is such a thing as sexual harassment.
The term 'sexual harassment' appears to have been far too widely defined in legal settings.
I posit that unless behavior is specifically, or aimed at promoting, unwanted physical contact - the key word here being 'physical' - then it shouldn't be sexual harassment under the law. Even then the specific contact must explicitly sexual.
I think that is subject to interpretation. What is a sexual comment to me may not be to you. What you think is harmless comments may not be to me. In this case, if the mayor said the things he is accused of saying, what do you think he meant when he suggested (allegedly) that they get a room together and she "ride" his roller coaster? Seems clearly sexual to me, and since he is in a position of power it is also threatening.
Quote from: Anne on January 21, 2011, 12:49:17 PM
I think that is subject to interpretation. What is a sexual comment to me may not be to you. What you think is harmless comments may not be to me. In this case, if the mayor said the things he is accused of saying, what do you think he meant when he suggested (allegedly) that they get a room together and she "ride" his roller coaster? Seems clearly sexual to me, and since he is in a position of power it is also threatening.
As I posited, comments that aren't leading to unwanted physical contact are just that, comments. Therefore, it shouldn't matter what either you or I think about the comment.
As far as the suit against the Mayor and what I posited, there's no alleged unwanted physical contact, and unless the plaintiff can prove there was any specific job retaliation directly related to not providing sexual favors, there should be no case.
The bottom line is that we are sexual beings and make sexual comments and advances. To criminalize those actions without actual harm is not in our best interests.
Unwanted physical contact turns it into assault or rape. Like I said some people don't believe there is such a thing as sexual harassment.
Quote from: Anne on January 21, 2011, 07:01:17 PM
Unwanted physical contact turns it into assault or rape. Like I said some people don't believe there is such a thing as sexual harassment.
1) Which, as I pointed out, is actual harm.
2) Why don't you define 'sexual harassment' then - your definition please.
I worked at a factory where 30 women and 3 men working on the work floor, I was one of the males. I never seen such back bitting, back stabbing, foul talk, crying to the boss about some other woman. As a male, it was like working in a mine field. Some women you could enjoy, cut up with and have a good time. But others, just talking to them, you might get a knife in the back with the company. You had to find out which women were the bitches and pretty quick. I have never seen it in a all men shop to that extent. Of course you're going to find assholes in any company. But the women are the worse at it.
We had one woman working on the assembly line that everyone hated, men and women alike. Always cry, bitching, looking to get someone in trouble. So we left her totally alone. Every time she would walk up to a group of people or walk into a room, people left the area. She went to the company and cried that everybody was shunning her. My god she was a walking EID, bomb waiting to go off and take your job.
Then the government came a long and made the companies put women in all men's jobs like pipefitter and millwright. The women wanted our jobs, but they didn't want the dirty work that came with it. But they also wanted all of the women's rights to be babied and pampered. In other words kiss their little asses. Like, oh I can't lift something that heavy or I can't climb that high. You want me to crawl back into the dirty black hole through small dirty access door? Oh, it too hot here in the heat treat area for me, I need a break or go to the restroom. On and on and on.
But, what is so bad, our union the UAW had classes to teach the woman what sexual harassment was. Oh, give me a break. :@#%&: Stupidity rules. :yes:
Quote from: Y on February 02, 2011, 09:16:12 PM
1) Which, as I pointed out, is actual harm.
2) Why don't you define 'sexual harassment' then - your definition please.
Any repeated comments containing requests for sexual contact or alluding to sexual contact especially when made by someone with power over (like a boss or someone who is intimidating for some reason) the person being addressed. I think if someone made those kind of remarks even after being told no or to stop it becomes harassment.
This whole situation reminds me of "Minority Report", wherein the law is punitive toward a crime that has not yet happened. . .
Quote from: Palehorse on February 03, 2011, 02:47:51 PM
This whole situation reminds me of "Minority Report", wherein the law is punitive toward a crime that has not yet happened. . .
This woman who is after the mayor. She's a smart cookie, she been the rough and tumble business of politics. Why don't she have secret tapes, a small recorder cost hardly nothing. Why hasn't she kept a log, times and date of the so call sexual harassments and also witness to these events.
She just bitter because she was demoted. Tough titty, get a life. I think you will see this blow over, just like so other many so called sexual harassments cases. But this is what the news media feeds on.
Let's take all this to its (il)logical conclusion.
Quote from: Anne on February 03, 2011, 11:29:52 AM
Any repeated comments containing requests for sexual contact or alluding to sexual contact...
Asking for a date is inherently alluding to, and seeking, sexual contact somewhere along the line. So if someone repeatedly asks for a date, does that then become sexual harassment?
Quote...especially when made by someone with power over (like a boss or someone who is intimidating for some reason) the person being addressed.
This would just about eliminate dating in the workplace for anyone who wasn't at the same level.
How about size differences? Is 6'2" 'intimidating' to 4'11"? Is 250# intimidating to 98#? Isn't one person's intimidating another person's attraction?
QuoteI think if someone made those kind of remarks even after being told no or to stop it becomes harassment.
Apparently all the loutish boors who can't take a hint are going to be subjected to the legal system. Do any of us think that should happen or that it would be in society's best interest?
Quote from: Y on February 20, 2011, 07:54:19 PM
Let's take all this to its (il)logical conclusion.
Asking for a date is inherently alluding to, and seeking, sexual contact somewhere along the line. So if someone repeatedly asks for a date, does that then become sexual harassment?
This would just about eliminate dating in the workplace for anyone who wasn't at the same level.
How about size differences? Is 6'2" 'intimidating' to 4'11"? Is 250# intimidating to 98#? Isn't one person's intimidating another person's attraction?
Apparently all the loutish boors who can't take a hint are going to be subjected to the legal system. Do any of us think that should happen or that it would be in society's best interest?
No, asking for a date, even repeatedly, is not necessarily asking or alluding to sexual conduct. Making comments like Mayor Okoman is accused making are not asking for a date. If Ms. Spencer objected to these statements and they continued it rises to the level of harassment, IMO. You are mixing apples and oranges, dating between two people in the same workplace is not the same as being intimidated, I am surprised someone as logical as you say you are can't figure that out. Of course being physically taller, bigger, stronger can be part of it but not necessary to intimidate. Last of all, if someone, male or female is too stupid to 'take the hint' maybe standing before a judge would enlighten him/her.
Quote from: Anne on February 20, 2011, 11:50:45 PM
No, asking for a date, even repeatedly, is not necessarily asking or alluding to sexual conduct. Making comments like Mayor Okoman is accused making are not asking for a date. If Ms. Spencer objected to these statements and they continued it rises to the level of harassment, IMO. You are mixing apples and oranges, dating between two people in the same workplace is not the same as being intimidated, I am surprised someone as logical as you say you are can't figure that out. Of course being physically taller, bigger, stronger can be part of it but not necessary to intimidate. Last of all, if someone, male or female is too stupid to 'take the hint' maybe standing before a judge would enlighten him/her.
But Anne,
I'd someone in the workplace continues to ask for dates which the other person isn't interested in going on, then couldn't the unwanted attention make the workplace uncomfortable? Why would anyone want to come to work in an uncomfortable environment, let alone be able to focus and produce? What would that be filed under if not sexual harassment?
I certainly think you could make a case for that, but I was thinking more of the whiny type as opposed to the backed into a corner kind of 'asking'.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on February 21, 2011, 11:11:06 AM
But Anne,
I'd someone in the workplace continues to ask for dates which the other person isn't interested in going on, then couldn't the unwanted attention make the workplace uncomfortable? Why would anyone want to come to work in an uncomfortable environment, let alone be able to focus and produce? What would that be filed under if not sexual harassment?
Just how would you handle this MS. Eggo? I just imagine that you would have told him off in such words, that he would not have not only left you alone, he probably have grown to really dislike you too. You have such away with words. You have came off to me to be that way. What's your answer?
Quote from: The Troll on February 21, 2011, 02:41:22 PM
Just how would you handle this MS. Eggo? I just imagine that you would have told him off in such words, that he would not have not only left you alone, he probably have grown to really dislike you too. You have such away with words. You have came off to me to be that way. What's your answer?
I've been in this situation a few times. Believe it or not, most men get the hint the first time that you explain to them that you have a policy against dating co-workers.
There are a few types who refuse to understand. The ones who are nice about it, but just seem to have trouble taking "no" for an answer, I'm nice to and eventually, they understand. The ones who think that I must be nuts for not being overwhelmed by their masculinity, I'm not so nice to. If they grow to dislike me...mission accomplished. :biggrin:
In real life, I'm a laid-back and easy going person. I'm honest and straightforward. I'm also a kind person, as long as someone is kind to me. I won't let someone walk on me and I don't lose sleep based on who likes me or not.
On the topic of sexual harassment, I've learned the threshold is different for everyone. For example, the scenario described above, would be one that I personally think two adults should be able to handle between them without management becoming involved. However, there are other people who may feel uncomfortable with the attention and may not be confident enough to handle it. That's why it's a good idea to take "no" for an answer the first time. You never know what you're dealing with.
One case was a woman trying to get a man to go out with her. She was attractive, but he wasn't interested because he was in a relationship. He told her so and tried to be nice about it. She started stalking him at work. His male co-workers teased him about it and he laughed, but apparently felt really uncomfortable about the whole thing. When he continued to refuse her, she started spreading rumors that he was gay. He didn't care, because he wasn't and hoped that meant she was moving on. Everything boiled over when she cornered him in the elevator and put her hands all over him. To add insult to injury, the doors opened, exposing the two and her boyfriend was in the lobby. When he was asked why he didn't report all of this, he said that he was afraid that no one would take him seriously because he's a man. See what stereotypes willl do to you?
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on February 22, 2011, 09:22:08 PM
I've been in this situation a few times. Believe it or not, most men get the hint the first time that you explain to them that you have a policy against dating co-workers.
There are a few types who refuse to understand. The ones who are nice about it, but just seem to have trouble taking "no" for an answer, I'm nice to and eventually, they understand. The ones who think that I must be nuts for not being overwhelmed by their masculinity, I'm not so nice to. If they grow to dislike me...mission accomplished. :biggrin:
In real life, I'm a laid-back and easy going person. I'm honest and straightforward. I'm also a kind person, as long as someone is kind to me. I won't let someone walk on me and I don't lose sleep based on who likes me or not.
On the topic of sexual harassment, I've learned the threshold is different for everyone. For example, the scenario described above, would be one that I personally think two adults should be able to handle between them without management becoming involved. However, there are other people who may feel uncomfortable with the attention and may not be confident enough to handle it. That's why it's a good idea to take "no" for an answer the first time. You never know what you're dealing with.
One case was a woman trying to get a man to go out with her. She was attractive, but he wasn't interested because he was in a relationship. He told her so and tried to be nice about it. She started stalking him at work. His male co-workers teased him about it and he laughed, but apparently felt really uncomfortable about the whole thing. When he continued to refuse her, she started spreading rumors that he was gay. He didn't care, because he wasn't and hoped that meant she was moving on. Everything boiled over when she cornered him in the elevator and put her hands all over him. To add insult to injury, the doors opened, exposing the two and her boyfriend was in the lobby. When he was asked why he didn't report all of this, he said that he was afraid that no one would take him seriously because he's a man. See what stereotypes willl do to you?
I really like the statement "In real life I'm laid back, I'm honest and straightforward. I'm also kind.
Yeah, just like a Gulf Bull Shark. Just swimming just below the surface on a nice sunny day in Flordia looking for someone to bite a piece out of. How's your off the job relations with men. Huuuum. It can't be to good if you let out any of your deep resentful feelings. And I bet you can't keep them hidden very long. I'll be you even dream about it. That's why you don't sleep well. Living with intervoices in your dreams can be pleasant. :wink: :smile:
You can keep your feeling about men, I don't care, you're the one who has to live with it. :smile:
Quote from: Anne on February 20, 2011, 11:50:45 PM
No, asking for a date, even repeatedly, is not necessarily asking or alluding to sexual conduct.
What planet are you from? Or are you really that rose-colored-glasses naive?
Dating is the socially acceptable weird dance that is really the preliminary to the acts of sex. In some sense it could be considered foreplay, but don't fool yourself, the entire point of 'dating' is getting to the point of the acts of sex.
No man, or woman, enters into dating without at least somewhere in the back of his/her mind considering sex with that person. Humanity is wired that way.
QuoteMaking comments like Mayor Okoman is accused making are not asking for a date. If Ms. Spencer objected to these statements and they continued it rises to the level of harassment, IMO.
You're the only one making the point that the supposed comment(s) = asking for a date. I certainly didn't.
One of the points I made was that taking your thinking to its (il)logical conclusion, any dullard who continually pursued another to 'date' them and refused to take "no" for an answer would be committing sexual harassment.
Besides being a road society doesn't need to tread, it's also a hypocritical one. Simply think of all the times people play the chase game which forces each other into the roles of predator and prey - and how many people actually enjoy it and even reminisce about it with fond memories.
Are you
really interested in turning that into sexual harassment?
QuoteYou are mixing apples and oranges, dating between two people in the same workplace is not the same as being intimidated, I am surprised someone as logical as you say you are can't figure that out. Of course being physically taller, bigger, stronger can be part of it but not necessary to intimidate. Last of all, if someone, male or female is too stupid to 'take the hint' maybe standing before a judge would enlighten him/her.
Ah, but you've been intimating that the pursuit of another (and that's what seeking either dates or outright sex are) that is unwanted rises to sexual harassment and should be subject to the legal system without culminating in any sexual act etc..
The point I've repeatedly been making, a logical one I might add, is that if it doesn't end in any sexual act, the person, in fact, has
not been
coerced into anything - which puts
you, Anne, in the position of advocating for the use of the legal system to punish without the accompanying
and prerequisite harm...
...one of the main basis' of our legal system, my dear. ; )
Couldn't disagree with you more on all counts.
Quote from: Anne on March 08, 2011, 11:36:24 PM
Couldn't disagree with you more on all counts.
Since you vote don't count. I disagree with you. "Y" carries the day again. :yeah: "T" :fireworks:
Quote from: Anne on March 08, 2011, 11:36:24 PM
Couldn't disagree with you more on all counts.
Disagree all you wish, you're still wrong - and promoting having the legal system involved without the prerequisite harm. You basically wish for the thought police.
And, darlin', I suggest that's good ole' McCarthyism at work.
Nope, speaking isn't thinking and harassment is harassment sexual or otherwise, and I'm not your Darlin'.
Quote from: Anne on March 12, 2011, 02:21:32 PM
Nope, speaking isn't thinking and harassment is harassment sexual or otherwise, and I'm not your Darlin'.
What would y ou say if he use the word "Bitch" instead of "Darlin'" :think:
Since they are both used in a demeaning way, one is just more vulgar and less socially acceptable, it technically makes no difference and why would you care?
Quote from: Anne on March 13, 2011, 03:39:21 PM
Since they are both used in a demeaning way, one is just more vulgar and less socially acceptable, it technically makes no difference and why would you care?
I can't see in any way that Darlin is socially unacceptable. I know you might be queen in your household. You are not here.
I bet you really throw a fit if a waitress says, "I'll be there in a minute Hon, or Honey" Give me a break.
Try rereading it, I did not say Darlin' was socially unacceptable, that it was not in this instance used a a term of endearment but as a substitute for the other word. No, I do not take offense if someone calls me hon or darlin' in the right context, any more than you would if someone called you a sob in a joking or friendly conversation, but you might if it was during a disagreement.
Quote from: Anne on March 14, 2011, 04:14:58 PM
Try rereading it, I did not say Darlin' was socially unacceptable, that it was not in this instance used a a term of endearment but as a substitute for the other word. No, I do not take offense if someone calls me hon or darlin' in the right context, any more than you would if someone called you a sob in a joking or friendly conversation, but you might if it was during a disagreement.
If you don't know it and it was joking in a friendly way. My mother was not a bitch. She was a good church lady and she worked had for her church. But if someone said of you that you were a queenly bitch, joking and friendly I'd probably agree. :biggrin:
Quote from: Anne on March 12, 2011, 02:21:32 PM
Nope, speaking isn't thinking and harassment is harassment sexual or otherwise, and I'm not your Darlin'.
The 'Thought Police' is a generic term referring to 'crimes' without prerequisite harm be they thinking, speaking, or otherwise.
Not my 'darlin' huh? I should have figure you for one of 'those' who make things out of innocent idiomatic figures of speech. :wink:
It's an idiom I picked up during my years in the South - just like y'all - that I've never seemed, or really tried very hard, to shake. I've run across prigs like you who want to make something out of it. I get a good laugh out of 'em...darlin'. :biggrin:
Quote from: Y on March 23, 2011, 05:21:31 PM
The 'Thought Police' is a generic term referring to 'crimes' without prerequisite harm be they thinking, speaking, or otherwise.
Not my 'darlin' huh? I should have figure you for one of 'those' who make things out of innocent idiomatic figures of speech. :wink:
It's an idiom I picked up during my years in the South - just like y'all - that I've never seemed, or really tried very hard, to shake. I've run across prigs like you who want to make something out of it. I get a good laugh out of 'em...darlin'. :biggrin:
What has happened to all of those sexual harassment charges against the Anderson Mayor. Did she just slink off like a snake. :biggrin:
Don;t know, maybe our democratic leaning paper down't have time to investigate it.
Quote from: Anne on March 30, 2011, 02:10:03 PM
Don;t know, maybe our democratic leaning paper down't have time to investigate it.
What paper are you talking about. I have been looking for a Democrat newspaper from Anderson, it seem like my whole life.
You surly jest if you are talking about that Republican rag the Herald-Bulletin. C'mon Anne, don't play stupid. :jester:
Not playing stupid, I have been reading the Anderson only newspaper and keeping an unofficial record, they endorse more democrats than republicans and publish more opinion pieces against republicans than democrats.
As far as the allegations against Mayor Ockomon, I don't know where they stand. The wheels of justice work slowly, as you would know if you have delt with it. I have a couple friends who used to work for the city, they are retired now. They told me the policy concerning sexual harassment is that it has to be witnessed three separate times to be acted on. That is a very high standard.
Quote from: Anne on March 30, 2011, 05:10:47 PM
Not playing stupid, I have been reading the Anderson only newspaper and keeping an unofficial record, they endorse more democrats than republicans and publish more opinion pieces against republicans than democrats.
As far as the allegations against Mayor Ockomon, I don't know where they stand. The wheels of justice work slowly, as you would know if you have delt with it. I have a couple friends who used to work for the city, they are retired now. They told me the policy concerning sexual harassment is that it has to be witnessed three separate times to be acted on. That is a very high standard.
Read the Editorial page everyday like I do and the Anderson Herald is Republican to the core. Antilabor, antiminimum wage and pro Republican. If they endorsed a Democrat, the Republican candidate was terrible. :yes: :biggrin:
I always thought it was more democrat leaning but most people on here said different so last fall before the elction I started keeping track to see. I counted more democratic endorsements than republicans and more pro democratic editorials by a slight margin. I think we tend to see and remember only the things we disagree with.
Quote from: Anne on March 30, 2011, 08:30:26 PM
I always thought it was more democrat leaning but most people on here said different so last fall before the elction I started keeping track to see. I counted more democratic endorsements than republicans and more pro democratic editorials by a slight margin. I think we tend to see and remember only the things we disagree with.
Anne, I can remember when we first move here, my dad would read the cartoons out of the Herald and the Bulletin, that was when I was three and that was 70 years ago. My dad bitched about the Herald being Republican clear back then. The Bulletin was more independent and Democrat. :yes:
The Anderson businesses started not advertising in the bulletin and it was discontinued. Now we have the Republican Rag, the Anderson Herald/Bulletin. You can count on only half of what you read in it. :yes:
For years and years I have wanted some foreign newspaper to come to Anderson so I could cancel my Herald. I read the front page, the editorial page, the cartoons with Sandy Eggo as Danae in Non Sequitur and the obituaries. The obituary is only to see if I am in it. :wink: :smile:
Outside of occassionaly reading the obituraries, I never read it. It IS pretty much useless.
Troll, I remember the Hearld was a morning paper and the bulletin was an evening paper or vis a versa...am I right?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 31, 2011, 12:11:52 PM
Outside of occassionaly reading the obituraries, I never read it. It IS pretty much useless.
Troll, I remember the Hearld was a morning paper and the bulletin was an evening paper or vis a versa...am I right?
You are right. The Bulletin was an evening paper. I don't know if you call it a Democrat newspaper, but it had a liberal slant. It had one cartoon page.
The Herald was the Republican newspaper. It had two cartoon pages, two pages of the New York stock market prices and lots and lots of advertising. Just look what the Herald/Bulletin has became since GM left Anderson and a lot of people making minimum wage can't afford to buy a newspaper. So much for free trade. :wink: :biggrin:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 31, 2011, 12:11:52 PM
Outside of occassionaly reading the obituraries, I never read it. It IS pretty much useless.
. . .
I only read the obits (on line only) when someone I know has crossed over.
I only read the paper itself (in print form) when they schlep a free copy onto my driveway on Sundays. . . And then, it's only a cursory review consisting mostly of the sale papers for Lowes or Menards when they are included.
The paper in general, I would say, slants to whichever political side holds the reins of power during a given time period. When the republicans held the office of Mayor, it leaned republican. Since the dems have been sitting in the office it has leaned democratic. However, my personal opinion of the paper is it is nothing but dog training material: potty and punish. Once in awhile it makes a good kindling for campfires if you happen to have it laying around somewhere.
It's opinions and editorials are useless propaganda, ( plagiarized for the most part at that), constructed to support its meager revenue stream and nothing more. They ought to rename it the Herald Parrot.
Quote from: Palehorse on March 31, 2011, 07:54:50 PM
I only read the obits (on line only) when someone I know has crossed over.
I only read the paper itself (in print form) when they schlep a free copy onto my driveway on Sundays. . . And then, it's only a cursory review consisting mostly of the sale papers for Lowes or Menards when they are included.
The paper in general, I would say, slants to whichever political side holds the reins of power during a given time period. When the republicans held the office of Mayor, it leaned republican. Since the dems have been sitting in the office it has leaned democratic. However, my personal opinion of the paper is it is nothing but dog training material: potty and punish. Once in awhile it makes a good kindling for campfires if you happen to have it laying around somewhere.
It's opinions and editorials are useless propaganda, ( plagiarized for the most part at that), constructed to support its meager revenue stream and nothing more. They ought to rename it the Herald Parrot.
well said.... :yes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 01, 2011, 04:07:51 PM
well said.... :yes:
Hey BOY, I say Boy! You, you you ain't suppose to hit old Fog Horn. I say Boy, don't hit the chicken! B B Boy!
Always enjoyed watching the adventures of old Foggy and Henry. :biggrin:
Henery name has been here too long on this thread. :biggrin: I want to change it to mine. The Troll :no1: :salute: :flag: :seeya2: :dark:
Quote from: The Troll on April 14, 2011, 10:49:19 PM
Henery name has been here too long on this thread. :biggrin: I want to change it to mine. The Troll :no1: :salute: :flag: :seeya2: :dark:
It time to find a new subject. Let's go. :salute: :tiphat:
Quote from: The Troll on March 30, 2011, 10:52:49 AM
What has happened to all of those sexual harassment charges against the Anderson Mayor. Did she just slink off like a snake. :biggrin:
The EEOC dumped the complaint:
http://www.indiana.statenews.net/story.php?rid=45213653
EEOC dismisses sexual harassment claim against Anderson mayor
Indiana State News.Net
Friday 6th May, 2011 (Source: WXIN)
Anderson, Ind.— The mayor of Anderson announced Friday that he has been cleared of any wrong doing.
Back in January, news came out that Kris Ockomon was being sued for sexual harassment.
Ockomon announced that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has dismissed a complaint filed against him back in 2009.
The mayor also denied the charges. ... Ms. Spencer still claims she's pursuing a civil case in the last news clip I saw about it.
Quote from: Anne on March 30, 2011, 02:10:03 PM
Don;t know, maybe our democratic leaning paper down't have time to investigate it.
Quote from: Anne on March 30, 2011, 05:10:47 PM
Not playing stupid, I have been reading the Anderson only newspaper and keeping an unofficial record, they endorse more democrats than republicans and publish more opinion pieces against republicans than democrats.
As far as the allegations against Mayor Ockomon, I don't know where they stand. The wheels of justice work slowly, as you would know if you have delt with it. I have a couple friends who used to work for the city, they are retired now. They told me the policy concerning sexual harassment is that it has to be witnessed three separate times to be acted on. That is a very high standard.
Quote from: Anne on March 30, 2011, 08:30:26 PM
I always thought it was more democrat leaning but most people on here said different so last fall before the elction I started keeping track to see. I counted more democratic endorsements than republicans and more pro democratic editorials by a slight margin. I think we tend to see and remember only the things we disagree with.
I'd REALLY like to see that research and the sources you used for your tally. ; )
Quote from: Anne on March 30, 2011, 05:10:47 PM
...As far as the allegations against Mayor Ockomon, I don't know where they stand. The wheels of justice work slowly, as you would know if you have delt with it. I have a couple friends who used to work for the city, they are retired now. They told me the policy concerning sexual harassment is that it has to be witnessed three separate times to be acted on. That is a very high standard.
:rolleyes:
A "very high standard"?!?!?!? Jeezus Peezus! Wouldn't it even have to happen multiple times in order to even qualify as 'harassment'? ; )
Just reading the editorials every day during the last election cycle and no I am not going up to the library and go through last fall's papers. If you are that curious go do it yourself. I don't have that much time to waste. Maybe we can see what they do in the election this fall. I think it comes out fairly even as far as the paper itself, the letters to the editor seem to go all Democratic for awhile then swing back to all Republican for awhile. I guess that is just who was a bee in their bonnet at the time. :)
Quote from: Y on May 12, 2011, 03:57:37 PM
:rolleyes:
A "very high standard"?!?!?!? Jeezus Peezus! Wouldn't it even have to happen multiple times in order to even qualify as 'harassment'? ; )
Yes, when it has to be witnessed and documented by three separate people on three separate occasions.
Quote from: Anne on May 12, 2011, 04:02:06 PM
Just reading the editorials every day during the last election cycle and no I am not going up to the library and go through last fall's papers. If you are that curious go do it yourself. I don't have that much time to waste. Maybe we can see what they do in the election this fall. I think it comes out fairly even as far as the paper itself, the letters to the editor seem to go all Democratic for awhile then swing back to all Republican for awhile. I guess that is just who was a bee in their bonnet at the time. :)
That's what I thought - another 'hot air' claim. ; )
Quote from: Y on May 12, 2011, 03:57:37 PM
:rolleyes:
A "very high standard"?!?!?!? Jeezus Peezus! Wouldn't it even have to happen multiple times in order to even qualify as 'harassment'? ; )
Quote from: Anne on May 12, 2011, 04:02:58 PM
Yes, when it has to be witnessed and documented by three separate people on three separate occasions.
Oh really?!?!?
How else would you suggest protecting the innocent person from collusion in false allegations? Surely you must have some clever legal mechanism with which to do that, right? ; )
No amount of proof would satisfy you. Yes I think that is a high standard, one because it is often done away from other people, two it is sometimes done by a person with power over your job and anyone who would be reporting it and three it is a subject many people would rather ignore. The system to protect innocent people is the review system in place.
Quote from: Anne on May 12, 2011, 05:09:33 PM
No amount of proof would satisfy you.
Oh! :biggrin:
Sorry, another of your 'hot air' hypotheticals. ; )
QuoteYes I think that is a high standard, one because it is often done away from other people,
Hmmm. If "it is often done away from other people', then not only is there no proof on which to bring a charge of sexual harassment etc., it is a classic 'he said, she said' matter.
That's not to mention that being done away from people means you - and I mean you - wouldn't have anything factual on which to hang your opinion concerning your description of "often", which makes it another of your 'hot air' hypotheticals. ; )
Quotetwo it is sometimes done by a person with power over your job and anyone who would be reporting it
And that somehow eliminates the possibility of collusion by more than one person who doesn't like their boss? Pfui!
Quoteand three it is a subject many people would rather ignore. The system to protect innocent people is the review system in place.
Really?!?!? Please elaborate on how that system protects innocent people and the means with which it does that.
Seems to have protected Mayor Ockomon.
What kind of proof would satisfy you?
Quote from: Anne on May 12, 2011, 05:37:24 PM
Seems to have protected Mayor Ockomon.
The standards you claim are in place, and that you decry, are apparently what protected Mr. Ockomon. ; )
Quote from: Anne on May 12, 2011, 05:38:09 PM
What kind of proof would satisfy you?
The standards you claim to be in place - and decry - seem to be fine with me.
Twisting words, I never decried the standards in place, you are the one who says sexual harrassment does not exist unless it ends in physical harm.
Quote from: Anne on May 12, 2011, 08:09:46 PM
Twisting words, I never decried the standards in place, you are the one who says sexual harrassment does not exist unless it ends in physical harm.
Pardon me, but let's have at least a little intellectual honesty here.
Your own words:
Quote from: Anne on March 30, 2011, 05:10:47 PM
...As far as the allegations against Mayor Ockomon, I don't know where they stand. The wheels of justice work slowly, as you would know if you have delt with it. I have a couple friends who used to work for the city, they are retired now. They told me the policy concerning sexual harassment is that it has to be witnessed three separate times to be acted on. That is a very high standard.
Quote from: Anne on May 12, 2011, 04:02:58 PM
Yes, when it has to be witnessed and documented by three separate people on three separate occasions.
Quote from: Anne on May 12, 2011, 05:09:33 PM
No amount of proof would satisfy you. Yes I think that is a high standard, one because it is often done away from other people, two it is sometimes done by a person with power over your job and anyone who would be reporting it and three it is a subject many people would rather ignore. The system to protect innocent people is the review system in place.
Every one of those quotes intimates you find the standard in place to be 'too high', meaning you decry those standards in place. Q.E.D.
:biggrin:
<chirp! chirp!>
It certainly IS awful quiet 'round h'yar. :biggrin:
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/28693922/detail.html
Woman Claims Sexual Harassment In Suit Against Mayor
Woman Says She Was Targeted For Firing
ANDERSON, Ind. -- A woman who accused Anderson Mayor Kris Ockomon of sexual harassment filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday that includes lurid details of the allegations she leveled against the mayor.
Teresa Spencer claims that Ockomon attempted to approach her sexually in 2007 and started a campaign to have her fired after determining she was not receptive.
Spencer has worked for Anderson since 1993, serving for a time as Ockomon's executive manager.
In the filing, Spencer claimed Ockomon made sexually suggestive comments about her clothing and appearance.
Spencer claims several people and departments within city government were involved in a plan to oust her and that police officers were asked to "dig up dirt" on her.
Spencer's lawsuit claims that Ockomon asked her to accompany him to an amusement park to "ride his rollercoaster" and to go with him on a trip to Washington, D.C., commenting that he had a hotel room with a bed big enough for both of them.
Spencer claims that Ockomon instructed a city employee to hack into the email system to delete a complaint message she sent him after the hotel request.
Ockomon, who was out of the state on a family matter Thursday, told 6News' Rafael Sanchez by phone that the allegations are false.
"I have never, never engaged in any behavior with any person which could in anyway be remotely be construed as sexual harassment," he said. "I'm fed up with the political, nonstop attacks."
A news conference that Ockomon planned to hold Friday was canceled Thursday.
An Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint that Spencer filed in 2009 was dismissed earlier this year. Spencer said after the EEOC ruling that she planned to file a civil suit.
Spencer declined to comment about the lawsuit and said her attorney is out of town.
Has anyone read the suit? I have, it's a hoot. I'll see if I can find the PDF file.
Here's the link:
http://static.cnhi.zope.net/flashpromo/heraldbulletin/flashpromo/docs/072811_spencerfederalsuit.pdf
True Anderson white trash hillbilly stuff there. I'm surprised this hasn't been all over the media making fun of Anderson.