|
WW
welcomes
letters to the editor via mail, e-mail
or fax. Letters must be signed by the author and include
the author's street address and phone number for verification.
Preference will be given to letters of 250 words or less.
He'll
Be Back
I read your review on End of Days ["End
of Career? Please?" WW, Dec. 1, 1999] and I think
you are full of shit. I agree that Schwarzenegger made bad
choices on Batman and Robin, Jingle All the Way
and Junior. However, I believe your motivation for
hating this film (End of Days) stems from something
else. Nowhere in Hollywood do you ever see a movie where
they even attempt to uphold Christian values. Once I saw
this movie I knew critics everywhere would hate it, only
because Schwarzenegger refuses temptation and turns to God.
Why all of a sudden is it the cool thing to go around hating
God or anything to do with him? Does the rest of the communist
media have that much of an influence over you? You are just
another sheep, following the trend herd. If anyone's career
needs to end, it's yours...there's enough communist reporters
out there, we sure don't need another.
One more thing: About your personal attack on Schwarzenegger:
I guess you're a bigot since you're trashing on his
accent.
Shawn Boyes
Vancouver, Wash.
Square
Stance
WW recently selected Washington County
Commissioner Kim Katsion as the Rogue
of the Week [Dec. 8, 1999] based on her "prudish backstabbing
and sanctimonious politicking" at the expense of Sheriff
Jim Spinden. The explanation that followed was short on
facts and long on conjecture--a state the county contributed
to because of our reluctance to discuss active personnel
matters. Nonetheless, clarification is required.
1. Sheriff Spinden has acknowledged that an e-mail with
clear sexual content and no relation to the workplace was
sent from his county-owned computer to a list of individuals,
including female subordinates within the Sheriff's Department
and Commissioner Katsion.
2. The county's e-mail policy prohibits sending "offensive"
messages and states that the term is to be "broadly defined"
to include any material relating to sexual matters that
are inappropriate in the workplace and make others feel
uncomfortable. The county's anti-harassment policy permits
persons to lodge complaints about inappropriate workplace
conduct with the county administrator, and the law requires
that all such complaints be promptly investigated and addressed.
Both policies have been thoroughly reviewed with county
employees, particularly elected and appointed department
heads.
3. Consistent with these policies, Commissioner Katsion
asked county administration to investigate the sheriff's
e-mail. Certainly she could have taken her complaint directly
to the sheriff, and they might have worked out an understanding.
Unfortunately, this private approach suggests that elected
officials can play by different rules (other county employees
have been sanctioned for similar behavior). And, while the
sheriff may have altered his behavior with Commissioner
Katsion, she was concerned that there was no guarantee that
men and women within his department would enjoy a similar
response.
Instead, the matter was handled consistent with the rules
and policies that govern the behavior of 1,500 county employees,
to ensure a productive work environment free of harassing
or offensive behavior.
4. Following a monthlong investigation, during which the
sheriff accepted responsibility for the e-mail, county staff
proposed sanctions: a letter or apology to his staff and
a week of unpaid leave. Consistent with prior county practice,
the sheriff was also invited to propose an alternative course
of discipline.
5. Instead, the sheriff elected to publicly disclose the
issues via an interview with The Oregonian. Following
his description of the events, he named Commissioner Katsion
as the complainant. It was after this interview that Commissioner
Katsion was contacted by the reporter and offered her first
public remarks on this matter.
Does a sexually implicit e-mail warrant such attention?
The law requires that it not be ignored. Like many employers,
Washington County has had to defend, with taxpayer funds,
numerous claims alleging various forms of harassment and
retaliation. The courts and administrative agencies have
set a high standard for conduct that is acceptable in the
workplace. Liability sometimes is based on an employer's
tolerating "minor offenses" that accumulate into a hostile
environment.
Finally, Washington County supports high standards as a
matter of common decency and in its role as a civic body.
It repeatedly has warned that it takes its legal and moral
obligations to protect employees very seriously. When practice
falls short of the goal, we are obliged to respond.
Charles D. Cameron
County Administrator
Zero
Tolerance
I think you misidentified the culprit when you
identified Kim Katsion as your Dec. 8 issue's Rogue
of the Week.
One of the tests of sexual harrassment involves the level
of tolerance for sexually suggestive materials and comments
established in a given work place. I think I'm safe in assuming
that the workplace culture at Willamette Week is
just a bit different than that of a local government agency
such as Washington County, giving you a very different perspective
on this incident.
You neglect to mention in your piece that Sheriff Spinden
sent the bawdy e-mail to a female subordinate as well. You
include only in passing the sheriff's lame claim that he
doesn't remember sending the e-mail. In The Oregonian
he is quoted as saying that, since he can never remember
his password , he leaves his computer on all the time. He
goes on to suggest that "anyone" could have sneaked into
his office to send the e-mail. It's hard to imagine the
motive of the alleged intruder, who also sent the e-mail
to each of the sheriff's family members!
I enjoy bawdy humor. (I read Willamette Week, don't
I?) But not delivered through my employer's electronic mail
system, through such an impersonal delivery as e-mail, to
subordinates, and not to a co-worker I don't know well enough
to be sure they'll share my sense of humor. One person's
bawdy humor is another's sexual harrassment claim. Materials
such as the sheriff's e-mail look quite different when read
into the court record as "Exhibit A" in the midst of litigation.
In today's climate of heightened sensitivity to sexually
harassing behavior, and the very real threat of employer
liability for employees' conduct, the sheriff's e-mail may
not have been wildly offensive, but it sure was stupid.
As a department director, what kind of example is he setting
for the rank and file? As an elected official, and not a
county employee, the sheriff enjoys impunity for his violation
of the county's e-mail policy. This creates a dilemma for
the county in dealing with employees' future infractions
of its employee code of conduct, which seeks simply to ensure
a respectful work place and to avoid litigation.
Actually, I'm more offended by the sheriff's response once
he was questioned about his e-mail than I am about the e-mail
itself!
Jessica Lewis
Southwest 35th Avenue
Out
of Bounds
I cannot believe that you gave "Rogue
of the Week" to Washington County Commissioner Kim Katsion
essentially for "not getting the joke" [Dec. 8, 1999]. Or
was it because she objected to women being referred to "the
owner of the hole" and their bodies as "well formed bunkers"
and "the back nine"? Or was it because she complained to
the county counsel, whose job it is to investigate claims
of wrongdoing by county officials? Who was she to complain
to--the cops? That's who sent the offensive e-mail in the
first place. You suggest that some sexual jokes in the work
place are OK, even helpful, and some are not. How do we
decide? The answer is: We shouldn't have to. The Anita Hill/Clarence
Thomas episode taught us at least that unsolicited sexual
jokes have no place at work, no matter what degree of offensiveness.
The real question is: What the hell was Washington County's
highest law-enforcement officer doing in the first place
sending sexual e-mails to his co-workers over a publicly
owned computer system? You got the wrong Rogue.
Jim Strupp
Southeast Miller Street
Different
Strokes
I just read your Rogue of the
Week column [Dec. 8, 1999], and I'm puzzled by your
extreme position against a woman (whom I don't know) who
was the recipient of an e-mail that is unquestionably offensive.
Why is it that this woman should not be allowed to be offended?
I don't get it.
Equating sex with a game of golf and comparing a woman's
body part to a golf "hole" and a man's body part to a golf
"club" may not offend the crude and unrefined, but there
are some people in this world who find this kind of humor
sophomoric, obvious and a waste of time.
I am open-minded and believe in free speech, but it bothers
me to think that a public official has the time and lack
of judgment to send an e-mail that is disrespectful and
very inappropriate for the work place.
Believe it or not, dear editors, there are people in this
world who have the ability to discern when it's appropriate
to tell a "dirty" joke. If I am visiting my grandparents,
I'm not going to pass on a joke like "The Rules of Bedroom
Golf." I respect them and wouldn't want to offend them.
Obviously the editors at WW would tell this joke
anywhere, anytime, to anyone--and if someone is offended,
they are "prudish, backstabbing and sanctimonious." You
are basically saying that no one has any right to be offended
by any joke that the editors of WW deem appropriate.
I think it is you who have "saddled up" and ridden "roughshod"
on politeness, consideration, delicacy and the subtle rules
of respectful interaction that I would hope the majority
of us practice.
I can also assure you that if any dean at Antioch College
sent this to the students, it would not be viewed as a good
move. I'd bet money on that.
C.L. Wooldridge
Southwest Fifth Avenue
Fair
Bargain
An article in the Dec. 1, 1999, issue of Willamette
Week, entitled "Nursing a
Grudge," implied the contract negotiation process for
the nurses at Oregon Health Sciences University was tainted.
As members of the nurses' negotiation team, we felt an explanation
of our process was in order.
The bylaws of the Association of University Registered
Nurses, the nurses' bargaining unit at OHSU, require the
bargaining unit chair to be on the negotiating team, but
the chair does not function as its chief spokesperson. This
year that person was Linda Pesanti. The remaining team members
who volunteered were solicited due to their interest, specialty,
and previous experience. Since working through new contract
language sometimes results in grievances, four of the team
members also served on the grievance committee.
Our negotiation team is made up of staff nurses and our
professional labor representative from ONA. Some nurses
are appointed by our bylaws and others volunteer for the
team from different specialty areas of the hospital and
clinics. This year we had nine members and two alternates
from the following represented areas: the Clinics, the Intensive
Care Unit (ICU), the Emergency Department (ED), Perioperative
Services (OR and Recovery), Medical/Surgical Department,
Psychiatric, Mother Baby/Labor and Delivery, Case Management
and the Pediatric units. Management chooses its team completely
independently from the union, and always with full knowledge
of who will sit on the union's team. Our election of Linda
Pesanti occurred months before negotiations and long before
the management team was chosen. In your article David Shaff,
a manager for the City of Portland, stated, "There needs
to be an arm's length relationship...I wouldn't do it, I
would never put the city in that position." The question
that must be raised is why did OHSU managers put these negotiations
in that position?
We as a negotiating team respect our bargaining unit chair
for her integrity and ability to articulate the nurses'
issues and financial needs. Moreover, as members of that
team we worked diligently and responsibly for seven months
to ensure an equitable and fair process and result.
MEMBERS OF THE 1999 AURN NEGOTIATING TEAM:
Renee Bisonnette
Deborah Churchill
Merle Clark
Michael Eisele
Harold Fleshman
Dominga Lopez
Linda Pesanti
Susanna Rhodes
Rosie Stott
Minor
Headache
Once again you've brought to light that remodeling
Civic Stadium is more of a headache than it's worth ["The
'Burbs Strike Back," WW, Dec. 1, 1999]. But you've
failed to mention that there's only one way to stop the
City Council's minor-league baseball madness, and that is
to level the stadium and put in a park. It could be the
cornerstone of a West Burnside Redevelopment District. The
alternative, propping up a dead Civic deal, will only force
the city to go through this insanity again in 25 years when
PFE's contract runs out. At that time people will rage at
the absurdity of bringing minor-league baseball to a major-league
city.
Bill Kidd
Northwest Orchard Drive
Big
O-missions
Thanks to Nigel Jaquiss for providing a much-needed
corrective ["Seven Deadly
Omissions," Buzz, WW, Dec. 1, 1999] to the Big
O's glorification of Andrew Wiederhorn. Tom Hallman was
given so much space to celebrate how that fast-buck scam
artist travels, eats and tells time, I guess there wasn't
enough left to mention the darker consequences of his rise
and fall. Well before Wiederhorn's collapse, Hallman was
already fixated by the Gulfstream, the Rolex, the Lincolns,
the infamous Gearhart estate and the Armani suits when he
puffed "The $100 Million Dad" in November 1997.
In addition to the federal "cease and desist" order against
Wiederhorn's California banks that Jaquiss cited, why wasn't
there space for how his bankruptcy affected efforts to rehab
[Civic] Stadium? Does his dismissive attitude toward investors
he conned out of their money reflect his contempt for the
Gearhart community--which he fenced off from their traditional
beach access (see the letter you ran from Wes Taft [Jan.
20, 1999] about your cover story in January ["Ask Andrew
Wiederhorn," Jan. 13, 1999])? And isn't his obsession with
fences also reflected in his support of the Portland French
School, which also angered its neighbors by building one?
Hallman's unbalanced and unexamined treatment would more
appropriately appear in a celebrity cult magazine than in
a serious newspaper. Congrats to you for challenging the
role model the Big O and its resident Wiederhorn flack foisted
on our community.
Michael Munk
Southeast 44th Avenue
Once
A Pedophile
Andrew Vachss and I have a couple of things in
common ["The Haunted World of
Andrew Vachss," Nov. 17, 1999]. We're both from New
York, and we came to Oregon with New York attitudes. Vachss
is enraged; I am outraged.
Aside from these things, we're opposites. While Vachss,
his ego and his wallet have gotten fat from his "moral crusade"
against pedophiles, I, as a former pedophile, live a marginalized
life with my true identity concealed. Why? Thanks to--to
borrow a term--predators like Vachss who build status
and notoriety by stereotyping and demonizing sex offenders
who have no resources through which they can defend themselves
and their commitment to get on with their lives as mature,
productive citizens, having learned from their wrong actions.
Somehow, it has become a legitimatized, uncontested social
conclusion that all pedophiles are uncontrollable "addicts,"
pitifully forever fighting their "urges." I suppose people's
conclusions about pedophiles as walking time bombs, due
to recidivate sooner or later, cannot be surprising, given
that the only time we ever hear about one is when he is
in the news because he has recidivated. Small wonder: What's
in it for the person who has led a responsible and clean
life for the past decade to voluntarily stand up and say,
"I was an offender too, and I no longer engage in contact
with children"--except to expect a reaction of disbelief
and ridicule? For all the lip-service paid to the premise
that we (society) really want our ex-cons to be rehabilitated
and no longer act out and create new victims, one would
never know it by the way society reacts to the former child
molester, once his identity has been revealed: Now he's
"one of them," a social leper, carrying somebody's diagnosis
of forever "addicted."
I came to Oregon at the end of 1989 to make a fresh start
following incarceration, parole and offender treatment.
I began attending a local worship group and voluntarily
disclosed my deviant and criminal background before the
group. Things have never been the same since.
Some members declared that they could not worship in the
same room as I. Others required that I be excluded from
relaxed social functions, since children might be there,
and only be allowed to attend the Sunday worship gathering
with an adult chaperone on either side of me. Instead of
trust building, polarization increased. Even after I left,
self-anointed vigilantes ensured that I was "outed" and
ejected from several other religious, healing and social
groups. In each case, there was a virtually identical process
that followed the revelation of my background, predictable
as the fallout from a nuclear explosion.
If you deny the pedophile the challenge to change his behaviors
through an opportunity to bond with adults in a community
and instead ostracize him, your sense of "safety" will be
confined only to the one incidence in which you are dealing
with the person whose identity has been revealed to you.
In a more lasting sense, you have done your share to send
the former offender back into a cycle of recidivism. If
former offenders' need to connect with adults and community
is rejected, some of them are likely to revert to reaching
out to those with whom they already know they can gain a
response: children who, like the former offender, may feel
unequal and powerless.
If someone asks me why I know I will not re-offend, my
response may not be the answer your readers are looking
for. I am not going to place myself in compromising situations
(contact with kids) which could cause me to re-offend because
I do not want you to be able to say, "I told you
so!" You may well not like my reason, but you had damn well
better listen to it. It's an honest reason.
Sadly, it seems to be an innate human need to feel superior
to our fellow beings by reviling and belittling them. It
wasn't all that long ago that we regarded any AIDS carrier
as a walking threat to society, capable of infecting an
innocent merely by sharing a drinking glass or fountain
with them. We have not yet evolved to be enlightened beyond
bigotry; we have only shifted the focus of whom to hate
and feel superior to. The reader may not like the former
pedophile --I may not like many of them myself--but he needs
to allow that person to change behaviors and become a positive,
contributing member of society.
Walter Jeremy
Southeast Portland
Walter Jeremy (a pseudonym) served four and a half
years in a Western state penitentiary for sexual assault
on a child.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Willamette Week | originally
published December 15,
1999
|
