102 War Memorial Building Jeremy Durham 11111152 Ghamh?r Nashville, TN 37243?0231 State lepr?sefitative 1-800-449-8366 ext. 44173 65 Detect giant nf ?rmware (615) 741- 1864 Franklin, Spring Hill, Thompson's fax (615) 253-0228 Station, and Fairview rep .jeremy. durham@capitol . tn . gov September 12, 2016 Fellow Members, Let me take this opportunity to address certain matters that have been sensationalized for months and may now leave you in the difficult position of not knowing all the facts. I have tried to maintain my silence in hopes of protecting my family and avoiding any further distractions to my colleagues. First, let me be clear this has never been about maintaining a monetary pension that I won?t receive for another 23 years. Nor is this is about my political career, which I voluntarily relinquished months ago. My sole motivation in this letter is to maintain my innocence, stand on the constitutional conservative principles that I took an oath and was duly elected to defend, while protecting due process rights for both myself and future members. In America, we are innocent until proven guilty. In America, we receive a fair trial and that does not mean trial by media or trial by unsubstantiated hearsay from anonymous sources (most of whom possess obvious conflicts of interest). In America, we are entitled to due process. In America, we possess the right to face our accusers. A fair process consistent with those principles is all I desire but no such process has occurred. At the very least, we as members should take seriously our responsibility to hold our leaders accountable to the same rules and laws which we all promised to uphold and protect. And while I stand ready to respond to specific accusations and accept a mild degree of fault, I must also address the reprehensible nature of how this entire situation was handled. Dangerous Precedent If members can be expelled based solely upon anonymous sources, and without any form of legitimate due process, any member who opposes House leadership could easily suffer the same fate. Remember, the Attorney General ?Report? is nothing more than a collection of anonymous hearsay not just hearsay anonymous hearsay. As you will read in this Response, people accused of sexual harassment are entitled to a "fair hearing? which never occurred. The policy doesn't say to launch an overly?broad Attorney General investigation. It says they receive a "fair hearing.? Speaker Harwell also ignored House rules and launched an Attorney General investigation more than one week prior to the day the ad hoc committee ever executed a document authorizing any type of investigation. (see attachment 1) This type of unbridled authority is dangerous. We have a process in place to handle sexual harassment and everything that occurred during this entire ordeal flies in the face of the process we all voted on and we all agreed to utilize. If the existing process isn?t sufficient, change it - but don?t retroactively deprive someone of rights guaranteed to them under the House rules. Unfortunately, that?s exactly what has happened. Attorney General Admitted that NO Direct Evidence was Found that my Vote was ever Influenced The last time the General Assembly expelled a member, the person was convicted of Attempted Bribery. Even after all those countless interviews, page 10 of the AG Report states, ?No direct evidence was presented to the Office that Rep. Durham?s vote was actually affected by a lobbyist?s response.? This fact alone, along with not ever being even charged with a crime or ever being the subject of any formal complaint, creates a glaring contrast in comparison between me and the last individual to be expelled. That same person had also received a fair trial in Carter County. Campaign Finance The reason for a discrepancy between the balance shown by the Registry of Election Finance and my actual bank account is due to investments. If I did not presently need the money, I allowed most of the funds to generate interest. And although it would seem difficult to understand based upon print media reports, the erroneous claim that I paid $2000 to my company from my campaign account has already been disproven. (see Attachment 2) Regardless, the audit is not yet complete and it would thus seem premature to act at least based upon any campaign finance issue - until the audit is finished and I receive the opportunity to address any findings. That?s the only fair thing to do. Furthermore, even if the erroneous claim had been true, several legislators have previously been forced to repay money to their campaigns and faced no further action. Sexual Harassment Policy In the Tennessee General Assembly, we have a sexual harassment policy. House Rules specifically reference the policy in Rule 82. The relevant part of the policy states, "in no event will information concerning a complaint be released to anyone who is not involved with the investigation. Nor will anyone involved be permitted to discuss the subject outside the The purpose of this provision is to protect the confidentiality of the person who files a complaint, to encourage the reporting of any incidents of sexual harassment, and to protect the reputation of any person wrongfully charged with sexual harassment.? (see attachment 3) Sound familiar? It shouldn?t because that?s the exact opposite ofwhat House leadership did. How in the world House attorneys can ethically justify this blatant violation of House rules is beyond imagination. Their argument for everything imaginable seems to be that the House can do what they want. 0k. First of all, House leadership does not equal a constitutional majority of House members, but if House leadership can do whatever they want, why do we even have rules? The policy also states that, "Each person is guaranteed an impartial and fair hearing.? Obviously, both these principles were completely disregarded, which allowed me to be convicted in the media without any form of due process and helped create the situation where we all find ourselves today. The process also requires the filing of a formal written complaint yet another basic requirement which was completely disregarded. Constitutionality in Question #1 Article Section 9 Rather than having an attorney employed by a political adversary cite their opinion an opinion not supported by a single court case in Tennessee history and an illogical stretch of a 30-year-old Attorney General Opinion I encourage members to read the text themselves. You don?t have to be an attorney to figure out what it means. After all, members are the people who must raise their right hands and take an oath to protect the US. and Tennessee Constitutions. Article Section 9 reads: "He (the Governor) may, an extraordinary occasions, convene the General Assembly by proclamation, in which he shall state specifically the purposes for which they are to convene; but they shall enter on no legislative business except that for which they were specifically called together. There are plenty of places where the Constitution says we shall "make no or other distinctions. In this instance, the Constitution uses the broader "shall enter on no legislative business? language. If removing a member of the General Assembly is not legislative business, why is it something that has only rarely been done since the Civil War? To address the very dated Attorney General Opinion, such an act is also certainly not "procedural" regardless of whether the body possesses absolute authority over the matter because it almost never happens. Procedural actions are actions you must do to deliberate the focus of the Governor?s proclamation not matters which are optional, effectuate the force of law and undo the final two months of a two-year term which resulted from a fair and valid election. And let?s be clear, a vote for expulsion is a vote to overturn an election. Doing so would take away the votes of my constituents who duly elected me to serve a full two?year term not a term of one year and 10 months. Undoing the votes of 74% of district 65 is hardly a procedural matter, but serious legislative business. Constitutionality in Question #2 the Ad Hoc Committee Even if someone believes that the Speaker of the House does possess the authority to handpick four House members who can then, without a constitutional majority, take a constitutional power held by the entire House of Representatives and delegate it to another branch of state government, what was the purpose of the ad hoc committee considering the committee did NOT recommend expulsion and we then do it anyway? What other committee in the House has ever NOT recommended a bill or resolution for passage, but we passed it anyway? None come to mind. The Attorney General Supposedly Providing Me a Chance to Tell My Side The seemingly prevailing notion that I was somehow granted a reasonable opportunity to tell the Attorney General my side of the story is completely false. My attorney nor I were ever given any specific information regarding any allegation until the report was released to the public. We were willing to speak to the Attorney General if they provided reasonable ground rules but the Attorney General refused to tell us even the slightest detail about any possible allegation. They simply told us we could "read the newspaper.? A direct quote from my attorney states, "We did n't ?refuse? to talk; we just said we needed fair ground rules.? (see attachment4) As an attorney, it would be foolish -- and likely grounds for malpractice to send a client to communicate with an investigator if the investigators refuse to provide any information regarding what the investigators will ask especially if they likely want the client to recall text messages or statements from multiple years ago. The entire reason I preserved all my text messages on a cloud was so I could assist in the investigation but the truth is that the Attorney General?s Office was more interested in an ambush than any form of truth-finding mission. This is the same Attorney General that released its Report two days prior to Early Voting and would never tell my attorney one specific allegation before we read them in the media. How could there have possibly been a legitimate investigation if one side didn?t know the specific allegations before the investigation was published? Also worth noting is that my attorney repeatedly asked but was denied the opportunity to address our concerns with the ad hoc committee. Curiously, we were told that our concerns were denied by Speaker Harwell not by the committee itself. Inaccurate Public Quotes I must also address some of quotes which have been made public. Yes, it sells more newspapers, but the statement that I?m accused of "inappropriate sexual contact? with 22 women is bogus. No rational human being could read the report and actually believe that is true. Texting someone ?what?s up?? or having a conversation with a lobbyist, in the presence of my wife, and offering a simple verbal compliment can hardly be considered inappropriate conduct. Also false is the notion that I ?sexually harassed? 22 women. That statement is simply not supported by facts, and several Jane Does do not work anywhere remotely near the Capitol. Why then were they even included in this report? And why did investigators speak to a male who worked for my private company in Franklin? Because the investigation was a fishing expedition designed to collect as many allegations as possible no matter how bogus they were to achieve a desired purpose. Had we been presented with the allegation of moving $2000 from my campaign to my title company, such a claim could have easily even disproven (as is the case now). Even if you choose to believe literally every word of anonymous hearsay contained in the Attorney General Report (which is impossible because several individuals actually contradict themselves), you could only claim that I?m accused of having consensual "sexual contact? with one individual who did not even work in or around the Capitol, making it irrelevant to the investigation. Interestingly enough, since making these anonymous false accusations, she has coincidentally been rewarded with new employment by the State. Zero ofthe 22 Jane Does remotely fit any definition of sexual harassment. Even if you somehow believe the definition of sexual harassment is satisfied by the anonymous testimony of one or more Jane Does, a sexual harassment complaint process exists and running to the media and talking anonymously is not that process. None of the individuals followed the process and filed a complaint. If rumors and hearsay are enough to remove members of the House, we may eventually not have enough members to reach a quorum. Sexual Harassment Defined The Tennessee General Assembly Sexual Harassment Policy states: "Sexual harassment is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and it is against the policy of the Tennessee General Assembly for any employee, male or female, to sexually harass another employee by 0. Making unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature as a condition of employment, or continued employment, or b. Making submission to or rejections of such conduct the basis for administrative decisions affecting employment, or c. Creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment by such conduct. (shown in attachment 3) Sexual Harassment Definition Applied For the past four years, I?ve only had three male assistants and one male intern, making all three definitions literally impossible. How then could I make anything conditional on a female?s employment (as required by section I also do not possess the power to make any administrative decisions based on any female?s employment (as required by section And "such conduct? in section c. refers to the conduct contained sections a. and therefore, section c. cannot be applicable, either. It follows that I could not have possibly "sexually harassed? any of the individuals in the Report. It is a legally impossibility. Sexual Harassment Statute of Limitations According to the Tennessee Human Rights Commission, the statute of limitations for sexual harassment is 180 days from the date of the incident. Not only has no complaint been filed today, literally every single encounter would?ve been time-barred at the time the Attorney General Report was released. So, according to Tennessee law, no action could even legally be brought. Why do we have the statute of limitations? Because, after a certain period of time elapses, it?s simply unfair to make someone respond to accusations and that?s yet another problem with the process House leadership used. Again, if my conduct was truly reprehensible, why did not one single person file a complaint right away? Remember, according to our Tennessee General Assembly Sexual Harassment Policy, complaints are anonymous, too. It was not until House leadership ignored House rules, repeatedly escalated media reports and allowed the situation to become a pure media spectacle before the overwhelming majority of these women ever made accusations -- and that was also only after being summoned to the Attorney General?s office and strongly encouraged to do so (see attachment 5). The Attorney General Report Sewing as ?Evidence? There is nothing about the Attorney General Report that remotely complies with the Tennessee Rules of Evidence. Not only is it entirely hearsay, the Jane Does are anonymous and were not subject to cross- examination. The Attorney General can make their Report look as and extensive as at they want, but it has NO more legal significance than a fancy collection of rumors (aka zero). Though difficult to determine this fact by reading the Attorney General Report, very few individuals produced actual text messages. Rather, the report routinely used misleading quotation marks when individuals merely recalled what they thought they remembered a text to say. The Report also quoted statements as fact from declarants who had no personal knowledge of situations and could only rely upon hearsay. Having preserved my text messages on a cloud, per their request, I could have easily disproven many of these allegations (and still can but I need a fair hearing). Despite my attorney?s request, the Attorney General would not allow me to defend myself by providing any specific allegations to which I could respond before the Report was released to the public. Jane Does Possess Conflicts of Interest Of the 16 Jane Does who are lobbyists, 13 either lobby for unions or lobbied to support Medicaid Expansion and, thus, possessed a clear motive to see me removed from office. As many of you know, I was the prime sponsor of the legislation which for now stopped Medicaid Expansion, I carried multiple pro-business (?anti-union?) bills, and was primary sponsor of the bill to help reign in taxpayer- funded lobbying. As the AG Report stated, "No direct evidence was presented to the Office that Rep. Durham's vote was actually affected by a lobbyist?s response,? It was quite the opposite, actually, as I was not beholden to any special interest group and, not shockingly, the majority of these Jane Does are lobbyists who represent the exact same special interest groups that I routinely fought against. Another Jane Doe is now ironically employed by a large healthcare entity that strongly supports Medicaid Expansion and actively raised money to defeat me. Leadership?s Inconsistent Statements Let me be clear that Speaker Harwell nor Leader McCormick ever once approached me about any conduct issues. In one heated phone conversation, Leader McCormick took a jab at me saying "people say you can?t keep your in your pants? but he never seriously approached me to address any conduct. Any claim to the contrary is simply untrue. If my conduct was so reprehensible, wouldn?t these issues have come to light in my contentious leadership election? After all, most of the complaints involve conduct that allegedly occurred during my first term not my second term. Speaker Harwell also made two separate statements that cannot both be true. First, she said that she sent Connie Ridley to speak to me regarding my behavior. Next, she said knew nothing of this supposed behavior. These statements seem mutually exclusive but the media has never done theirjob and pressed the issue. In leadership, it?s extremely important to be consistent and for others to clearly understand your position. My family needed that consistency in order to plan and make the appropriate decisions for our future. During this horrific process, Speaker Harwell first just said I should resign. She then, before any report had ever even been officially launched, said I would be expelled. However, when the AG Report came out, she said she respected the decision of the ad hoc committee (which she created) to not recommend expulsion and let the voters decide. It was at THIS time, not before, that my family decided I would suspend my campaign. As I stated at the time, this was not an admission of guilt, but it was clear that I had been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion literally hours before early voting started, and would have no chance to adequately respond to my voters. Still, my family and I took Speaker Harwell at her word, expecting her to lay her weapons down, as stepped away from my re? election campaign. Not even a week later, she decides we need a special session to expel me, based upon information readily available to her throughout the entire situation. Once again, she responds to media reports and changes her mind -- to the detriment of my family and this legislative body. After the petition drive failed, she said I would finish my term, yet here we are again discussing expulsion by stretching the constitutionality of a Special Session. Attorney for Jane Does Made Strong Point Let me be clear, I?m here asking for a fair trial, but I can?t help but agree with some ofthe quotes made by an attorney for one of the Jane Does. "Anyone pushing to move forward on a legislative session that?s likely doing so for their own political purposes, my client is not a pawn in your political game, and it needs to stop,? Teets said. "You can?t show up wearing a cape and acting as a savior when you sat there years ago and were aware of the culture and did nothing,? he said. At this point, an expulsion proceeding clearly seems more about scoring political points than righting any wrongs. As demonstrated above, even the attorney for one of the Jane Does doesn't want the topic discussed publicly and views an expulsion process as purely grandstanding. Due to the way this situation has been handled, my family finds itself in the position of wanting to largely clear my name by releasing names and text messages of many Jane Does while also wanting to not make the situation a bigger circus than it has already become. I?ve prepared a document responding to each and every Jane Doe with names and with text messages stored on a cloud. But that process should be handled according to House rules not in a public expulsion proceeding. (see Attachment 6) My Attendance My understanding is that I will not receive any form of due process and will merely serve as a political instrument for election year grandstanding. I?m even under the impression that multiple legislators nearly came to blows over who could present the resolution to expel me from the body. Since I believe all that to be true, I currently do not plan to attend the session but I reserve the right to change my mind. If House leadership changes its position, chooses to respect the House rules and institutes some level of fundamental fairness, I am more than happy to take part in a fair proceeding. But until that happens, I plan right now is to stay away in protest of what has truly been a fundamentally unfair situation. If any member would like to reach me, lam happy to address any questions or concerns. lam also not far from the Capitol if anyone wishes to sit down. Sincerely, 7% Jeremy R. Durham Subpoena power outlined for Du rham investigation Dave Boucher, dboucher@tennesseatmom 6:21 CSTFebruarji' 8, 2016 The Tennessee attorney general may subpoena a wide array of information for the investigation into embattled Rep. Jeremy Durham that is formally underway. A special committee of the House unanimously approved a resolution Monday that designates the attorney general as investigative counsel, calling on him "to conduct a full, fair, and thorough investigation of the allegations of disorderly and inappropriate behavior and misconduct by Representative Durham." (photo?nde Ne?eS/The Committee Chairman Steve McDaniel, R?Parkers Crossroads, described the adoption of the resolution as a Tennessean) first step. But it's the latest action in a series of events stemming from a Tennessean investigation into inappropriate text messages and issues with the legislature's sexual harassment policy. ATennessean investigation found three women who said they had received inappropriate text messages sent from Durham's cellphone. Two provided text messages to The Tennessean and the third described the messages. Durham, R-Franklin, has told The Tennessean he can't remember sending any such messages, and denies sexually harassing anyone. But he's resigned as House Majority Whip and from the House Republican caucus in the wake of the investigation. and GOP leaders including Gov. Bill Haslam, Tennessee Republican Party Chairman Ryan Haynes and House Speaker Beth Harwell want him to resign from the legislature. After Durham said he had no plans to resign. Harwell announced she was exploring ways to expel him from the House. Attorney General Herbert Slatery's investigation is expected to factor into whether the House moves forward with those proceedings. "We recognize the importance of this matter to the (special) committee and to the full House. Everyone has one goal to ensure a thorough and fair investigation while respecting the process and those involved," Slatery said. Asked what constituted a full, fair and thorough investigation, McDaniel said, "you tell me, I don't know." "You would expect that they would follow every lead that they might have, and see what the response and what the results will be," McDaniel added. Although the committee voted 4-0 to allow the attorney general to start the investigation, Slatery spokesman Harlow Summerford said the office started working on the investigation in late January at the request of the speaker. The committee includes Rep. Andy Farmer, R-Sevierville; Rep. Raumesh Akbari, D-Memphis; and Rep. Billy Spivey, R-Lewisburg. On Friday Farmer said the scope of Slatery's investigation "could be huge." "Something like this could turn into phone records. emails. It could be a big investigation, potentially. I'm concerned about that a little bit because it could open Pandora's box here," Farmer told The Tennessean. The resolution specifically says the attorney general may subpoena "to enforce the attendance of witnesses and the production of any records, documents, papers, or other items of evidence." Although the resolution also said the committee has subpoena power, McDaniel said he didn't envision the committee assisting the investigation. There's no time frame as to when Slatery may issue his findings. McDaniel said it could take one month or six months. Summerford said there's no estimate as to when the investigation may be completed. "Whatever the attorney general determines, then we'll look at what he's found. If there's something then we need to take action on, that's when we'll be looking at that. So right now, I really don't know until the investigation's complete what the committee's action might be," McDaniel said. Earlier in the day, Tennessee Democratic Party Chairwoman Mary Mancini blasted GOP leadership and what she considers the limited scope of the committee's investigation. Mancini, and Democrats in the House, have argued Slatery should investigate whether House Republican leadership acted appropriately when they learned of allegations or rumors pertaining to Durham's behavior. Harwell, House Majority Leader Gerald McCormick and GOP Caucus Chairman Glen Casada have all said they knew of rumors or allegations months ahead of The Tennessean investigation. egg?" OF TENNESSEE BUREAU OF ETHICS AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REGISTRY OF ELECTION FINANCE 404 JAMES ROBERTSON PARKWAY, SUITE 104 NASHVILLE, TN 37243-1360 (615) 741-7959 BOARD MEMBERS Fax: (615) 532'8905 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Tom Lawless, Nashville, Chairperson Drew Rawlins Tom Morton. Bristol, Secretary Henry Fincher, Cookeville Patricia Heim, Nashville Norma Memphis MEMORANDUM DATE: August 10, 2016 TO: Registry Board FROM: Registry Staff RE: Rep. Durham Audit Update 1. No receipts or invoices for expenditures. The only documentation for expenditures (reported and unreported) are: a. For expenses paid directly from the campaign bank account - bank statements and cancelled checks were provided. b. For expenditures charged to Rep. Durham?s personal credit card - campaign provided credit card statements. c. For expenditures not paid directly from campaign bank account or credit card - there is no documentation other than notation on credit card statements when Rep. Durham calculates the amount to reimburse himself for credit card and other expenditures. 2. A $2,000 expenditure reported to Benton Smith on Rep. Durham's Mid~Year 2015 Supplemental report appears to have not been paid directly from Rep. Durham's campaign account based on the records we have been provided. 3. Approximately $10,000 in unitemized contributions (contributions of $100 or less from a single source during a reporting period) appear to have not been reported. 4. Based on documentation provided by the campaign it appears the following "investments" were made with campaign funds: a. Campaign funds, PAC funds and personal funds were invested with Company A. There are several promissory notes for these investments. Interest and principal payments have been made on these investments. We are receiving additional information from Company A to determine the amount of the investments, source of investments and to whom payments were made A "Promissory Note/Line of Credit Agreement? between Rep. Durham and his campaign was provided (dated October 15, 2014). The document states the line of credit maximum is $30,000 and will pay 2.5% interest. Records provided indicate that Rep. Durham has received $25,000 from his campaign account and has paid his campaign back $15,000. There was no indication of interest paid. (Note: there is an additional $5,000 payment from Rep. Durham to the campaign that took place before the line of credit agreement). An unsigned" Promissory Note? between Individual and Rep. Durham in the amount of $23,800 was provided. The document states that no interest will be payable if payment in full is received by February 1, 2016. Thereafter, interest will accrue at 10%. The agreement does not mention Rep. Durham?s campaign account. Documentation provided shows three (3) checks totaling $29,800 (October and November 2015) were written from Rep. Durham?s campaign account to individual B. Records do not indicate that any funds have been repaid. Documents provided show that a $10,000 check from Rep. Durham?s campaign account to Company cleared on December 3, 2014. A copy of the check has "investment" denoted on it. There is no documentation for this investment. 5. A blank check in the amount of $7,500 cleared on January 13, 2016. There is no documentation for this check. 6. Rep. Durham?s campaign bank account showed a balance of $6,856.71 on March 31, 2016. The ending balance reported on Rep. Durham?s Amended 1St Quarter campaign financial disclosure report, filed on June 6, 2016, is $198,253.98. At this time a determination cannot be made as to the accuracy of Rep. Durham?s campaign balance due to investments, failure to report contributions and other transactions. SEXUAL HARASSMENT POLICY The General Assembly is committed to creating and maintaining a work environment in which all Members and employees are treated with respect and are free from sexual harassment. The General Assembly fully supports the protection and safeguard of the rights and opportunities of all people to seek, obtain and hold employment without subjection to sexual harassment in the work place. Sexual harassment by a Member or an employee of the General Assembly is prohibited. Any employee or Member of the General Assembly who believes that he or she has been the subject of sexual harassment should immediately report the alleged act to his or her supervisor or to the Director of Legislative Administration. All complaints will be handled in a timely and completely confidential manner. Information concerning the complaint and/or any subsequent investigation will, in no event, be released to anyone not directly involved in this investigation. Tennessee General Assembly Sexual Harassment Policy The Tennessee General Assembly, pursuant to the provisions of Public Chapter 307 of the Public Acts of 1993 3?13-101 is committed to creating and maintaining a work environment in which all members and employees are treated with respect and are free from sexual harassment. To this end, sexual harassment by a member or employee of the General Assembly is prohibited. The goal of this policy is to ensure that all complaints of sexual harassment will be thoroughly, and respectfully handled. - Reporting and investigative procedures are designed to encourage members and employees to report what they believe to be sexual harassment. - Complaints, investigations, and resolutions will be handled discreetly, with information being kept confidential. - Retaliation will not be tolerated against any person who complains, reports or testifies about sexual harassment, or participates in an investigation of sexual harassment complaint. - Disciplinary action will follow when appropriate. All those involved in the legislative process have a responsibility to contribute to a respectful work environment. The Tennessee General Assembly encourages, expects, and appreciates cooperation in implementing this policy. I. POLICY The Tennessee General Assembly as part of its affirmative action efforts for the legislative branch of government and pursuant to the guidelines on sex discrimination issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), fully supports the protections and safeguard of the rights and opportunities of all people to seek, obtain and hold employment without subjection to sexual harassment of any kind in the work place. The Office of Legislative Administration shall administer this policy in order to ensure that the legislative branch of government provides an environment free of sexual harassment. The Tennessee General Assembly acknowledges that the question of whether a particular action or incident is of a purely personal or social nature, without a discriminatory employment affect, requires an extensive determination based on all the facts in each case. The General Assembly recognizes that false accusations of sexual harassment can have serious effects on innocent individuals. We also recognize that there are other options available to a complainant and courses of action that he or she may pursue. The General Assembly trusts that all employees of the legislature will continue to act responsibly to establish and maintain a pleasant working environment for all. II. DEFINITIONS 1. Sexual harassment is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and it is against the policy of the Tennessee General Assembly for any employee, male or female, to sexually harass another employee by a. Making unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature as a condition of employment, or continued employment, or b. Making submission to or rejections of such conduct the basis for administrative decisions affecting employment, or 0. Creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment by such conduct. 2. Sexual harassment does not refer to behavior or occasional compliments of a socially acceptable nature. it refers to behavior that is not welcome, that is personally offensive, that fails to respect the rights of others, which lowers morale and therefore interferes with work effectiveness. Sexual harassment may be overt or subtle. Some behavior that is appropriate in a social setting may not be appropriate in the work place. But whatever form it takes; verbal, non-verbal or physical; sexual harassment can be insulting and demeaning to the recipient and will not be tolerated in the work place. One specific form of harassment is the demand for sexual favors. Other forms may include, but are not limited to the following: a. Verbal Sexual innuendoes, suggestive comments, jokes of a sexual nature, sexual propositions, threats. b. Non-verbal Sexually suggestive objects or pictures, graphic commentaries, suggestive or insulting sounds, leering, whistling, obscene gestures. All members of the General Assembly and all legislative personnel are expected to comply with this policy and take appropriate measures to ensure that such conduct does not occur. SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMPLAINT PROCEDURE 1. Reporting a. Any employee or member who believes that he or she has been the subject of sexual harassment should report the alleged act immediately to his or her supervisor, to the director of Legislative Administration at (615) 741-3569 or to the respective Speaker. Complainants may also wish to contact the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) at 736-5820 or the Tennessee Human Rights Commission at 741-5825; b. If a complaint involves a member of the General Assembly, the complainant shall be provided information by the Director of Legislative Administration as to how to file a confidential complaint with the respective Speaker. 2. Confidentiality a. All complaints will be handled in a timely and confidential manner. In no event will information concerning a complaint be released to anyone who is not involved with the investigation. Nor will anyone involved be permitted to discuss the subject outside the investigation. The purpose of this provision is to protect the confidentiality of the person who files a complaint, to encourage the reporting of any incidents of sexual harassment, and to protect the reputation of any person wrongfully charged with sexual harassment. b. Investigation of a complaint will normally include conferring with the parties involved and any named or apparent witnesses. Each person is guaranteed an impartial and fair hearing. All employees shall be protected from coercion, intimidation, retaliation, interference or discrimination for filing a complaint or assisting in an investigation. 3. Disciplinary Action If the investigation reveals that the complaint is valid, prompt attention and disciplinary action designed to immediately stop the harassment and to prevent its recurrence shall be taken. a. The form of disciplinary action for legislative employees shall be considered and decided upon by the appropriate authority. Based on the seriousness of the offense, such action may include, but is not limited to, verbal or written reprimand, suspension, demotion or termination. b. The form of any disciplinary action for a member shall be determined in accordance with Article ll, Section 12 of the Constitution of Tennessee. The Tennessee General Assembly encourages any employee to raise questions he or she may have regarding this or any other policy with the Office of Legislative Administration. a?w Jeremy Durham: Ouster effort similar to 'medieval beheading' - jeremyrdurham@gmail.com - Gmail Page 1 of 1 More 8 0f coupose Jeremy Durham: Ouster effort similar to 'medieval beheading' lnbox Inboxl194) . erem rdurham marl.com Important I I @9 Sent Mail to BHarblson Drafts (36) I think I need you to say that they never told us any specifics and no attorney in good conscience could've recommended I talk under those conditions, Trash Circles Fnends 0 Jeremy Sent from my iPhone Jessica Durham Harbison, Bill Sep 9 (3 days ago) to me 0 Josh Thomas Glad to do it. Jeremy And we drdn't "retuse" to talk. we just said we needed fart ground rules Let me know when/how you and Peter need me to say this THIS IS A CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION protected by the attorney~client privilege and the work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication. please delete it immediately without opening any attachments Please notify the sender by reply e-mail that you received this e-mail in error or call {615) 742-4200. 9/12/2016 5 Questions Surround Scope and Legal Authority of Tennessee Attorney General Investigation of State Legislator - Breitbart Questions Surround Scope and Legal Authority of Tennessee Attorney General Investigation of State Legislator - Breitbart SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER NASHVILLE, Tennessee?The scope and legal authority of an ongoing investigation by Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery into the conduct of State Rep. Jeremy Durham (R-Franklin) is being questioned by a number of Tennessee political insiders, attorneys, and individuals interviewed by the investigators who have spoken with Breitbart News. Durham, who resigned as the Majority Whip of the Tennessee House of Representatives on January 24, is perhaps best known for sponsoring ?The Stop Obamacare Ag,? which became law in 2014. At issue is whether the investigation is a political persecution designed to end the career of a brash, ambitious and effective young conservative legislator, or a legitimate exercise of the powers of the Speaker of the House, 1/9 9/12/2016 Questions Surround Scope and Legal Authority of Tennessee Attorney General Investigation of State Legislator - Breitbart Beth Harwell (R-Nashville), and Attorney General Slatery. Also at issue is whether the investigation is a fishing expedition that has expanded its scope to discover information about the private lives of other state legislators. On Thursday, January 28, Speaker Harwell issued a statement that ?today, I have asked the Attorney General to commence an independent investigation into the facts surrounding Representative Jeremy Durham?s ongoing situation." The Tennessean noted that its own reporting from earlier in the week had prompted Harwell?s actions: ATennessean investigation [first published on January 24] found three women who said Durham sent them inappropriate text messages. Two women provided texts to The Tennessean they received from Durham?s phone in which he asks them for pictures. Both text messages were sent after midnight. Sources tell Breitbart News the investigation is being led by Associate Attorney General Bill Young, Assistant Attorney General Scott Crawford?Sutherland, Assistant Attorney General Linda D. Kirklen, and former FBI agent Walt Valentine, a private investigator in his seventies not employed by the state of Tennessee who has apparently been hired on a contract basis by Attorney General Slatery. in 2005 and 2006 Crawford-Sutherland served as the lead prosecuting assistant attorney general in Kentucky, working under then-Attorney General Greg Stumbo, a Democrat who now serves as the Speaker of the Kentucky House of Representatives, in the probe of the hiring practices of Gov. Ernie Fletcher, a Republican. Nine members of Fletcher's administration were subsequently convicted of crimes which Fletcher described as comparable to ?minor violations of fishing laws" when he pardoned all of those convicted. Fletcher also said that Stumbo ?has been carrying out a political vendetta.? Fletcher was resoundineg defeated for re-election by Democrat Steve Beshear in 2007, 59 percent to 41 gercent. When Crawford-Sutherland resigned as an assistant attorney general in Kentucky in 2011 to set up a legal practice in Nashville, the Nashville Business Journal described him as "a prosecutor who helped bring down the political career of Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher.? On February 4, one week after Tennessee Attorney General Slatery began the investigation of Durham's conduct, Speaker Harwell, after apparently coming to think that she, acting on her own, did not have the legal authority to request the Attorney General to initiate such an investigation, ?created an [Ad Hoc select] committee that will now lead an investigation into Rep. Jeremy Durham." ?The committee is to investigate whether the public allegations concerning Representative Durham constitute disorderly behavior and whether such behavior or other circumstances justify expulsion of Representative Durham from the General Assembly," Harwell said in a letter dated February 4 to Clerk of the House Joe McCord. 2/9 9/12/2016 Questions Surround Scope and Legal Authority of Tennessee Attorney General Investigation of State Legislator - Breitbart The Ad Hoc Article 2 Section 12 Select Committee formed that day consists of four members: State Rep. Steve McDaniel (R-Parkers Crossroads), who also serves as chairman of the House Ethics Committee, State Rep. Andrew Farmer (R-Sevierville), State Rep. Billy Spivey (R-Lewisburg), and State Rep. Raumesh Akbari (D- Memphis). Doug Himes, who has served as counsel for the House Ethics Committee since 2003, was also named to serve as counsel to the new Ad Hoc Committee. In December, Himes WIBR of "a 2010 change to ethics practices that prohibits lawmakers from bringing complaints [to the ethics committee] based solely on media reports." "?When I have had to investigate these for the committee, it?s hard to get y'all [in the media] to give us your sources,? Himes said, laughing," WBIR reported. Both House Ethics Committee counsel Himes and Speaker Harwell, however, then?State Rep. Kent Williams differently in 2009, when a sexual harassment complaint against him was filed by another member with the House Ethics Committee, than they are treating State Rep. Durham in 2016, against whom no ethics complaints or criminal charges have been filed, though there are media reports that three anonymous women are alleging improper conduct and sexual harassment. On February 8, Attorney General Slatery responded to the revised authorization for the investigation of Durham offered by Harwell, saying in a statement: . We recognize the importance of this matter to the Ad Hoc Select Committee and to the full House. Everyone it has one goal to ensure a thorough and fair investigation while respecting the process and those involved. The legal authority for this investigation, however, is questionable, at best. Article 2, Section 12, of the Tennessee State Constitution states that ?each house may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member, but not a second time for the same offence, and shall have all other powers necessary for a branch of the Legislature of a free state." While the House can determine its own rules, Article 2 Section 2 of the Tennessee Constitution also provides for a clear separation of powers between the judicial, executive, and legislative branches. In an odd quirk of the Tennessee Constitution, the Attorney General is part of the judicial branch in Tennessee, and is appointed by the State Supreme Court, not the Governor or the voters in a statewide election. Title 8, Chapter 6, Section 109 5) of the Tennessee Code Annotated authorizes the Attorney General to provide "members of the general assembly. . ..legal advice required in the discharge of their official duties," while 109 (6) authorizes the Attorney General ?to members of the general assembly when called upon, written legal opinions on all matters submitted by them in the discharge of their official duties." (emphasis added). 3/9 9/12/2016 Questions Surround Scope and Legal Authority of Tennessee Attorney General investigation of State Legislator - Breitbart What this means is that it is a very much a gray area when it comes to determining if the House as a whole (and in this case, it?s not the House as a whole acting but merely the Speaker and the four members who have accepted an appointment to the Ad Hoc Committee) has the statutory authority to request the Attorney General to conduct an investigation of fact (as opposed to ?legal advice" and "written legal opinions?) to recommend whether a member should be expelled. There is also a question whether the Attorney General has the statutory authority to agree to such a request. There appears to be no supporting legal precedent for such action by the Attorney General. ?There is no express provision in the Tennessee Constitution or statutes that directs the Attorney General to conduct non-criminal investigations of alleged conduct of a member of the legislature," an attorney familiar with the Tennessee Constitution and statutes tells Breitbart News, adding: 1 In reviewing the statutes, I am unaware of any publicly available precedent for the Attorney General to l. conduct an investigation into the non-criminal conduct of a legislator for the purpose of expelling that legislator from the Tennessee General Assembly and the precedent that does exist is typically limited to giving advisory opinions as to what the law allows or disallows in general but not as to the conduct of specific individuals. The Ad Hoc Committee has not explained why it requested the Attorney General?s office, rather than the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, to conduct the investigation of fact. Multiple sources tell Breitbart News they believe the Attorney General?s office and Speaker Harwell are communicating regularly about the progress of the investigation. have a sense that everything said in these interviews conducted by the Attorney General?s office as part of this investigation is quickly shared with the Speaker?s office," one source tells Breitbart News. Several of those interviewed in the probe tell Breitbart News that investigators have merely asked cursory questions about Durham, then have begun to probe about the conduct of other legislators and women who have had any professional or personal contact with either Durham or other legislators. In addition, investigators have demanded, without warrants, that many of those questioned hand over their personal cell phones so that all of the data in the phone can be downloaded for review by the investigators. While some of those who have been interviewed by the investigation have complied with this request, others have refused to do so. Breitbart News has spoken with three of the dozens of individuals who have been interviewed by investigators from the Attorney General ?8 office, and they tell a consistent story of attempts at intimidation and an investigation fishing for evidence. ?l was interviewed by two people, a woman named Linda and a guy named Scott. They didn't leave business cards. They asked more questions about others than they did Jeremy Durham," one person who was interviewed by investigators from the Attorney General's office tells Breitbart News. ?They briefly asked about him, but mainly they asked me about the women he allegedly harassed and other legislators. They were hunting down gossip on them," the person says. . 4/9 9/12/2016 Questions Surround Scope and Legal Authority of Tennessee Attorney General Investigation of State Legislator - Breitbart ?It was good cop, bad cop. Linda was the good cop. Scott, the guy, was really aggressive. It got much more intense." ?The takeaway for me was, my God, I'm only here to talk about other people," the first individual adds. "They were on a fishing expedition. They didn?t have anything,? is how a second person who was interviewed by investigators from the Attorney General?s office describes the experience to Breitbart News. ?It has the appearance they were expanding the scope of the inquiry beyond Jeremy Durham to other state legislators. That?s a frightening thought. Somebody's gathering information for future use," the second person tells Breitbart News. ?It was more intimidating than i ever thought it would be. They made it seem as though I was on trial for knowing these rumors," the first person who spoke with Breitbart News and was interviewed by the investigators says. ?You can imagine if you were a 24-year-old woman being interviewed by these staffers from the Attorney General?s office, not really familiar with the State Legislature, you can imagine how that would feel," the first person continues. "It wasn't fair of these staffers in the Attorney General?s office to question these women who some people think are too the questions implied they were sleeping with someone, and they were withholding information from the investigators,? the first person adds. A third person tells Breitbart News their interview was conducted by two staff attorneys from the Attorney General?s office, a woman of about 60, and a middle aged man with dark hair. ?They asked me if Jeremy Durham had ever made sexual advances towards me. I laughed and told them no. Then they asked me if I considered Jeremy my friend, and I said, yes, I do consider him a friend," the third person says. ?There were two staff attorneys from the Attorney General?s Office and a special investigator when was interviewed," the second person who was interviewed by investigators tells Breitbart News. ?The special investigator took the lead asking the questions. He was older. He had white hair and was very neatly put together, like an FBI agent. He wanted to know were Jeremy Durham and friends, did we hang around in the evening, did we socialize together. What did I know first hand. What did I know rumor-wise,? the second person says. ?Then they wanted to know the names of the young women, several different women, who had told me Jeremy Durham had not harassed them. They wanted their names. But the women wanted to be anonymous.? ?The investigators really pushed me. ?We can subpoena you,? they said. ?You'll have to, because I'm not going to tell you,? I told them," the second person adds. 5/9 9/12/2016 Questions Surround Scope and Legal Authority of Tennessee Attorney General Investigation of State Legislator - Breitbart "They asked me questions was telling them the truth. They would go back to ask a question a different way throughout the 45 minute interview," the second person notes. One person who was among the dozens interviewed by the Attorney General?s office tells Breitbart News that Associate Attorney General Bill Young made a personal visit to their office to schedule that interview. ?Just what is it you?re looking for? What do you think Jeremy Durham has done?? that person asked Young. ?That's what we're trying to find out," Young replied. ?In my mind, thatjust fell in with the witch hunt that I feel like they?re on," the person tells Breitbart News of Young?s response. Another source tells Breitbart News that a young woman they know was interviewed by the investigators from the Attorney General's office and ?they wanted to know if she had been harassed." ?She told them no. They asked if she would tell them if she had been harassed. She said she would tell the them if she had been harassed by Jeremy Durham, but the fact was, she had not been harassed by him," the source says. ?They wanted to know if a particular state legislator or anyone in that state legislator's office was withholding information from the investigation. it was very intense questioningJeremy Durham she told them, but she had not been sexually harassed by him," the source tells Breitbart News. The investigators for the Attorney General have used intimidation tactics of questionable legality outside the confines of the formal interviews as well. At 8 am on Saturday morning, February 13, a man, who subsequently identified himself only as ?an agent of the Tennessee Attorney General," forced his way, without being given permission to enter, into the private residence of State Rep. Durham and demanded Durham read a document sent to him by Attorney General Slatery in his presence. opened the door and a man shouldered his way in, he stepped through the door, I wasn't forcefully holding it, I was kind of holding it half open half closed," Durham says. ?The man was in his seventies. He had white hair, was about 6 foot, 6 foot 1, kind of slender to average build," Durham tells Breitbart News, adding: He did not identify himself by name, but said he was an agent of the Attorney General. ?This is my house. You don?t have my permission to enter," I told him. ?It's cold outside," he responded. . ?The 4th Amendment doesn't care if it's cold outside. I need you to wait outside," I told him. ?He was absolutely trying to intimidate me," Durham says of the man who trespassed into his house that day. 6/9 9/12/2016 Questions Surround Scope and Legal Authority of Tennessee Attorney General Investigation of State Legislator - Breitbart Ultimately, the man moved outside the house, and Durham joined him there. ?He wanted my iPad. I gave it to him because it was state issued," Durham tells Breitbart News. Less than two weeks later, the same man confronted Durham again, this time on the floor of the Tennessee House of Representatives on February 22 as Durham sat at his desk waiting for the Speaker to gavel the House back in session for a joint session of the TGA with the Senate for the purpose of confirming State Supreme Court Justice Roger Page. ?We had been gaveled into session earlier in the day, but we were in recess prior to the joint session coming to order," Durham tells Breitbart. was sitting at my desk when a man approached me. It took me a while to recognize that it was the same man who had confronted me and entered my residence without permission on February 13." ?He held a document towards me for a while, and i didn't really understand what was occurring. They were probably hoping the media would take a picture of it. My desk was very close to where the media was sitting, Durham says. ?After he gave me the letter, one of the sergeant at arms saw what was going. He came over and apologized to me that was given the sheet of paper while I was sitting at my desk.? ?Two of them told me they did not know who he was, and that he had not identified himself to them," Durham adds. know the sergeants at arms were not happy about it. They wouldn't have allowed him on the floor had he followed protocol and identified himself to them prior to entering the chamber." ?He?s just an angry old man. He was very sure of himself," Durham says of the investigator working for the Attorney General who trespassed on his property on February 13 then served him papers on the House floor on February 22. The man Durham says confronted him twice, and who several interviewees say questioned them during the investigation, fits the description of former FBI agent Walter Valentine. It is unclear why Attorney General Slatery chose to hire Valentine, an outside investigator not employed by the state of Tennessee, at additional expense to the taxpayer when investigators from the Tennessee Bureau of investigation are available to provide such services to the Attorney General. Valentine's 30 years of service to the from 1965 to 1995 is not in question. However, his track record as an investigator does raise a few questions. In 2007, for instance, he gave then-Knox County Mayor Mike Ragsdale, a clean bill of health when he conducted an investigation into Ragsdale?s financial practices in that office. Ragsdale left office in 2010 under a cloud amidst allegations of financial improprieties. . 7/9 Questions Surround Scope and Legal Authority of Tennessee Attorney General Investigation of State Legislator - Breitbart The Attorney General issued an interim report to the Ad Hoc Committee and the public on April 6, which recommended the removal of Durham's office from the Legislative Plaza, and that he ?should have no contact with legislative staff or interns, other than his assigned legislative assistant, that is not directly related to official legislative business." The Ad Hoc Committee has followed those recommendations. ?Information obtained during the investigation reveals a pattern of conduct by Representative Durham directed toward a number of women who either currently work for, or formerly worked with, the Legislature," the report says. ?Some of the women interviewed." the report adds,"stated Representative Durham's behavior created an environment which has made them uncomfortable in the work place." The complete interim report can be read here. ?We were surprised today that an interim report was released without our input or an opportunity to know what investigation by the attorney general had been conducted. The process has not been fair and our side has not been heard. We have not been consulted about process," Durham's attorney Bill Harbison ?t the Williamson Herald immediately after the report's release to the media. ?We did not know the report would be made public. There has been no input from us," Harbison added. Multiple sources tell Breitbart News that the Attorney General plans to release the final report prepared for the Ad Hoc Committee to the public in mid-July, around the time early voting for primaries begins in the state. It is unclear what binding legal impact the report's recommendations will have, since the 109th session of the Tennessee General Assembly adjourned in late April. Unless a highly unusual special session is called, there will be no further meeting of the 109th session. The 110th session will convene in January 2017, and will be comprised of a new crop of state legislators elected in November of this year. It is unclear if the Ad Hoc Committee from the 109th session, or the Attorney General?s report recommendations submitted to it, will have any legal significance for the 110th session. The report, however, may serve a political purpose. State Rep. Durham is running for re?election, and he is facing a serious primary challenge from retired Army Colonel Sam Whitson. The primary election will be held on August 4. In Durham?s heavily Republican district, a victory in the primary is tantamount to a general election victory. Should Durham be defeated in the August primary, several Tennessee political insiders tell Breitbart News they are concerned Speaker Harwell and Attorney General Slatery will be emboldened to use their newly asserted investigative powers to broaden their net and target other conservative elected officials on whom they?ve gathered information. . . 8/9 9/12/2016 Questions Surround Scope and Legal Authority of Tennessee Attorney General Investigation of State Legislator - Breitbart Durham, they say, was simply the first target the most vulnerable elected conservative official in the state. But Speaker Harwell faces a qeneral election challenge in her own Nashville district. If she wins in November, she will have to persuade her colleagues in the Republican caucus of the 110th General Assembly she deserves another term as Speaker. in light of her own recent conduct, political insiders tell Breitbart News, that may be a tall order. Bf??ii?iquasijons?surround- egl sla. . 9/9 9/12/2016 Exclusive: Woman in Rep. Durham investigation speaks out - WSMV Channel 4 urn-nut I iv-J. {v.1 i . - If tL-unerI-Ii-H'I II 2* race . at . I - {a w-cure. Click hamypa?udayi mm 3' I I, I m. It!" Exclusive: Woman in Rep. Durham investigation speaks out Posted: Aug 02. 2016 6:58 PM CDT Updated: Aug 02. 2016 6:59 PM CDT Reported by Alanna Autler CONNECT NASHVILLE, TN (WSMV) - A recent report based upon an investigation conducted by the Attorney General detailed numerous claims in which Rep. Jeremy Durham, R-Franklin. used his power to make inappropriate or sexual contact with 22 women. One of them has decided to break her silence. The woman, who asked to keep her identity private. said she will not be stepping foot inside Legislative Plaza fora long time. That's how deeply she was affected by Rep. Durham and his actions. She sat down exclusively with the Channel 4 I-Team to share herthoughts on the AG's investigation. the possibility ofa special session and Durham. In a letter. she wrote out, line by line. what she said the last few years have been like. I ;'lrI uni [125' I I - r- I Ill." I ?u faintii'tt ?T-?i-?riu-IL- -. . - .r -. H.514- tin-1. limit II. II I. I 35fall II"ll i'IJI ll,' I I l' iI lull I.-- I . i-Ilvu' . I IIl'ri1Ira-alt I. l'II1/4 9/12/2016 Exclusive: Woman in Rep. Durham investigation speaks out - WSMV Channel 4 "This is somebody who has been traumatized by the whole thing. continues to tie traumatized because at the Wan?l'lt to go away, wants people to see that she's not a Jane Doe." said Kevin Tests, the women's attorney. One day after the report's release. Durham announced he would be suspending his re-election campaign. But he also took the opportunity to deny most ofthe accusations made in the report. "The great majority of the anonymous allegations in the AG report are either completely false or taken completely outofcontext." he said. "i genuinely hope that Representative Durham gets his life right spiritually." the woman told the l-Team. Her lawyer also weighed in. "i would say the representative knows what he did. He knows what he's done to these women." Teets said. "I've satwith my client many times. These are real emotions. This is not something that's fabricated." As for what happened between her and Durham. the woman said they met several years ago. She claimed the lawmaker used his position of power to get close to her and abuse hertrust. Still she said she began to move on with her life. Butthen came the AG investigation. That's when her attorney said things gotworse. "Whatwas told to us by the Attorney General's of?ce was complete anonymity would be the goal, that identities would not be given." Tests said. He added that his client felt pressured into cooperating. afraid a subpoena Would make personal lnl?on?ndtlen pubilc. The woman summed it up like this: test like I did the right thing by interviewing with the Attorney General's Of?ce. but my privacy was not protected like it should have been and this has affected me both mentally and physically." "My client feels that her rights, as a victim. were not the primary concern ofwhatthe committee or those involved in that process were focused on." her lawyer said. She puts lt this way-:1 don'twan?tto be dragged Into a political gen-I93 She's not alone. The l-Team spoke to three other anonymous people interviewed in the report who noted their surprise at seeing their personal details exposed clues that could be easily identi?ed by capital insiders. Anotherfear involves the special session proposed by lawmakers. The goal of the session would be to expel Durham from the legislature. ensuring he loses his pension. Republican leaders are offering two petitions: one to oust Rep. Durham. the other to oust Rep. Durham and Rep. Joe D-Knoxville. who is currently on federal trial. Two-thirds of House and Senate members must sign a petition for the special session to occur. House clerk Joe McCord con?rmed the rules would be determined during the session. At this time. it's unclear ifthe report would be used as evidence or ifwitnesses would be called to testify. were to take place. itwould elastically a?ectmy lite and there is no way Iwneh to relive this again.? said the woman interviewed by the I-Toarn. ?Anyone pushing to move forward on a legislative session there lit-rely doing so for their own political purposes. my client is note pawn in'yiour political game. and it needs to stop.? Teels said. Teets questions the bystanders who did nothing. He wants to know why the lawmakers who knew about Durham's behavior are only taking action now. "You can't show up wearing a cape and acting as a savior when you sat there years ago and were aware of the culture and did nothing." he said. As for Durham keeping his seat. the woman wrote: hope that the voters have heard this story and make a decision that is right." An attorney for Rep. Durham said he has no comment at this time. Harlow Summerford. a spokesman for the Attorney General?s Of?ce released this statement: The investigation was the designed to obtain voluntary cooperation and was notin the context ofa legal proceeding. Upon completion. the Attorney General issued a report offindings to the Committee. twouid refer to the Committee's ?nal report, which addresses privacy ofwitriesses The investigation was dif?cult on a number offronts. certainly on those women who came forward and showed a great deai ofcourage Copyright 2016 WSMV (Meredith Corporation). All rights reserved. usive-woman-in-rep-durham-i nvestigation-speaks-out