115 STATE STREET,
MONTPELIER, VT 05633-5301

PHONE: (802) 828-2231
FAX: (802) 828-2424

STATE OF VERMONT
OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

MEMORANDUM
To:

Rep. Mitzi Johnson, Speaker of the House

From:

Luke Martland, Director and Chief Counsel

CC:

Michael O’Grady, Deputy Director of Legal; Jennifer Carbee, Legislative
Counsel; Damien Leonard, Legislative Counsel; Katie McLinn,
Legislative Counsel; and BetsyAnn Wrask, Legislative Counsel

Date:

December 12, 2017

Subject:

Potential changes to the House Prevention of Sexual Harassment Policy

I.

Introduction and Background

This memorandum has been prepared in response to your request for a list of potential
changes to the House Prevention of Sexual Harassment Policy (“Policy”). It is divided
into two sections:
• Technical changes intended to clarify certain aspects of the policy that should not
be controversial.
• Substantive changes that may raise policy considerations or may be controversial.
For the sake of brevity, this memo focuses on summarizing issues, and not on providing
remedial language. We can provide such language as requested. We recognize that this
memo suggests a broad array of potential changes. We are not proposing that all of these
changes should necessarily be adopted; instead, our goal is to bring these issues to your
attention for discussion purposes.
It should also be emphasized that the current Policy is an improvement over the prior
policy and the work of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Panel (“Panel”) in
developing the current policy, and increasing awareness of these issues is deeply
appreciated. The suggestions in this memorandum are not intended to indicate otherwise.
As background, the House and Senate have each adopted their own policies, which are
substantially similar but not identical. There is no joint policy that covers both bodies.
The House Policy serves two main functions. First, to protect certain individuals from
experiencing sexual harassment. Second, to cover or regulate the behavior of a smaller
group of individuals. For example, the Policy protects not only Representatives and
employees of the Speaker’s and Clerk’s offices from harassment, but also members of the
public, members of the press, and lobbyists from harassment perpetuated by
Representatives and employees of the Speaker’s and Clerk’s offices. However, the
VT LEG #328508 v.3

 Page 2
Policy only covers or regulates the behavior of Representatives and employees of the
Speaker’s and Clerk’s offices because the House cannot regulate the behavior of
members of the public. The Office of Legislative Council has adopted both the House
and Senate policies as part of our internal policies and procedures.1
II.

Technical Changes

We suggest the following technical amendments to the Policy:
• The introduction to the Policy states that it is intended to provide for a workplace
“free from harassment,” which can be read as implying that the Policy covers all
forms of harassment and not merely sexual harassment (Policy p. 1). House Rule
90 was amended to establish a separate panel to address discrimination. To avoid
confusion, it might be helpful to state that this Policy only refers to sexual
harassment.
• The Panel may want to state explicitly that the Policy protects employees of the
Office of Legislative Council, Joint Fiscal Office, and the Sergeant at Arms. This
appears to have been assumed, but it may be helpful to indicate this more clearly.
• Similarly, it appears that both the House and the Senate intend that their policies
cover or regulate the behavior of individuals who work for the Office of
Legislative Council, the Joint Fiscal Office, and the Sergeant at Arms. For
example, complaints against staff of these offices will be adjudicated by a joint
panel referenced in both policies. However, it may be helpful to state explicitly
that employees of these offices are subject to the policies.
• It would be helpful to clarify that the Policy applies to the full two-year term of
each Representative.
• In addition, there are other minor corrections that might be helpful. If the Panel is
considering amending the Policy, we can bring these to the Panel’s attention.
III.

Substantive Changes

As noted in the introduction, the suggestions included in this section are more substantive
in nature, and therefore may require policy deliberations. We have attempted to bring to
your attention as many issues as possible and we are not necessarily suggesting that all of
these changes should be adopted. Any consideration of potential changes should include
a range of perspectives and it may be advisable to consult an outside expert as to best
practices regarding sexual harassment prevention policies.
A.

Different standards of culpability

In the existing policy, there appear to be three different standards as to culpability:
1. For some behavior the complainant must indicate that the conduct is unwelcome
before the conduct may rise to the level of harassment. For example, touching
1

It is our opinion that the Director can take disciplinary action against a person who engages in harassment
and who works for the Office of Legislative Council, regardless of whether the victim wishes to file a
complaint with the Panel or not.
VT LEG #328508 v.3

 Page 3
any part of a person’s body can constitute harassment “after that person has
indicated that such physical contact is unwelcome” (Policy, p.1).
2. Other behavior is prohibited if the accused knew, or “should have known” that the
conduct was unwelcome or inappropriate. For example, “calling a person a
sexualized name” constitutes harassment “if it is known or should be known that
the person does not welcome the behavior” (Policy, p.1).
3. Some behavior is prohibited regardless of whether the perpetrator knew or should
have known the conduct was inappropriate. For example, “touching or grabbing a
sexual part of a person’s body” is per se prohibited (Policy, p.1).
Having such different standards of culpability may be appropriate depending on the
severity of the misconduct, but the Panel should carefully think about what the
appropriate standard may be as to each distinct type of misconduct. In addition, the
Panel may want to review the number of standards and how the level of culpability
should be defined as to each. In doing so, the Panel may want to take into account that
under some circumstances requiring a complainant to indicate lack of consent, or that
behavior is unwelcome, may be difficult if there is a power imbalance between the
perpetrator and subject.2
B.

Encouraging victims to identify objectionable conduct

In a similar vein, the Policy states that victims of harassment are “encouraged, but not
required to” identify objectionable behavior to the person responsible and “to resolve
issues informally” (Policy, p.2). Although it certainly is appropriate for individuals to, if
they wish, indicate that behavior may be unwelcome or inappropriate, we have concerns
that “encouraging” such actions might be read as placing a burden on a victim to confront
a harasser. As noted above, this may be difficult if there is a power imbalance between
the two parties. As a result, the Panel may wish to consider modifying this language to
avoid any such implication.
C.

Informal resolutions

Currently, the Policy requires that a written complaint be filed before the Panel can
investigate or take action. However, it may also be appropriate for someone to approach
a Panel member informally to discuss conduct that might make him or her uncomfortable,
and for the Panel member to, with the person’s consent, take steps to address the
situation; for example, by speaking to the perpetrator. It might be beneficial for the
policy to clarify whether such informal resolutions are appropriate, the role of Panel
members in any such informal resolutions, and how information or evidence should be
handled or retained.3
2

As to the requirement that an individual indicate that conduct is unwelcome, the Panel may wish to clarify
whether nonverbal indications, such as physically pulling away, might be sufficient to meet this threshold.
3

If a Panel member participates in such an informal resolution, she or he might have to recuse herself or
himself from any subsequent investigation or other action by the Panel, and this should be addressed in the
Policy.
VT LEG #328508 v.3

 Page 4
D.

Clarifying potential sanctions

It may be advisable to include examples of at least some of the possible sanctions that the
Panel could recommend to the Rules Committee.
E.

Limitations on who may file a complaint and the form of a complaint

As noted above, under the Policy only a victim of harassment can file a complaint with
the Panel. In most situations, someone who witnesses harassment, or learns about it
afterward, cannot initiate a complaint. It may be appropriate for the Panel to consider
allowing a person who has observed harassment or, under some circumstances, an
individual who is subsequently made aware of harassment, to initiate a complaint.4 Any
discussion of these changes should include the policy considerations relating to
mandatory vs. discretionary reporting [section III(F)] and confidentiality [section III(J)].
In addition, the Policy requires that any complaint must be in writing and signed. The
Panel may want to discuss if those requirements are necessary or should be modified.
F.

Mandatory vs. discretionary reporting

Under the current Policy, reporting is discretionary. In other words, victims are not
required to report harassment to the Panel. As a result, the Panel may not be informed of
all harassment cases, especially if complainants are afraid to come forward out of fear of
retaliation. If the Panel wishes to increase reporting, it may want to consider requiring
reporting, at least under some circumstances. If the Panel does so, it will have to weigh
the penalties for a failure to report. It should be recognized that such a change raises
policy concerns and potential conflicts between the goals of ensuring that all complaints
are brought to the Panel’s attention and respecting the wishes of victims as to whether or
not they wish to lodge a complaint. For example, if a complainant does not wish to
proceed, a mandatory reporting approach would force him or her to do so. And, if who
can make a complaint is expanded to include witnesses or others who may hear of
misconduct, a mandatory reporting regime may result in a situation in which a victim
does not want to proceed, but the witness will be required to file a complaint with the
Panel.
G.

Reopening complaints and repeat offenders

The Policy states that the Panel can only adjudicate a complaint concerning misconduct
committed during the current biennium. The Panel is authorized to “reopen a closed
complaint” if the accused “demonstrates a pattern of improper behavior” (Policy, p.3).
Records are confidential and kept by the Office of Legislative Council (which provides
legal and administrative support to the Panel) and the Clerk. The Panel may want to
clarify how long information should be retained, how repeat offenses or patterns of
misconduct should be tracked, how information from confidential records will be brought
4

We believe that under the current Policy, a person who observes harassment may be able to initiate a
complaint if what he or she observes creates a hostile or offensive working environment as to himself or
herself. However, the Panel may want to clarify this.
VT LEG #328508 v.3

 Page 5
to the Panel’s attention, and whether to extend the length of time during which
complaints can be reopened. These issues are also relevant to confidentiality, discussed
in section III(J) below. In addition, under the current Policy, the Panel cannot take action
on a complaint if there is a pending criminal charge. The Panel may wish to clarify that
the time period to adjudicate a complaint will be tolled for any such period of time.
H.

The accused’s role in determining potential resolutions

Under the Policy, the Panel must first conduct an investigation and decide if there is
enough evidence to support a potential violation of the Policy. If there is not enough
evidence, the complaint is closed. If, on the other hand, the Panel determines that there is
sufficient evidence, there are three potential options to resolve a complaint. First, the
complainant and accused may enter into “a mutually agreed to resolution” (Policy, p.3).
Second, the Panel may enter into a “confidential stipulation” with the respondent that
may include a warning or discipline such as a reprimand. Third, if the respondent
chooses not to accept the confidential stipulation, the Panel will draft charges and
proceed to a hearing.
These options may give the impression that the accused has more influence over how a
complaint is resolved than the complainant. For example, the Panel may only enter into a
confidential stipulation if the accused agrees, but apparently there is no requirement that
the complainant also agree. The Panel will proceed to a hearing if the accused rejects a
confidential stipulation, but the complainant has no similar right to “veto” the
confidential stipulation or demand a hearing. Once a hearing begins, it is unclear if the
complainant can call witnesses or present evidence, and whether the Panel will be neutral
or will assume the role of presenting the evidence against the accused. Therefore, the
Panel may wish to clarify these issues, and perhaps require both parties to agree to certain
options, or leave any decision to the Panel alone concerning how to proceed, without
requiring that either the complainant or accused consent.
I.

Support person or advocate

The Panel may want to consider allowing a complainant to bring a support person to a
hearing. Under the current policy, if a staff person accuses a Representative of
harassment, the staff person will have to appear before a panel composed exclusively of
Representatives, with the accused present, and potentially with the accused’s private
attorney also present. In such a situation, the option of having a person of the
complainant’s own choosing present to provide support or to advocate on his or her
behalf might be beneficial.
J.

Confidentiality

Under the current Policy, most information concerning complaints is confidential except
for an annual report with identifying information removed. On one hand, confidentiality
protects the privacy of the complainant and accused. However, confidentiality may also
shield repeat offenders, disguise systemic problems, feed an impression that little if

VT LEG #328508 v.3

 Page 6
anything is done in response to complaints, erode faith in the Policy and Panel, and
discourage victims from coming forward. As a result, the Panel should carefully
consider how best to balance these competing interests. In addition, whether
confidentiality is intended to preclude a complainant from subsequently discussing the
matter or pursuing other avenues of redress should be discussed and perhaps clarified.
Finally, confidentiality relates to record keeping and tracking repeated misconduct as
mentioned in section III(G) above.
K.

Clarifying when harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity may
constitute sexual harassment

The definition and examples of sexual harassment include “derogatory or provocative
remarks about or relating to a person’s sex or sexual orientation,” and “harassing acts or
behavior directed against a person on the basis of the person’s sex or sexual orientation”
(Policy, p.2). This broad language could be read as pulling harassment based on sexual
orientation within the other examples of sexual harassment. However, whether this is
the Panel’s intent should be discussed and perhaps clarified. In addition, the Panel may
want to add “gender identity.”
There may be situations in which alleged conduct may arguably constitute both
harassment based on sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity, and also discrimination
based upon these criteria. As a result, it will be important that both panels work together
to clarify when conduct might be under the jurisdiction of one panel or the other.
L.

Expanding the Panel to include non-Representatives

Currently, if a Representative is accused of harassment by a staff person, the accused will
be judged by a Panel composed of fellow Representatives. This may create an
impression that the “deck is stacked” against a complainant who is not a Representative.
To address this, it has been suggested that the Panel include staff members. If this
change is made, it is important to remember that only the House Rules Committee or the
full House would be able to impose any disciplinary sanction upon a Representative.
See, Vt. Const. Chap. II § 14 (The House of Representatives “shall have power to …
judge of the elections and qualifications of their own members”). It has also been
suggested that the Panel be further expanded to include individuals who are neither
Representatives nor staff. Under such a scenario, additional concerns such as
confidentiality might be raised.
M.

Allowing an appeal from key Panel decisions

Currently, there is no appeal from the Panel’s decision as to whether there is sufficient
evidence of misconduct to support a potential violation of the Policy, whether to resolve
the complaint with a confidential stipulation, whether to proceed to a hearing, or as to the
Panel’s decision after that hearing. As noted above, in section III(H), the current policy
may give the impression that the accused has more influence over some of these steps
than the complainant. The Panel may wish to consider allowing parties to appeal certain

VT LEG #328508 v.3

 Page 7
Panel decisions. Of course, if this is adopted, the Panel will have to determine to whom
an appeal may be made and establish guidelines and procedures for any such appeal.
N.

Alternative models

As this memorandum has made clear, there are a number of issues with the current
Policy. Alternative models as to how to investigate and adjudicate complaints may be
worth considering. For example, once a complaint is filed, the Panel is tasked with
conducting an investigation. However, Panel members may not have the time, training,
or experience to carry out this essential first step effectively. In addition, as noted above,
there may be a perception that the accused has more influence over the process than the
complainant. Alternative models might address some of these issues. For example, the
House could contract with an attorney with experience in personnel-related investigations
to gather evidence, interview witnesses, carry out an impartial investigation, and make
findings of fact. These findings could be presented to the Panel for review and a decision
as to how to proceed. Similarly, a neutral hearing officer could be required for all
hearings, removing any perception of potential bias.
IV.

Conclusion

We hope that the above suggestions are helpful. As noted in the introduction, our goal is
to bring potential issues to your attention, and we are not necessarily advocating that all
these ideas be adopted. We are very willing to assist the Panel in further exploring these
ideas, and providing potential language, if this would be helpful. However, it must be
emphasized that we are not experts on sexual harassment prevention policies, and it may
be appropriate to consult an expert regarding best practices for workplace policies. In
addition, according to media reports, the Executive Branch is reviewing its sexual
harassment policy, and it may be worthwhile to review its work product.
Regardless of which, if any, changes are made, it is preferable to have identical House
and Senate policies or one combined policy that covers all members and all staff.
Although each body is independent, having two separate policies might create confusion.
Finally, within the House of Representatives, it will also be important to ensure that
sexual harassment complaints and complaints concerning other forms of harassment or
discrimination are dealt with in a similar manner. As a result, the Prevention of Sexual
Harassment Panel and the newly formed panel concerning discrimination should discuss
where their jurisdictions may overlap and coordinate as to policies and procedures.

VT LEG #328508 v.3