Report of the Independent Investigation Regarding
Mr. David Jamison and Alleged Sexual Harassment at the
Iowa Finance Authority

September 20, 2018

Mark E. Weinhardt
David N. Fautsch
Elisabeth A. Archer
THE WEINHARDT LAW FIRM
2600 Grand Avenue, Ste. 450
Des Moines, Iowa 50312

This report contains sexually explicit content. Reader discretion is advised.

{02061640.DOCX}

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 3

II. THE EVENTS LEADING TO THIS INVESTIGATION ................................. 3
III. INVESTIGATION ACTIVITY.......................................................................... 6
IV. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................... 7
V. MR. JAMISON'S CONDUCT ......................................................................... 10
A. The Definition of Sexual Harassment under State Policies ........................... 10
B. Facts Uncovered in the Investigation ............................................................ 11
1.

Witness 1.............................................................................................. 11

2.

Witness 2 .............................................................................................. 18

3.

Other Employees .................................................................................. 21

C. Mr. Jamison's Response ................................................................................ 22
1.

Response to Allegations of Witness 1.................................................. 22

2.

Response to Allegations of Witness 2 .................................................. 24

3.

Response to Allegations of Other Employees ...................................... 26

D. Findings Regarding Mr. Jamison's Conduct.. ............................................... 28
VI. THE EXTENT TO WHICH MR. JAMISON'S CONDUCT WAS KNOWN
BUT NOT REPORTED .................................................................................... 29
VII.CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 32

{02061640.DOCX}

2

 I.

INTRODUCTION.

This law firm was engaged to conduct an independent investigation into
alleged sexual harassment of employees at the Iowa Finance Authority ("IFA") by
its former Executive Director, David Jamison. Mr. Jamison was appointed by
then-Governor Terry Branstad as the Executive Director of IFA in January of
2011. He held that position until March 24, 2018, when Governor Kim Reynolds
terminated his employment. Governor Reynolds took that action the day after she
received what she deemed to be credible allegations of sexual harassment by Mr.
Jamison from two employees at IFA.
The allegations of the two IFA employees were initially kept confidential by
the Governor's office in deference to a request for confidentiality by those
employees. Many of those allegations had been summarized in a letter written by
one of the two employees. In response to calls by certain legislators and others for
more information about Mr. Jamison's termination, the Governor's office on April
26, 2018 released a copy of the letter with redactions designed to conceal the
identities of the two employees in question. Ex. A, Graphic letter details fired
agency head's alleged sexual harassment of a female employee, The Des Moines
Register, April 26, 2018. This law firm was engaged shortly after the release of
that letter.
We have been asked to investigate three things: ( 1) the facts that led to the
termination of Mr. Jamison's employment; (2) any incidents or conduct during Mr.
Jamison's tenure at IFA that were similar to the conduct that led to his termination;
and (3) the degree to which Mr. Jamison's conduct was known within I~A or
elsewhere in state government and the response or lack of response to that conduct.
This report contains our findings on these issues. This report does not analyze any
legal consequence that might flow from the events described herein.

II.

THE EVENTS LEADING TO THIS INVESTIGATION.

On Friday, March 23, 2018, Witness 1, 1 a female IFA employee, called Jake
Ketzner, who was then the Chief of Staff for Governor Reynolds, asking to speak
This report does not use the names of individuals who are victims of sexual
harassment by Mr. Jamison and who have asked us to maintain their anonymity.
{02061640.DOCX}

3

 to the Governor about an urgent matter. Sensing that Witness 1 was deeply upset,
Mr. Ketzner made arrangements to meet with her that evening.
Mr. Ketzner met with Witness 1 and another female IFA employee, Witness
2. At that meeting Witness 1 and Witness 2 described incidents of sexual
harassment that caused them to feel unsafe at IFA and around Mr. Jamison.
Witness 1 also provided Mr. Ketzner with a letter she wrote addressed to Governor
Reynolds. 2 Mr. Ketzner assured Witness 1 and Witness 2 that he would bring their
concerns to the Governor immediately. That evening Mr. Ketzner informed
Governor Reynolds of the allegations against Mr. Jamison. They made plans to
meet the next day at Terrace Hill to discuss the matter.
The next morning, March 24, 2018, Governor Reynolds assembled Janet
Phipps (Director of the Department of Administrative Services), Ryan Koopmans
(Senior Legal Counsel to the Governor), David Roederer (Director of the
Department of Management), and Mr. Ketzner. Governor Reynolds read the letter
and Mr. Ketzner described his conversation with Witness 1 and Witness 2. After a
discussion about how to handle the situation, Governor Reynolds decided to
immediately terminate Mr. Jamison's employment. Mr. Ketzner summoned Mr.
Jamison, who was out of town in Kansas City at the time, to Des Moines that day.
They met that afternoon, and Mr. Ketzner informed Mr. Jamison that his
employment was terminated due to credible allegations of sexual harassment. He
declined to provide additional information to Mr. Jamison.
After Mr. Jamison's termination, certain legislators and others called for the
release of details about the conduct motivating the termination. In response, on
April26, 2018, Governor Reynolds' office made public the redacted version of the
letter written by Witness 1. The following day, the Governor's office contacted
this firm and requested that the firm conduct an investigation of matters
surrounding Mr. Jamison and allegations of sexual harassment at IFA. The IFA
Board of Directors approved funding for this investigation and IFA formally
retained this firm on May 2, 20 18. Ex. C, IFA Press Release. The engagement

2

The redacted version of that letter was published in The Des Moines
Register and is attached to this report as Exhibit B.
{02061640.DOCX}

4

 agreement between IFA and this firm described the scope of the investigation as
follows:
Outside Counsel will conduct an investigation related to the
following: ( 1) the facts concerning and relevant to the conduct of
former Authority Director David Jamison that led to the termination
of his employment with the Authority; (2) any incidents or conduct
during Mr. Jamison's tenure as Director that were similar in nature to
the conduct that led to the termination of his employment with the
Authority; and (3) the degree to which the inappropriate conduct of
Mr. Jamison was known within the Authority or elsewhere in state
government and the response or lack thereof to that conduct.
A few days after this firm was engaged, the Iowa General Assembly added
an amendment regarding investigations of IFA to House File 2493, a bill dealing
with unrelated matters. 3 Ex. D, House File 2493 as amended. The amendment
requires that reports of the investigations be transmitted to the General Assembly
by December 1, 2018. Pertinent to this firm's investigation, House File 2493
states: "The sexual harassment investigation shall include a review of any conduct
of current and former authority employees in violation of a state human resources
policy or an authority personnel policy that is related to the termination of the
former director of the authority." Ex. D § 17. Governor Reynolds subsequently
signed House File 2493 into law in June of2018.
While the firm has been engaged to conduct an investigation of facts
surrounding matters that could become the subject of litigation, the firm has not
been engaged to defend or advise the State of Iowa or any of its employees or
agents regarding any actual or threatened litigation. The firm's sole role is to
investigate the facts within the scope of the investigation and report those findings
to IFA, the Governor's office, and the General Assembly.
3

This firm's investigation is not the only investigation of IFA. The Eide
Bailly accounting firm and the Office of the State Auditor were separately engaged
to investigate financial matters of IFA. The State Auditor's office has not yet
released a report of its investigation. The Eide Bailly firm has completed some but
not all of its work.
{02061640.DOCX}

5

 III.

INVESTIGATION ACTIVITY.

This investigation involved 29 interviews with present and former
employees of IFA, witnesses who are not employed by the State of Iowa, and highlevel decision makers within state government, including Governor Reynolds. In
some cases we spoke to witnesses more than once.
We also collected and reviewed numerous documents from IFA. Those
included personnel files, expense and travel records, email communications to and
from Mr. Jamison, policy manuals, and other documents. While those documents
provided significant background and corroborated details of events disclosed in the
interviews, we found, and witnesses told us, that Mr. Jamison was far more
circumspect in writing (at least on state-owned communication devices to which
we were provided access) than he was orally. The bulk of the important
information in this investigation, therefore, came from the witness interviews.
Witness 1 and Witness 2 were the first individuals interviewed in depth for
this investigation. They each provided precise information about dates, locations,
and witnesses of incidents of sexual harassment. Those incidents were then
verified by speaking to other witnesses. When possible, travel and reimbursement
information was obtained to corroborate the date and location of certain events.
Unlike other witnesses, interview summaries for Witness 1, Witness 2, and
Mr. Jamison are not included in the appendix to this report. The pertinent
information revealed by Witness 1, Witness 2, and Mr. Jamison is included in the
body of this report. The full interview summaries for these three individuals are
omitted because the specificity of the interview summaries would reveal details
about Witness 1 and Witness 2 that would materially compromise their anonymity.
A third victim, Witness 3, described what she said was a single, isolated incident
that is reported in Section V.B.3. 4 At the end of the investigation we interviewed
Mr. Jamison. His response to the allegations is recounted in Section V.C.

4

Witness 3 is identified by name in the report for other reasons but requested
anonymity regarding one incident of sexual harassment by Mr. Jamison. Her
account of that incident is withheld from the appendix.

{02061640.DOCX}

6

 Information cited in this report and summaries of witness interviews are
attached to this report in the appendix. Many of the occurrences described in the
witness interviews are reproduced in this report in a summary fashion.

IV.

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS.

Mr. Jamison's employment with IFA was terminated because of the content
of the letter written by Witness 1 and because Mr. Ketzner concluded that both
Witness 1 and Witness 2 credibly described conduct that constitutes sexual
harassment. Presented with this information, Governor Reynolds made the
decision to terminate Mr. Jamison's employment.
We have concluded based on our investigation that Mr. Jamison indeed
engaged in sexually harassing conduct as described by Witness 1 and Witness 2 in
their reports to Mr. Ketzner and in Witness 1's letter. Beyond that, we have
determined that Mr. Jamison engaged in similar but more egregious conduct than
was mentioned in Witness 1's letter, especially with Witness 2. Two incidents
especially stand out.
First, on work-related travel in December of 2016, Mr. Jamison
intentionally, without consent, and in a public place grabbed Witness 2' s breasts
with both of his hands. This incident was verified by multiple witnesses. The
incident occurred while Mr. Jamison and other IFA employees were drinking
heavily during the evening at a hotel near Okoboji, Iowa. Mr. Jamison did this in
the context of what he apparently portrayed as a joke involving a bet over a dollar
bill. Mr. Jamison laughed while the other people present, including Witness 2,
were shocked. In the months following this incident, Mr. Jamison would
frequently see Witness 2 at work, and he would occasionally say to her, "I'll bet
you a dollar" or show her a dollar bill as if to imply that they shared an inside joke.
Second, in March of2018, Mr. Jamison without invitation or consent played
a pornographic video for Witness 2 on his cell phone while he was traveling with
Witness 2 alone in a car between work-related events in Nebraska and Western
Iowa. Mr. Jamison was in the passenger seat and Witness 2 was driving. Mr.
Jamison asked her questions about how she liked to have sex, whether she had ever
had sex in a public place, and the size of male genitalia she had sexually
{02061640.DOCX}

7

 experienced. He also told her that he liked the dress she was wearing the night
before. After these questions and comments, Mr. Jamison began watching and
showing Witness 2 an explicit video on his cell phone that purported to be an
instructional video about how to perform oral sex on a woman. Witness 2 was
silent. At one point during the video, Mr. Jamison looked down at his crotch and
said, "Can you tell when I'm excited?" Witness 2 related the incident to two
female colleagues at IFA shortly after the incident. It was this incident that
precipitated Witness 1 and Witness 2 coming forward to report Mr. Jamison's
behavior.
To be clear, Mr. Jamison categorically denies any wrongdoing. His position
is that the events described by Witness 1 and Witness 2 are simply false. Based on
the totality of our investigation, we do not find Mr. Jamison's denials to be
credible. The incident where Mr. Jamison grabbed Witness 2's breasts in
December of 2016 is not only well-documented, but Mr. Jamison admitted his
conduct to an IFA co-worker-yet he flatly denies it now. Having concluded that
Mr. Jamison falsely denied this incident, his denials in situations that might fairly
be characterized as "he said, she said" are unpersuasive.
We did not find evidence that Mr. Jamison directed sexually harassing
behavior at other female employees at IFA to anything like the degree he did with
Witness 1 and Witness 2. With the narrow exception of Witness 3, no other
current or former female employees at IFA requested confidentiality for any part of
their interviews with us. Mr. Jamison's treatment of Witness 1 and Witness 2 was
both quantitatively and qualitatively different than it was of other women.
This is not to say, however, that Mr. Jamison's behavior around other female
employees at IFA was appropriate. To the contrary, inappropriate sexual
comments in the workplace were the norm for Mr. Jamison, according to many of
the employees interviewed. Numerous employees described Mr. Jamison as
having "sophomoric humor" (i.e., double entendres or jokes that were
simultaneously juvenile and sexually suggestive) and behaving inappropriately in
professional settings. These incidents were described as poor attempts at humor
that were not generally directed at any particular individual, however.

{02061640.DOCX}

8

 While Mr. Jamison's "sophomoric humor" was known to many at IFA, his
more aggressive and harassing treatment of Witness 1 and Witness 2 was not.
Witness 1 and Witness 2 confided in each other and occasionally with one other
female colleague after incidents of sexual harassment that were specifically
directed at them. Witness 1 and Witness 2 did not otherwise report Mr. Jamison's
behavior inside or outside of IFA until their report to Governor Reynolds. When
Mr. Jamison's conduct toward Witness 1 and Witness 2 was witnessed by anyone,
it was typically witnessed only within a small group of IFA employees who
socialized-and drank alcohol-regularly and that Mr. Jamison referred to as his
"circle of trust." To a greater or lesser degree, members of that group could be
considered to have possessed knowledge that Mr. Jamison was behaving
inappropriately but failed to report that information. In particular, the incident at
the hotel near Okoboji in which Mr. Jamison grabbed Witness 2's breasts was
personally witnessed but not reported by Wes Peterson and Tara Lawrence, both of
whom hold senior positions at IFA.
We found no evidence that Mr. Jamison's sexually harassing behavior was
known anywhere in state government outside of IFA.
With one exception, we did not find evidence that Mr. Jamison directly
threatened anyone at IFA with retaliation if they reported inappropriate conduct by
him. The exception involves Brian Crozier, IFA's Chief Administrative Officer,
who was told by Mr. Jamison, "you must be allergic to a paycheck" when Mr.
Crozier told Mr. Jamison that he should tone down his sexually-suggestive humor.
We did find, however, that Mr. Jamison regularly touted his relationship with
Governor Reynolds to other employees at IFA, particularly after she became
Governor. At least some IFA employees inferred from Mr. Jamison's claims about
his relationship with the Governor that he had the power to squelch complaints
about his behavior. That may have discouraged reports about his behavior.
Also relevant to the likelihood of reports about Mr. Jamison's behavior was
that Witness 1 and Witness 2 received substantial increases in their compensation
during their employment at IFA. We found evidence of similar personnel
decisions with other younger female employees, including an occasion where Mr.
Jamison asked the Governor's office to intercede with the Department of
Administrative Services in order to effect a positive reclassification of a young
{02061640.DOCX}

9

 female employee's job in order to increase her pay. This is not to say any pay
increase was unearned or improper. But, to the extent that Witness 1 and Witness
2 hesitated to come forward for fear of adverse employment consequences, their
increasing rate of compensation due to Mr. Jamison's actions may have reasonably
intensified that concern.

V.

MR. JAMISON'S CONDUCT.

This section begins by discussing the standard for sexual harassment that
guided our investigation. This section then discusses the information gathered
about Mr. Jamison's conduct and his response. Our findings and impressions are
included at the end of this section.

A.

The Definition of Sexual Harassment Under State Policies.

As a guidepost for our investigation, we used the definition and examples of
sexual harassment used by the State of Iowa. Exhibit E contains an excerpt from
the State of Iowa's Employee Handbook regarding its sexual harassment policy.
Exhibit E also contains the employee complaint form used throughout state
government to report instances of inappropriate conduct.
Employees for the State of Iowa are advised that "sexual harassment means
persistent, repetitive, or highly egregious conduct directed at a specific individual
or group of individuals that a reasonable person would interpret as intentional
harassment of a sexual nature, taking into consideration the full context in which
the conduct occurs, which conduct threatens to impair the ability of a person to
perform the duties of employment, or otherwise function normally within an
institution responsible for the person's care, rehabilitation, education, or training."
Ex. E (citing Iowa Code§ 19B.12).
Examples of sexual harassment, according to the State's Handbook, include,
but are not limited to:
1.

Unwelcome sexual advances.

2.

Hostile conduct based on the person's sex, sexual orientation, or
gender identity.

{02061640.DOCX}

10

 3.

Requesting or offering sexual favors in return for job benefits.

4.

Actions such as cornering, patting, pinching, touching or brushing
against another person's body that are sexual in nature.

5.

Open speculation or inquiries about another person's sex life.

6.

Jokes, remarks, or innuendos that are sexual in nature or based on real
or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity about another
person, or about men or women in general.

7.

Displaying sexually explicit material in the work place.

8.

Conditioning work benefits on submission to sexual advances,
tolerance of a sexually hostile work environment or giving
preferential treatment because of another person's submission to
sexual advances, or tolerance of a sexually hostile work environment.

B.

Facts Uncovered in the Investigation.

This section has three parts. The first two parts discuss the information
described by Witness 1 and Witness 2. Each of those parts also includes
corroborating information developed from interviews of other witnesses and
documents. The third part of this section discusses inappropriate conduct by Mr.
Jamison that was not specifically directed toward people that have identified
themselves as victims of sexual harassment.
1.

Witness 1.

When Witness 1 started working at IFA in 2012, she was not given a
detailed job description or list of job duties. Instead, Mr. Jamison left it to her to
"handle the job" and to decide what to accomplish. Witness 1 created a job
description for herself and took it to Mr. Jamison's office. He told her that if she
was looking for guidance, she was in the wrong place. She said the only thing Mr.
Jamison made clear to her about her new job was that he wanted someone to travel
with him for work.

{02061640.DOCX}

11

 Witness 1 reported directly to Mr. Jamison until Brian Crozier was hired in
April of 2016. Witness 1's salary was approximately $50,000 when she began
working at IFA. When Mr. Jamison hired her, however, he promised her that he
would increase her salary after six months. By the time she left IFA in 2018, her
salary had increased approximately 60%.
Witness 1 traveled frequently for work, primarily to attend conferences. Mr.
Jamison would also frequently attend conferences. Witness 1 did not think Mr.
Jamison's attendance of these conferences was often necessary. Sometimes Mr.
Jamison would say, "I want to go on a trip" or "I need to go on a trip," and then he
would find a conference to attend. She recalled one time that she was marked
down in her performance review for not attending a conference that Mr. Jamison
thought she should have attended.
Even though Mr. Jamison would travel frequently for conferences, Witness
1 said he did not actually attend much of the programming at the conferences.
Instead, he would go out for meals, go to bars, and visit "Asian massage parlors."
She said he would tell her about visiting Asian massage parlors on these trips and
then tell her about his "happy endings." She remembered one time when Mr.
Jamison came back from visiting an Asian massage parlor and said that the woman
had told him he was "very big." Mr. Jamison generally drank heavily at these
conferences. Witness 1 said that she believes that Mr. Jamison has a problem with
alcohol.
The first sexually inappropriate encounter that Witness 1 could recall
occurred within her first six months of employment. She was in Mr. Jamison's
office and he started talking to her about how bad his home life was. He told her
that his wife gave him no attention and never had sex with him. Mr. Jamison told
Witness 1 that he did not need his wife, however, because he got his "happy
endings" from Asian massage parlors. From that point on, he frequently
commented on how bad his sex life with his wife was. Witness 1 also said that
from that point on, "everything was an innuendo to him." Mr. Jamison also
frequently discussed his own sexual experiences in front of her and others
including Witness 2 and Wes Peterson, the Director of Government Affairs for
IFA.

{02061640.DOCX}

12

 Witness 1 said that Mr. Jamison had several inappropriate jokes, comments,
and behaviors that he repeated from time to time. "Arthritic hands" was one such
repeated joke where he would cup his hands as if he were cupping a woman's
breasts and then would say he suffered from arthritic hands. He would also
frequently talk about "the shocker," which he explained to Witness 1 was a
maneuver performed with one's hand on a woman with "two [fingers] in the pink,
one in the stink." Witness 1 said that he would make a corresponding hand gesture
when he referenced the shocker. She believes that Mr. Jamison made this gesture
in front of Witness 2, Mr. Crozier, and Mr. Peterson. Another joke he told
frequently was that he "hired the law firm of Lauer, Weinstein, and Franken to
represent him." Also, after he would make an inappropriate remark, he would say,
"I forgot, my friend Matt Lauer told me not to say that." Other employees at IFA
noticed Mr. Jamison's inappropriate jokes and comments. For example, Mark
Thompson, a senior attorney at IFA, on at least one occasion apparently remarked
that "What the Director meant to say was ... " in response to an off-color comment
made by Mr. Jamison.
Mr. Jamison also liked to talk about what he called "mandingo parties." He
told the Witness that a mandingo party was where a white man hires a black man
to have sex with his wife while he watches. She said he also liked to talk about
vibrators, specifically one known as "the rabbit," and "merkins," which he said
were wigs for pubic hair. He repeatedly told stories about an older and
experienced woman with whom he had sex as a young man, saying that she was a
hippie that "really knew how to go down on me." He also liked to make a hand
gesture where he put his index finger and middle finger together and then rotated
them in a circle. He would make this gesture at meetings where many people were
present and say, "This is how the ladies like it on their clit."
Witness 1 had numerous specific examples of Mr. Jamison's sexually
inappropriate behavior written down and she consulted her notes during the
interview. In general, Witness 1 reported that many of the inappropriate comments
and behaviors occurred at bars. Mr. Jamison would frequently ask a certain group
of people that he referred to as "the circle of trust" to go to The Beechwood
Lounge or Carl's Place with him. Witness 1 was in this circle and was one of the
people he asked frequently. "Marketing meetings" was Mr. Jamison's code phrase
{02061640. DOCX}

13

 used in text messages or emails when he wanted to go to Carl's Place. At Carl's
Place, Mr. Jamison always sat at the table that he called the "penis table" because
someone had etched a drawing of a penis into it. 5 "Marketing meetings" would
start as early as 2:00 p.m. Witness 1 usually did not show up until around 4:00 p.m.
and Mr. Jamison would give her grief for showing up late. "Marketing meetings"
happened on a fairly regular basis.
Mr. Jamison frequented bars regularly and Witness 1 reported that if he
asked a colleague to go out drinking with him and he or she did not, Mr. Jamison
would make that person's job more difficult. She said that he would withhold
information that was necessary to perform that person's job. Other witnesses that
we spoke with confirmed Mr. Jamison's insistence on employees accompanying
him for drinks and confirmed that withholding job-related information was a
method of control exercised by Mr. Jamison. App. IFA 056-058 (Flannery
Interview Summary); App. IFA 044-055 (Crozier Interview Summary).
Approximately four years ago, Witness 1 was at lunch at Dos Rios in Des
Moines with Mr. Peterson, Mr. Jamison, and Witness 2. Mr. Jamison started
talking about mandingo parties and then he turned to her and asked, "Have you
ever had a big black one?" He started showing her images on his phone of nude
black men and asking her, "What do you think of him?" She also said that he
would frequently drink when they went out to lunch like this, but she does not
recall if he was drinking at that specific lunch.
On numerous occasions, Mr. Jamison commented on Witness 1's physical
appearance. He would talk about how large her chest was and would try to look
down her shirt. From then on, she attempted to choose clothing that she thought
would discourage Mr. Jamison from making these comments. Another one of Mr.
Jamison's recurrent comments to her was, "The girls [his expression for her
breasts] are looking good today." She recalled an all-staff meeting on September
26, 2017 where she was sitting in the front row wearing a pink crewneck sweater.
5

In the course of the investigation we visited Carl's Place and verified that
there is in fact such a table. We showed Mr. Jamison a picture of a table at Carl's
Place matching this description, but he said that there is evidently more than one
"penis table" at Carl's Place, because he frequented a different one.
{02061640. DOCX}

14

 She stretched her neck and Mr. Jamison stared at her chest and said, "You can do
that again." Rhonda Kimble witnessed this comment. App. IFA 070-073 (Kimble
Interview Summary). Witness 1 never wore that sweater again. This all-staff
meeting stood out in Witness 1's memory because they were discussing IFA's new
building. Witness 1 recalled Mr. Crozier and Mr. Peterson were present for this
comment. Neither Mr. Crozier or Mr. Peterson specifically recalled this comment
but they both acknowledged that Mr. Jamison frequently made sexually
inappropriate comments that would be in line with Witness 1's recollection. App.
IFA 081-083 (Peterson Interview Summary); App. IFA 044-055 (Crozier
Interview Summary).
On June 4, 2015, several employees of IFA attended the Iowa Association of
Realtors Summer Jubilee in Clear Lake, Iowa. Employees of IFA attend this
conference to market IFA's lending products. In the evening after the conference,
Mr. Jamison insisted that Witness 1 and Witness 2 go to the Diamond Jo Casino
with him. They did not want to go with him as he had been drinking excessively at
that point. Despite the fact that he had been drinking, he drove them some 20
miles to the casino. When they returned from the casino, Mr. Jamison persistently
asked Witness 1 to go back to his hotel room with him. That was not the only time
Mr. Jamison, according to Witness 1, attempted to get her to go to his hotel room
while they were traveling.
On June 1, 2016, Witness 1 traveled with Witness 2, Mr. Jamison, and Mr.
Peterson to a summer marketing campaign in Bettendorf, Iowa. While they were
in town, they had scheduled a meeting with the Mayor of Bettendorf, Iowa, Robert
Gallagher, to discuss issues relating to flooding. They finished with their
marketing campaign early and had time before their meeting with Mayor
Gallagher. Witness 1 and Witness 2 decided to go to a Starbucks to work. Mr.
Jamison and Mr. Peterson decided to go drinking and gambling at the Isle of Capri
Casino. Witness 1 and Witness 2 showed up to the Bettendorf meeting on time,
but Mr. Jamison and Mr. Peterson showed up at least 20 minutes late to the
meeting smelling of alcohol. Mr. Peterson recalls this trip and the meetings, but
denies drinking or gambling. App IFA 081-083 (Peterson Interview Summary)
After meeting with Mayor Gallagher, the four of them went to a bar. While
there, Mr. Jamison kept asking sexual questions. He asked Witness 1 to tell him
{02061640.DOCX}

15

 about the craziest place she ever had sex, her favorite sex position, and about the
"biggest cock" she had ever had. This was not the first or last time that Mr.
Jamison asked her these questions, but she remembers him asking them on this day
specifically. She would usually answer his sexual questions honestly because she
felt that she had to in order to keep her job. He would also make sexual comments
like "I bet you're naughty" and "I bet you're so dirty." At the bar, Mr. Jamison
acted like he and Witness 1 were a couple and similarly acted like Witness 2 and
Mr. Peterson were a couple. He then said to their waitress, "We are all married,
just not to each other!"
On November 14, 2016, several employees of IFA attended the Midwest
Housing Collaborative in Indianapolis, Indiana. Somehow, Witness 1 said, she and
Mr. Jamison had hotel rooms right next to each other even though no one else from
IFA had rooms nearby. Mr. Jamison asked her to come up to his room for a
nightcap. She did go up to his room, but upon arriving at the room, she felt it was a
bad idea and turned around and walked out.
On October 16, 2017, Witness 1 attended the National Council of State
Housing Agencies Annual Conference in Denver, Colorado. Several other IFA
employees attended including Mr. Jamison. One evening at a bar/restaurant with
other IFA employees, Mr. Jamison kept looking across the table at Witness 1 and
asking her if her breasts were real. He also gestured for her to pull her shirt down
and show him her breasts. Ms. Kimble corroborated this event. App. IFA 070073 (Kimble Interview Summary).
On Halloween of 2017, Witness 1 was wearing a "The Price is Right" shirt
as part of her costume. In front of Ms. Kimble, Mr. Jamison said to Witness 1,
"The price is never wrong with you!" in a sexually suggestive tone. Mr. Jamison
also made comments about how other women looked in what they were wearing.
Ms. Kimble corroborated this account. App. IFA 070-073 (Kimble Interview
Summary).
On February 15, 2018, Witness 1 attended the Midwest Housing
Collaborative in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Mr. Jamison, Mr. Crozier, and Witness 2
also attended. Despite the fact that there were only four people traveling, they took
two cars. Witness 1 said Mr. Jamison did not like to ride in state-owned cars
{02061640.DOCX}

16

 because he liked to smoke cigars while driving, so Mr. Jamison took his own car
and Witness 1 rode with him. (Mr. Jamison agreed this was his habit.) Mr. Crozier
and Witness 2 drove separately in a state-owned vehicle. During the seven-hour
drive, Mr. Jamison rubbed the back of Witness 1's neck and asked her to tell him
about the "biggest cock [she] had ever had." While Mr. Jamison was driving, she
said, he stared at her breasts so much that she thought he was going to drive off the
road. He would also comment to her about how good Witness 2 looked, saying
that she looked good before, but now that she had lost weight, "Wow!"
Mr. Jamison would constantly ask Witness 1 to attend events with him that
were not work-related. He wanted her to go with him to legislative events and to
attend parties at the downtown Marriott for the Iowa State County Treasurers'
Association. She was not the only one he would ask to attend these events; he
would also ask Tara Lawrence and Witness 2 to go with him. In general, Mr.
Jamison wanted Ms. Lawrence to attend more conferences with him, but there was
no reason for her to attend multi-state conferences as she manages Iowa Title
Guaranty, which is a program unique to Iowa.
Witness 1 stated that she was part of a Snapchat group with several other
IFA employees, including Mr. Jamison, Ms. Lawrence, Mr. Peterson, and Witness
2. Mr. Jamison formed the group and named it "IFA Trouble." Mr. Jamison
would send snaps to the group with inappropriate jokes, emojis, or messages
saying "Beechwood at 4:00p.m." Shortly after Mr. Jamison was fired, Witness 1
received a notification through Snapchat that Mr. Jamison had changed the name
of the group to "IFA Friends." Prior to instituting the Snapchat group, Mr.
Jamison would send these types of things over text message.
Ultimately, Witness 1 stated that she never said anything to Mr. Jamison
about his behavior or that it was inappropriate. She never specifically told him that
he needed to stop any of his inappropriate behaviors. There was little doubt,
however, that Mr. Jamison knew his behavior was wrong given his own comments
(i.e., "Matt Lauer told me I couldn't say that") and the behavior of people around
him in response to his comments. Witness 1 has expressed fear that Mr. Jamison is
dangerous because he told her and others that he was in the "special forces" while
in the Marine Corps.

{02061640.DOCX}

17

 2.

Witness 2.

Witness 2 joined IFA in 2010. Throughout the majority of her tenure at IFA
she reported directly to Mr. Jamison. About one year ago, she began to report
directly to Mr. Crozier, but she maintained daily contact with Mr. Jamison.
Witness 2 did not know Mr. Jamison before he became the Executive
Director. She first met Mr. Jamison in January of 2011, when he interviewed her
to "see if he wanted to keep [her] or not" upon his arrival at IFA. Very shortly
after Mr. Jamison's arrival he began to make inappropriate jokes, which the
witness described as generally being "stupid and unremarkable." Mr. Jamison
made inappropriate sexual comments on a daily basis, whether in one-on-one
meetings, staff meetings, or with external business/governmental partners. As an
example, Witness 2 recounted a time when there were some peanuts on a table at a
meeting and Mr. Jamison joked about the "peanuts" sounding like the word
"penis." Witness 2 said that these kinds of sophomoric sexual jokes were constant
from Mr. Jamison.
When asked to recount Mr. Jamison's most problematic behavior, Witness 2
described an encounter on December 14, 2016, when she was traveling with coworkers. She was traveling with Ms. Lawrence, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Jamison, and a
videographer that IFA had hired for the trip, Dan Welk. They traveled to the
Okoboji area in Northwest Iowa to interview people for testimonials regarding
IFA's work. That night the group gathered at bar of the hotel where they were
staying in Arnolds Park. Mr. Jamison put a dollar bill on the table and said to
Witness 2, "I bet a dollar that I can touch your boobs without putting one hand on
you." Mr. Jamison then grabbed her breasts. Mr. Jamison laughed. Ms. Lawrence
was apparently yelling "no, no, no." Mr. Jamison said, "See? I didn't put one
hand on you. I put two hands on you. I win!"
Although witnesses differed on the exact wording of the joke, this event was
fully corroborated by Mr. Welk and Mr. Peterson. App 081-083 (Peterson
Interview Summary). Mr. Welk was particularly struck by the event because he
was a stranger to the group, yet that did not deter Mr. Jamison's behavior. He was
also struck by how much everyone in the group was drinking. App. 095-096

{02061640.DOCX}

18

 (Welk Interview Summary). Ms. Lawrence refused to answer questions for this
investigation.
Witness 2 said that Mr. Jamison was intoxicated on this occasion, and that
he was frequently intoxicated at these conferences. Mr. Jamison subsequently
apologized to her and said that he knew that she could sue him and take everything
that he had. Nonetheless, after this event, Mr. Jamison would still say to her "hey,
I'll bet you a dollar" or he would gesture as though he were going to give a dollar
bill to her as if to remind her of the incident.
Witness 2 stated that she traveled frequently for work in order to attend a
variety of conferences with Mr. Jamison. She felt that she frequently did not need
to be at the conferences and that it was not necessary for anybody from IFA to
attend so many conferences. She said that Mr. Jamison "liked to have arm candy"
at these events. Mr. Jamison, she said, would sometimes refer to her and other
women at IFA as his "IFA bitches" or his "IFA Angels."
Another instance discussed by Witness 2 occurred at the Housing Iowa
Conference in September 20 17. Mr. Jamison had a suite at the hotel where they
were staying, and he would require IFA employees to join him there for drinks. At
that suite, Mr. Jamison told Witness 2 that he missed a black and white dress that
she had because he liked the way that her cleavage looked in the dress.
One of the incidents that most disturbed Witness 2 occurred when she
traveled with Mr. Jamison to a couple of events in Western Iowa in March of2018.
During the course of this trip, Witness 2 said that Mr. Jamison did or said the
following:
• Mr. Jamison asked her when their first meeting was the next morning but
then said "never mind, I'll just roll over and ask you."
• When they arrived at the hotel, Mr. Jamison told a desk clerk that Witness 2
would probably insist on adjoining rooms but his friend Matt Lauer told him
that was not okay.
• At a reception at the conference Mr. Jamison told other attendees that he
liked the way Witness 2 looked in a blue dress and then said "I'll bet you a
dollar" to Witness 2.
{02061640.DOCX}

19

 • During the car trip, Mr. Jamison asked Witness 2 about the biggest penis she
had ever experienced, her favorite sexual position, whether she had ever had
sex with someone whose penis was too big, and at what public places she
had had sex. He told her about massage parlors that he frequented for happy
endings, and he repeatedly told her how good she looked in a blue dress the
night before.
• During this same car trip, Mr. Jamison used his cell phone to watch a
pornographic video about how to perform oral sex on a woman. He showed
her images of the video while Witness 2 was driving, and Mr. Jamison said
to her "Can you tell when I'm excited?" while looking at his crotch.
Upon returning from this trip, Witness 2 had a meeting with Ms. Kimble and
Witness 1 where she told them what happened. They considered whether it was
time to speak with a lawyer, and they ultimately decided that reaching out to the
Governor's office would be the best solution.
The next day Mr. Jamison said to Witness 2 that he was sorry if his flirting
was too one-sided, but that he thought of her like family and that she was in "the
circle of trust." He also told her on this occasion that he wanted to promote her.
Witness 2 recounted several other discrete events. Mr. Jamison noticed that
she was going to the gym more frequently. Mr. Jamison said to Witness 2, "You
spend more time at the gym than with me, the gym guy must have bigger junk than
I do." Mr. Jamison asked Witness 2 if she shaved her pubic hair, and he asked her
to guess which other women in the office did as well. Mr. Jamison told her that he
preferred "landing strips," which is a particular style for grooming pubic hair.
Witness 2 reported that she would only laugh at such behavior to avoid discomfort.
Mr. Jamison would make a circling motion with his finger as if to signify
that it was being inserted in vagina. Mr. Jamison also made a hand gesture that he
called "the shocker." Mr. Jamison and Mr. Crozier informed Witness 2 what "the
shocker" is meant to signify.
During a Board of Directors meeting for IFA, Mr. Jamison used Snapchat to
send Witness 2 a picture of a Groupon offer for sex toys. Witness 1 and Witness 2
both believe that Mr. Jamison sent the picture during the meeting so that he could
{02061640.DOCX}

20

 see Witness 2's reaction. This message went directly to Witness 2; it was not sent
to the "IFA Trouble" Snapchat group.
When Witness 2 was with Mr. Jamison in public, he would sometimes refer
to the two of them as having a "May-December romance." Mr. Jamison would say
that if he ever got in trouble for his behavior that he would call the law firm of
"Lauer, Franken, and Weinstein." On at least one occasion, Witness 2 reported
that Mr. Crozier told Mr. Jamison that he needed to stop his behavior, to which Mr.
Jamison said that he must be "allergic to a paycheck." Mr. Crozier confirmed this.
App. 044-055 (Crozier Interview Summary).
Mr. Jamison would make it clear to Witness 2 that he was responsible for
"keeping her" when he became the Executive Director and for promoting her. He
would say things to her like, "Do you like your job? Aren't you glad I promoted
you?"
Indeed, during Mr. Jamison's tenure, Witness 2's compensation
approximately doubled, from a figure exceeding $50,000 to a figure exceeding
$100,000.
Witness 2 did not specifically object to Mr. Jamison's behavior or tell him to
stop. She explained that the reason for not specifically objecting was that she was
embarrassed, frightened of his response, and concerned that she might lose her job.
3.

Other Employees.

Witness 1 and Witness 2 were not the only employees to expenence
inappropriate behavior while working with Mr. Jamison. To a lesser degree, two
incidents with other employees stand out.
One individual, who is referred to here as Witness 3 because she asked for
anonymity for this limited purpose, described an incident where Mr. Jamison told
her, "You look sexy." At the Housing Iowa Conference in September of 2016,
Witness 3 reported that Mr. Jamison was drunk, and that he approached her at the
opening banquet. He said to her, without solicitation, "You look sexy." She did
not immediately respond because she was embarrassed and knew better than to
engage with him while he was drinking. Witness 3 believed that Mr. Jamison was
drunk because his face was flushed, he was loud, and his language was a "little

{02061640.DOCX}

21

 slurred." She confronted him the next time she saw him at the office.
apologized and she told him that it would not happen again. He agreed.

He

Brian Crozier recalled one particular incident where he was having lunch
with Mr. Jamison, and Mr. Jamison used the phrase 'jungle fever" to describe
another IFA employee who Mr. Jamison believed to be particularly attracted to
African-American women. Mr. Crozier found this particularly insulting and
inappropriate because his wife is African-American. Mr. Crozier described these
kinds of sexual remarks and speculation as common for Mr. Jamison. App. IFA
044-055 (Crozier Interview Summary).

C.

Mr. Jamison's Response.

Mr. Jamison was given a chance to respond to these allegations. He was
interviewed with his attorney present near the conclusion of the investigation.
With only minor concessions, Mr. Jamison asserted that all of the allegations of
sexual harassment against him are false. In some instances, Mr. Jamison believed
that his statements were taken out of context or that the claims were exaggerated.
In large part, however, he simply says none of it actually happened.
1.

Response to Allegations of Witness 1.

In response to a series of questions regarding the allegations made by
Witness 1, Mr. Jamison said that he never asked about her sexual history in any
way or made any comments of a sexual nature to her.
The only variation in a litany of denials was when he was asked if the words
"happy endings" ever came out of his mouth in Witness 1's presence. Mr. Jamison
answered, "Not that I recall." He did say that it was well-known at the office that
he scheduled routine massages. Those massages, however, were for legitimate,
therapeutic purposes.
When asked if he ever made a joke referring to "arthritic hands," Mr.
Jamison said, "Wait, I may have." He said that he usually made the joke "around
the guys" in a social setting and he said that he could not swear that Witness 1 was
never present when he said it. He stated that "arthritic hands" was an obscene
gesture he picked up from television or the movies and that it was a reference to a
{02061640.DOCX}

22

 woman with large breasts. He made the corresponding hand gesture during the
interview in which he cupped his hands and held his hands up at the level of his
chest. Mr. Jamison said that it was possible Witness 1 overheard this joke but he
did not make the joke directly to her.
When asked about "the shocker," Mr. Jamison smiled and spoke about a
conference that IFA hosted in Des Moines. He said that IFA provided cell phone
charging stations for attendees at the conference and the stations had a brand name
of "the Shocker." Mr. Jamison said that when he entered the conference and
approached the registration table, the women working the table were giggling and
he asked them what was going on. They replied, "Have you seen the charging
stations?" Mr. Jamison said he did not know what they were talking about, turned,
and walked away. As he was discussing this during the interview, he made a
gesture with his hands. Mr. Weinhardt inquired about the gesture that Mr. Jamison
had just made and then Mr. Jamison smiled. Mr. Jamison held up his hands with
the same gesture and said that it "was an obscene gesture on the street." Mr.
Jamison stated that it was "explained to him" as "the typical stimulation of a
woman with two fingers but adding a third finger in the anal region." He then said
that he made the gesture at the conference in response to the women pointing out
the name of the charging station and that Witness 1 may have been one of the
people to see him make the hand gesture but he never directed the gesture at her.
When asked about references to Matt Lauer, he said that he did make
references to Matt Lauer but only when an employee would say something and it
would be "ripe for a double entendre" and other employees looked at him as if
awaiting a response. He would just say "Matt Lauer advises that I don't respond to
that." He said that he referenced the law firm of "Lauer, Weinstein, and Franken"
when he announced that IFA would be participating in mandatory sexual
harassment training only to joke that the fictitious law firm was not available to
conduct the training.
Mr. Jamison said that he and other IFA employees would go to Carl's Place
or The Beechwood Lounge occasionally at the end of the workday. When asked
how frequently, he said they would go every other week unless the legislature was
in session in which case they would go to The Beechwood Lounge a couple times a
week. He said that he would usually leave the office at 4:00 p.m. During the
{02061640.DOCX}

23

 legislative session, going to The Beechwood Lounge was a chance to visit with
other lobbyists about their initiatives and decide whether there was anything he
needed to know germane to IFA's mission. He thought it was also an important
opportunity to network with legislators.
Mr. Jamison said that he did refer to drinks after work as "marketing
meetings." He got this label from a sign that was on the wall at Carl's Place that
said, "Home of the 3:30p.m. marketing meeting."
When asked if he ever used the phrase "circle of trust," Mr. Jamison said he
does not recall using that phrase. He said, however, that the reference was to the
movie "Meet the Parents," which is one of his favorite movies, so he may have
used the phrase but it would not have been in a serious manner, and that he never
used it to discourage reporting his behavior.
Mr. Jamison said that he did have a Snapchat group with Witness 1, Witness
2, Mr. Peterson, and Ms. Lawrence. He said that he did not know if he ever named
the group. When asked if he recalled naming the group "IFA Trouble" he said,
"yeah, might have." He said that he did not recall if he had changed the name of
this group after being terminated.
2.

Response to Allegations of Witness 2.

Mr. Jamison was asked about the incident on December 14, 2016 in Arnolds
Park, Iowa where he was alleged to have grabbed Witness 2' s breasts. Mr.
Jamison agreed that Mr. Peterson, Witness 2, Ms. Lawrence, and a videographer
were all on this trip. Mr. Jamison said that the purpose of the trip was to meet with
local officials. The group was together at a bar at the end of the day. Mr. Jamison
said he told them that he had heard a joke where someone says, "I bet a dollar I can
touch your breast without touching your clothes." He said that Witness 2 appeared
to him to be intrigued and said, "Really?" Mr. Jamison said, "Oh yeah, it's
magic." At that point Mr. Jamison's attorney interrupted the interview and said,
"Before he goes more into this, I want to take a break and talk to him real quick."
They left the room. Mr. Jamison and his attorney came back into the interview a
few moments later and Mr. Jamison stated, "I never touched her. I know other
people started to allege that I did, but I did not touch her."

{02061640.DOCX}

24

 When asked to explain the joke, Mr. Jamison said, "Well, it is not much of a
joke really, but you just lose the dollar and grab the breasts." He denies that this
ever actually happened and emphatically denied touching Witness 2' s breasts. Mr.
Jamison is familiar with the allegation but cannot recall the first time he was made
aware of it. He said that if other people alleged that he touched Witness 2 's
breasts, they would be wrong.
Mr. Jamison said that upon the return to Des Moines after this incident, he
went to Witness 2 's office because he felt that he had drunk too much that evening.
He told Witness 2 that his "behavior was inappropriate and you can expect better
from me in the future." He said he was apologizing because there was a lot of
drinking going on, he had used bad language, and for the inappropriate jokes and
humor. He said that he also apologized to Ms. Lawrence and Mr. Peterson but not
to the videographer. Mr. Jamison reported that Witness 2 said something to the
effect of "don't worry about it, forget it." Mr. Jamison denied he made a
subsequent reference to a dollar bill or gestured as though he had a dollar bill to
reference that night in Okoboji.
Mr. Jamison was then asked to address the trip in March of2018 where he is
alleged to have watched and displayed pornography and asked Witness 2 if she
could tell that he was sexually aroused. He recalled driving alone with Witness 2
on the return trip from Omaha, Nebraska to Des Moines, Iowa. He denied any
inappropriate behavior whatsoever and categorically denied Witness 2 's
allegations. He admitted that he may have told Witness 2 that she "looked nice"
on occasion but he does not remember doing so on this trip.
As with his responses to the questions about Witness 1's allegations, Mr.
Jamison denied all manner of inappropriate comments related to Witness 2. Mr.
Jamison noted, however, that Witness 2 once told him that she had sex with her
boyfriend (now husband) in the bathroom at a bar. Mr. Jamison remembers her
saying this because he was so surprised by the comment. He says it was
unsolicited.
Mr. Jamison then interjected that despite the allegations against him, it was
Witness 1 and Witness 2 that would often start sexual conversations. He said that
Witness 1 frequently spoke about "vagina glue." She would ask Mr. Jamison if he
{02061640.DOCX}

25

 wanted to invest in her new "vagina glue" business. She never specified what
"vagina glue" was or got into its exact purpose but she brought it up on multiple
occasions and just said it was for "women of a certain age."
Mr. Jamison said that it was also not uncommon for Witness 1 to ask him if
he knew the meaning of certain sexual terms or phrases. For example, he says that
she asked if he knew what a "merkin" was (Mr. Jamison stated that she said it was
a toupee for female genitalia) or if he knew what a "moose knuckle" was (Mr.
Jamison stated that the phrase is used when a man is wearing pants that are too
tight). Witness 1 would also say, "I know this joke but I can't quite remember it,
do you know how it goes?" Then Mr. Jamison would tell her the joke, but only
after she had solicited it. Mr. Jamison does not remember as much of this type of
behavior from Witness 2 but says that she would also start sexual conversations.
For example, he recalls her asking him, "Do you know who Dirk Diggler is?" 6
When asked if he ever referenced being in a May-December romance with
Witness 2, he said yes, he did. He recounted that he was at a bar with other IFA
employees and he lifted his glass and made a toast to Witness 2 saying, "Here's to
May-December romances!" The man sitting behind Witness 2 started laughing
and Witness 2 said, "I wonder why he is laughing?" Mr. Jamison said, "Haven't
you heard the phrase May-December romance?" She said that she had not, and he
explained it to her as a romantic relationship between a young woman and a
significantly older man. He said that Witness 2 laughed when she found out what it
meant.
3.

Response to Allegations of Other Employees.

Mr. Jamison again denied all manner of misconduct, and provided several
clarifications. He said that he never had conversations of a sexual nature with Ms.
Lawrence. He never told anyone, including Witness 3, that they "looked sexy."
Mr. Jamison said that he never referred to anyone as "IFA angels" or the "IFA
bitches." He said that if IFA was hosting a conference he may have said
something like, "Right over there and the IFA ladies will help you."
6

"Dirk Diggler" is a fictitious male pornographic actor in the 1997 film
"Boogie Nights." See https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118749/?ref =nv sr 1.
{02061640.DOCX}

26

 Mr. Jamison asserts that Mr. Crozier never told him that he needed to change
his behavior or language. Thus, Mr. Jamison claims that he did not say, "You must
be allergic to a paycheck" to Mr. Crozier. Mr. Jamison said that he could not
swear that Mr. Thompson did or did not say, "As your lawyer, I advise you not to
say things like that." Mr. Jamison said that Mr. Thompson has a good sense of
humor, and that although he does not recall Mr. Thompson saying that, it sounds
like something he would say. Mr. Jamison said that Mr. Peterson never told him to
tone down his behavior around IFA employees.
When asked about his alcohol consumption and whether he believes he has a
problem, Mr. Jamison answered, "You know, I've been hearing it so much I have
had to do self-reflection." He said that his wife asked him to limit his alcohol
consumption and he has been doing that. He stated that he never would have
characterized his alcohol consumption as "having a problem" but that "when you
hear it from enough people you start thinking about it seriously." He has not
sought any sort of treatment.
Mr. Jamison read the sexual harassment policy found in the state employee
handbook during the interview. He said none of his behavior towards any IFA
employee fit within the definition of sexual harassment.
Mr. Jamison was asked if he ever told IFA employees that he was good
friends with Governor Reynolds. Mr. Jamison said that "it would occasionally
come up," but that he does not know how because he "does not know how people
became aware of the relationship." He said that he would speak with Jess Flaherty,
his executive assistant, about Governor Reynolds. Overall, he said it was common
knowledge that he and Governor Reynolds worked together in the county
treasurer's association. Mr. Jamison acknowledged that he had involved the
Governor's office in an attempt to get a pay raise for Ms. Flaherty and that his
efforts were ultimately successful.
Mr. Jamison said that he did see Governor Reynolds' speeches before she
delivered them. Governor Reynolds asked him to read part of her inaugural
address and see what he thought. Mr. Jamison would help Governor Reynolds
make sure that her speeches were in "her voice." Mr. Jamison also asked Ms.
Flaherty and Witness 2 to help edit certain parts of the speeches that Governor
{02061640.DOCX}

27

 Reynolds would send to him. Mr. Peterson knew that Mr. Jamison helped
Governor Reynolds with her speeches. Mr. Jamison said that she would ask him
for help because they worked together a long time and she had always
complimented him on his communication skills, especially his written
communication skills.
Mr. Jamison denied telling people that he served in the "special forces." He
says that he would sometimes joke with Mr. Crozier, however, that the "Marine
Corps is the special forces." Mr. Jamison acknowledged having primarily
administrative jobs in the Marine Corps once "they found out that I could type."
D.

Findings Regarding Mr. Jamison's Conduct.

Mr. Jamison engaged in conduct that constitutes sexual harassment.
Although he denied almost all of the allegations made by Witness 1 and Witness 2,
his version of events is not credible.
First, we believe Mr. Jamison's denial of having grabbed Witness 2's breasts
in December of 2016 is false. That incident was witnessed by three people: Mr.
Peterson, Ms. Lawrence, and Mr. Welk. Mr. Peterson's and Mr. Welk's version of
events fully corroborates Witness 2' s description. Ms. Lawrence refused to answer
questions about this event or any aspect of the investigation, bu we have no reason
to believe that she has any information contradicting Witness 2' s allegations.
Indeed, Ms. Lawrence recounted the event to Mr. Jamison's executive assistant
Jess Flaherty some time later. App. IFA 056-058 (Flaherty Interview Summary).
Significantly, even though, Mr. Jamison denied physical contact with Witness 2 to
us, he admitted it after the incident to Ms. Flaherty, telling her, "I grabbed
[Witness 2's] boobs, everyone laughed, I apologized, and she was OK with it."
App. IFA 056-058 (Flaherty Interview Summary). It is also suspicious that Mr.
Jamison offers no alternative explanation for why these individuals would say that
he groped Witness 2 on this occasion and suspicious that his flat denial came only
after his attorney interrupted the questioning.
Second, to the extent that Mr. Jamison claims that he never even engaged in
joking, sexually inappropriate comments, his claims are undercut by his own
assertion that Witness 1 and Witness 2 were responsible for starting those kinds of
conversations. Mr. Jamison cannot simultaneously claim with credibility that he
{02061640.DOCX}

28

 never engaged in such conversations while also claiming that Witness 1 and
Witness 2 initiated them. Moreover, Mr. Jamison was almost universally
described as having sophomoric humor and having a taste for sexual innuendos.
The same cannot be said about Witness 1 and Witness 2. Against this backdrop,
Mr. Jamison's claim that he simply did not make sexually inappropriate comments
.
.
Is unpersuas1ve.
Third, having demonstrated a lack of credibility on key points, Mr. Jamison
has not earned the benefit of the doubt for those allegations that might fairly be
characterized as "he said, she said." Certain allegations, such as Witness 2's
account of Mr. Jamison playing pornography on his cell phone while they were
alone in a car, only have two witnesses with contradicting stories. Given Mr.
Jamison's other false denials, we are not inclined to credit his version of events
when only two witnesses are involved. Additionally, Witness 1 and Witness 2
displayed a credible demeanor and tone during their interviews. When talking
about these events, they were each noticeably shaken by what had happened to the
point of fighting back tears. We do not believe that these women decided to
fabricate this entire controversy, which is something that we would have to believe
to accept Mr. Jamison's version of events.
Given the nature of the allegations, we cannot confirm exactly what was said
or exactly what happened in situations for which there are no witnesses. But on
balance, we conclude that Witness 1 and Witness 2 provided credible information
and Mr. Jamison did not.

VI.

THE EXTENT TO WHICH MR. JAMISON'S CONDUCT WAS
KNOWN BUT NOT REPORTED.

The only IFA employees who witnessed the sexual assault on Witness 2 that
occurred on December 14, 2016 were Mr. Peterson and Ms. Lawrence. Each failed
to report it. Mr. Peterson said that he did not report the assault because he was told
by Witness 1 and Witness 2 that they did not want him to say anything about it.
Witness 1 and Witness 2 specifically deny having ever made such a statement to
Mr. Peterson. Ms. Lawrence refused to cooperate with this investigation.

{02061640.DOCX}

29

 Mr. Jamison's other inappropriate behavior appears well-known by Mr.
Peterson. Mr. Peterson was frequently referred to as Mr. Jamison's "sidekick" and
"drinking buddy." Mr. Peterson would apparently speak with Witness 2 and ask
her of Mr. Jamison, "What did he do this time?'' Witness 1 said that after Mr.
Jamison's behavior became known and he was terminated, Mr. Peterson's only
stated fear was that money would be "scooped" out of IFA's budget due to the
whole controversy.
After Mr. Jamison was fired on March 24, 2018, Mr. Peterson undertook
efforts to learn the identity of Mr. Jamison's accusers. He called Witness 2 that
evening. Witness 2 reported that Mr. Peterson yelled at her while trying to get her
to tell him that she was one of the accusers. Witness 2 demonstrated to us that this
phone conversation took place at 5:38p.m. and that Mr. Peterson made two other
attempts to speak to her by phone that evening. Witness 2 reported that Mr.
Peterson told her that he was drunk when Mr. Jamison assaulted her in Okoboji,
and he would claim not to remember what happened if asked. Witness 2' s husband
was listening to the phone conversation on speaker phone, and made notes of the
conversation. His notes are consistent with this account. After the phone call
where he yelled at her, Mr. Peterson wrote a text to her that said, among other
things, "I'm sorry [Witness 2]. I very much feel like an ass talking to you like that.
I love you." He later wrote, "I'm hoping I'm not collateral damage in all this."
Witness 2 falsely represented to Mr. Peterson that she was not one of the accusers
because she was concerned for her anonymity.
To a lesser degree, multiple IFA employees described ongoing observations
of Mr. Jamison's inappropriate behavior. Those observations are recounted in the
interview memoranda in the appendix to this report. Mr. Crozier and Ms. Jensen
provided particularly thorough accounts of Mr. Jamison's behavior and their
attempts to modify it.
Mr. Crozier reported that he heard Mr. Jamison engage in crude or
sophomoric humor. He remembered Mr. Jamison making Matt Lauer jokes such
as "Matt Lauer told me I shouldn't say that." Mr. Jamison also joked privately
with Mr. Crozier about how mandatory sexual harassment training was
"ridiculous" and that he needed training "how to" instead of prevention training.
Mr. Jamison, Ms. Lawrence, Mr. Peterson, and Mr. Crozier all attended Governor
{02061640.DOCX}

30

 Reynolds' Condition of the State Address and went to lunch together afterwards.
Mr. Crozier recalled that during lunch, Mr. Jamison commented to him that "[the
Governor] didn't say when" the "zero tolerance policy" for sexual harassment
would start-implying that sexual harassment would be tolerated for some period
of time.
Ms. Jensen reported overhearing Mr. Jamison saying "I bet you didn't get
much sleep" in response to Ms. Lawrence discussing her recent honeymoon to
Hawaii at an Executive Leadership Team meeting. When Mr. Jamison made this
comment, Ms. Jensen stated that she gave him "the look of death." Ms. Jensen
described another incident at a leadership training event at Lake Panorama where
Mr. Jamison was "in that mood" (i.e., using double entendre and making off-color
comments) and engaged in a sexually suggestive conversation with the training
leader about the Grand Tetons. Ms. Jensen also recounted incidents of sexually
harassing behavior by Mr. Jamison that she did not personally witness. Witness 3
told Ms. Jensen about Mr. Jamison making the "you look sexy" comment.
Whenever Ms. Jensen personally witnessed Mr. Jamison making inappropriate
comments she would say, "Really? Let's not go there." While Ms. Jensen never
felt at risk or in danger in these instances herself, she warned Mr. Jamison that
others might be offended by his behavior.
Witness 1 and Witness 2 acknowledged that they believed that everyone
who experienced Mr. Jamison's bad behavior was under the impression that "there
was nowhere to go." People working at IFA likely believed that they would be
fired if they ever spoke out against Mr. Jamison. From comments Mr. Jamison had
made, they worried that he was close enough with Governor Reynolds that he
might be politically protected by other state agencies. They also knew that Mr.
Jamison would "get things through" the Department of Administrative Services
and so they did not feel that this was a channel that they could use to get help.
Witness 1 and Witness 2 acknowledge that they are grateful for the Governor's
response to this situation.
During Governor Branstad's tenure, Mr. Jamison would talk about his close
relationship with then-Lieutenant Governor Reynolds. Mr. Jamison told IFA
employees about when he and the Lieutenant Governor served as county treasurers
at the same time. He told them that they traveled together frequently in those roles
{02061640.DOCX}

31

 and were good friends. He also told them that he and the Lieutenant Governor had
created a software program for paying taxes online and that their work was
featured in a book. Overall, Witness 1 said that Mr. Jamison's behavior worsened
when Governor Branstad left office and Lieutenant Governor Reynolds became the
Governor.
Mr. Jamison emphasized his relationship with the Governor, which caused
some employee to fear that reporting his behavior would be fruitless. Mr. Jamison
bragged about helping the Governor draft the Condition of the State Address,
according to Mr. Crozier. In raw video footage obtained in the course of this
investigation, Mr. Jamison can be seen and heard implying that he knows the
content of the Condition of the State Address before it occurred.
Witness 1 also said that one time Mr. Crozier told Mr. Jamison that the
"Lauer, Weinstein, and Franken" joke was not funny. Mr. Jamison said to him,
"You must be allergic to paychecks." Witness 1 said that whenever someone
challenged Mr. Jamison about anything, he would say, "I guess I'm the man in the
comer office-not you."

VII. CONCLUSION.
We have concluded based on our investigation that Mr. Jamison engaged in
the sexually harassing conduct described by Witness 1 and Witness 2. None of
Mr. Jamison's sexual harassment, however, was known in parts of state
government outside of IFA. Indeed, the most egregious acts by Mr. Jamison were
only personally known by four people at IFA: Witness 1, Witness 2, Ms.
Lawrence, and Mr. Peterson.
Mr. Jamison, of course, refutes the description of events provided by
Witness 1 and Witness 2. At the end of his interview, Mr. Jamison was asked why
he would be subject to false allegations. He said that if this investigation, or the
Governor's office, was interested in the "full context" then it would be clear that he
did nothing wrong. He declined, however, to provide any context other than what
is described in this report. He said that he felt betrayed, that he thought he had a
"work hard, play hard leadership group," and any sexual conversations were
initiated by his accusers. None of that, of course, creates any context that
{02061640.DOCX}

32

 somehow diminishes what Witness 1 and Witness 2 have reported. In many
instances, substantial corroborating evidence makes Mr. Jamison's denial
implausible and not believable.
The events described by Witness 1 and Witness 2 are self-evidently acts of
sexual harassment. Exhibit E to this report provides examples from the sexual
harassment policy in the State of Iowa's Employee Handbook. Mr. Jamison
appears to have violated every enumerated example of sexual harassment except
that there is no evidence that he requested or offered sexual favors in return for job
benefits.
Mechanisms exist in state government that Witness 1 and Witness 2 could
have utilized to report their concerns instead of seeking the Governor's direct
intercession. The employee complaint form provides spaces where this sort of
behavior could have been described, and the investigation that would have resulted
is considered confidential. See Ex. E, Complaint Form. Witness 1 and Witness 2,
however; evidently did not believe that the standard process for reporting
inappropriate behavior was sufficient in their case.
Witness 1's and Witness 2 's reluctance to avail themselves of the standard
reporting future is understandable for at least three reasons. First, both Witness 1
and Witness 2 described feeling that they were not safe in their workplace. The
employee complaint form indicates that an investigation will take place where the
"alleged harasser" would have an opportunity to respond to allegations. Any
response by Mr. Jamison, the witnesses feared, may have resulted in his ability to
manipulate the process because of his stature as a political appointee and agency
head.
Second, it is not clear from the sexual harassment policy statement or the
employee complaint form that Witness 1 and Witness 2 could have made a
complaint that resulted in Mr. Jamison's immediate removal by simply following
the established employee complaint process. Again, the sense of urgency and fear
felt by Witness 1 and Witness 2 caused them to believe that immediate action
needed to be taken. The standard employee complaint form implies that
investigation will take place in all instances.

{02061640.DOCX}

33

 Third, to a non-lawyer reading the State Employee Handbook, it would be
reasonable to infer that if an employee reported sexual harassment by a political
appointee or agency head, the political appointee or agency head would be
responsible for conducting the investigation into their own reported misconduct.
As currently written, the State Employee Handbook provides:
Any person who believes that she or he has been the victim of
discrimination under this section, or who has a concern about
potential violations of this section, is directed to bring the matter to
the attention of his or her immediate supervisor, appointing
authority, or their designees, in accordance with the department's
established complaint procedure. If the concern or complaint
involves the employee's immediate supervisor, the employee is
encouraged to file the concern or complaint with the next highest
supervisors, or, in the alternative, to the Director of the Iowa
Department of Administrative Services.
Ex. E, Harassment Policy. The Handbook contemplates that an employee may
face harassment from a political appointee or agency head and thereby provides for
a reporting procedure to the person's next highest supervisor or to the Director of
the Iowa Department of Administrative Services and not to the political appointee
or agency head themselves. In the very next paragraph, however, the Handbook
suggests that the political appointee or agency head would be in charge of
investigating the complaint about their own behavior-"Department directors shall
promptly investigate all complaints. Each agency shall take final agency action in
response to a complaint." !d.
In this case, Witness 1 and Witness 2 both feared that there was no way to
get around Mr. Jamison to make a report and have action taken regarding his
inappropriate behavior. Based on the current language in the Handbook, that fear
was not irrational. Indeed, a reasonable inference from the Handbook in this
situation was that once Witness 1 and Witness 2 reported Mr. Jamison's behavior
to the Department of Administrative Services, the Department of Administrative
Services would tum the investigation of the report over to Mr. Jamison. While we
were told by the Department of Administrative Services in this investigation that
there is in fact a procedure for a confidential investigation that would bypass an

{02061640.DOCX}

34

 agency head like Mr. Jamison, we did not find any simple way for a harassed
employee to discover and take comfort in that procedure.
Leaders in state government may wish to consider creating a mechanism by
which serious concerns about safety or concerns about high-ranking officials may
be addressed in an immediate and tailored fashion that is outside of the normal
reporting process. Moreover, state government officials should consider
implementing a procedure-or making it open and obvious if it exists-by which
such reports are kept confidential and investigations are independent, including in
instances where the alleged harasser is a political appointee or agency head. In
situations such as this one, where the accused is also in charge of the agency, state
employees may reasonably fear that there is no way to conduct a confidential and
independent investigation or that no one short of the Governor will be able to take
immediate action. State officials should give careful consideration to establishing
a procedure by which even agency leaders may be investigated for alleged
wrongdoing. We recognize that delicate issues of due process and fairness are
embedded in the creation of such a policy. We believe, however, that the current
reporting policy fell short of its intended goals in this case, and that it can be
improved with careful consideration.

{02061640.DOCX}

35