By LEAH WANKUM
Managing Editor
(JEFFERSON CITY, Mo., digitalBURG) — The Missouri House of Representatives changed its intern policy specific to sexual harassment, including banning relationships between elected state representatives, legislative staff and interns.
The House Administration and Accounts Committee’s 6-1 vote on Thursday, Nov. 5, advanced Missouri House policy that would require mandatory annual training for legislators on the sexual harassment policy and the appointment of an ombudsman outside the Capitol for future interns to investigate any complaints of sexual harassment.
The committee’s action came approximately six months after former Speaker John Diehl resigned from the Missouri General Assembly following allegations that he was in a sexually charged relationship with a 19-year-old intern, and approximately four months after two UCM students came forward with accusations of sexual harassment by Sen. Paul LeVota, who also resigned.
The committee heard nearly two hours of public testimony from university faculty, state representatives and a former House intern. Concerns centered on the issue of mandated reporting, a part of the policy that would require specific staff and members of Missouri Legislature to report any complaints of sexual assault without consent of the victim.
Taylor Hirth, UMKC alumna who was a former House intern from LeVota’s office in 2010, said the proposal doesn’t recognize that it deals with adults.
“Proposed polices that expand mandated reporting incidents discussed in private between two adults is unnecessary and, quite, frankly, an invasion of privacy,” Hirth said. “As an intern who experienced unwanted sexual attention from a legislator, I had no desire to talk to anybody who might take our private conversation to anybody else without my consent. Having spoken to other interns who have had similar experiences, I can assure you that things said in confidence need to remain in confidence until the victim is ready to seek further assistance.”
Robynn Kuhlmann, assistant professor of political science at the University of Central Missouri, voiced similar concerns.
“I found myself over the past 10 months in the role of victim advocate as well,” Kuhlmann said. “Through those months, I also witnessed the internal agony that can occur in victims of sexual harassment. And it breaks my heart. I never want to see it happen again.”
Although Kuhlmann said the proposed policy changes are an excellent start, she said one of her main concerns was for victims of sexual harassment to be able to find someone to talk to who isn’t a mandate reporter at the Capitol.
“I think there should be some sort of mechanism or resource appropriated to them so that they can go to some sort of outside source or, at least, say encourage them to do so if they do not necessarily feel like they want to or are ready for the onslaught of statements they may have to make during the investigation process,” Kuhlmann said.
Suggestions for the training process as required by the sexual harassment policy for all House members, staff and interns include computer and video training modules. Adam Crumbliss, chief clerk of the House, said the format isn’t as important as the content, which must address 21st century issues such as texting and social media.
“We are currently looking at the possibility of contracting out with a private law firm that has experience, that has created some of the training opportunities,” Crumbliss said.
Additionally, the committee voted 6-1 on changes to the policy that prohibit romantic or sexual relationships between House members, staff and interns.
“We do, under the policy proposal, prohibit anybody in a supervisory relationship from having any sort of relationship with a subordinate,” Crumbliss said.
Rep. Michele Kratky voted against the proposed changes to the policy, saying that the committee still has questions about it.
“I don’t think it’s outlined on here for what happens if you don’t report,” Kratky said. “It just says what may happen. So why are we having some of these positions in there if nothing’s going to happen to a person or it doesn’t define what could happen?
“Or even when it says mandatory training: What if I decide I’m not going to go to mandatory training? What happens to me? I think some of it’s a little flawed for me.”
Rep. Mike Leara, committee chairman, said he doesn’t see it as a bad policy but it could probably be enhanced.
“At minimum, I think today we should visit adopting these polices and moving forward with what we have here,” Leara said.