Home
Data and Resource Information
Contact Us
Code Of Conduct
Other Governments
Computer Policy
County Policies
Drug and Alcohol Policy
Resolution 104
Cited In Code
Video
Audio
In the News

Environment
Social Svc
Economy
Plan Zone
Date         
Video Title / Link
Transcript and Reference links
Comment
Date
12 18 2007Mileage Vote
Conus explained








1 14 08
Workshop Administrator
Section One Part One




Section One Part Two




Section One Part Three




Section One Part Four




Section One Last




Section Two Part One




Section Two Part Two




Section Two Part Three




Raukar on D to end








September 4

First Group of Speakers is Respectful and Clear

















September 4 ForsmanClick Here
In this long and bizarre monologe Forsman makes some strange and far reaching comments including : "Three AFSCME Puppets seated on our board"  Mob Mentality akin to that of lynch mob


Sept 4 Ellen Quinn Video

details of the case







Fink on Clean Water Act
Fink attempts to characterize his interest in defeating the Oberstar clean water act as helpful to Minnesota.   He is deeply deceptive.
Oberstar response to Fink disinformation


12 18 08 Forsman on Complainant, Attorney retained by County and his interpretation of law

Forsman states that the perceptions of the complainant are viewed as important by the attorney who did the investigation.   The law says they very well should be.  Forsman disagrees.

 

http://www.titleix.ucr.edu/topic_2_1.htm

Intent vs. Impact

Sexual harassment has been evaluated by whether a “reasonable person” would consider the inappropriate conduct offensive under federal law, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act . However, in 1991, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Ellison v. Brady, concluded that the harassing conduct must be evaluated from the perspective of the victim. This means that the inappropriate conduct must be evaluated from the victim’s perception. The victim determines whether the conduct is sufficiently severe and/or pervasive as to create a hostile environment. The intent of the harasser has no factor in the matter.

Because of Ellison v. Brady the standard brought the federal law closer to state law’s interpretation of what is a hostile work environment. Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the environment is evaluated from the victim’s perspective. In this case the court acknowledges that a man or woman may suffer work environment sexual harassment even where his/her co-workers, or a “reasonable person,” would not be offended by the offensive conduct.

The Title IX/Sexual Harassment Office is aware that sexual harassment complaints may be substantiated, in part, by the victim’s perception. To determine whether or not there has been a violation of Title IX, will be determined by whether the conduct is of a sexual nature and the victim is credible, and the victim’s perception of the environment will be given great weight to the complaint.

 

Forsman repeatedly discounts the perceptions of the victim in his discussion yet as described in case law above it is a highly relevant portion of the finding of sexual harassment.  Forsman is not an attorney and does not have the required abilities to make such statements except as his unique opinion which does not serve the needs of the county well.

 

 

Forsman Sept 4     lynch mob

                              Discounting severity of harassment

                              Demeaning credibility of Storassli









Video




County Attorney Ford Addresses Board Regarding latest proposed code of conduct.  This regards the code to be discussed on 12 18 07







County Board Addresses Code of Conduct Proposed by Administration - many objections are raised