Some notes to consider in Commissioner Steve Raukar’s
case:
* The victim is a long time County employee with an
excellent employment record.
* The victim serves 'at will', meaning she is subject
to dismissal at any time from the County Board, regardless of her seniority.
There are less than 30 St. Louis County employees and department heads who
serve 'at will', out of a total roster of 2200 staff. This 'at will' status made the victim’s
reporting of the case much more problematic for her.
* The outside attorney investigator’s report is
conclusive that there were at least two other victims of repeated sexual
harassment by Commissioner Steve Raukar over the past 13 years. All three of
the women were 'at will', unprotected employees. This was corroborated by the
other victims. One of these other
victims changed job site and position to escape the Commissioner’s attentions.
* The victim first reported an incident of sexual
harassment by Commissioner Raukar in 1998, following an incident where he
approached another County elected official while at a conference and stated
"Are you f*****g (victim’s name)? I’ll
bet she’s a great f**k.". Within
the hour, the Commissioner also called the victim at her office and invited her
to another upcoming conference in St. Cloud “to go out dancing and drinking.”
This incident was corroborated in the report by the elected official and by
another county employee. Though the
incident was reported to then-County Administrator Julie Brunner, she did not
pursue it, on the advice of then-County Attorney Alan Mitchell, that County
officials could not be reprimanded.
* In 2003, the victim again notified St. Louis County
about prior sexual harassment by Commissioner Raukar when she participated in
County-Board-ordered mandatory sexual harassment training for staff. She privately approached Civil Service staff
conducting the workshop and asked what the process was for problems with
elected officials. The staff person
asserted that since it was the position of then-County Attorney Alan Mitchell
that elected officials could not be reprimanded in any way, that the department
would not investigate such a claim. The
Civil Service staff person indicated there had been several uninvestigated
complaints over the years involving Commissioner Raukar and other Commissioners. The Civil Service department corroborated
this in the report.
*Though the St. Louis County Board mandated all
employees to attend sexual harassment training in 2003, the report demonstrates
that neither Commissioner Steve Raukar nor Commissioner Dennis Fink bothered to
attend any of the numerous sessions held throughout the year. The same is true for both of the
Commissioners who voted to deny the recommendations for censure, including
Commissioner Keith Nelson and Commissioner Mike Forsman.
* The February, 2007 incident took place at a hotel
following a work related event that the victim was required to attend, with
rooms paid for at taxpayer expense, making it a clear extension of the
workplace. The victim had only one drink that night, accompanied by another
female. The three telephone calls (not
two) by Commissioner Steve Raukar were placed after 1:00 a.m. and more than
three hours after the victim had retired to her room. The calls made her
extremely fearful. Far from being ‘social
calls’ as characterized in the media by Commissioner Raukar, from the first
sentence they were filled with extremely explicit sexual language, including “I’ve
got a big thick one for you” and “I’ve got something you can ride all night”. Due to her ‘at will’ status, the victim
apologized repeatedly to the Commissioner for not acquiescing in letting him
come to her room before hanging up. She
raced to the hotel door to make sure that it was locked and then fumbled to
find the Hotel Operator Directory while the second and third calls to her room
were placed and unanswered. When she
reached the night desk clerk, the clerk indicated that all three calls had come
from the same room in the same hotel.
* Despite his recent assertions that the telephone
calls were of a social nature, Commissioner Raukar by his own testimony was so
impaired by alcohol at the time that he did not remember what he said.
* Within the next week, the hotel manager interviewed
the night desk clerk, who corroborated the victim’s account that she had
called, crying and upset, and asking for her calls to be blocked. The clerk
remembered routing several calls to the victim's room immediately prior.
* Commissioner Raukar’s alleged witness as to what
happened that night did not respond to numerous telephone and e-mail contacts
by the outside attorney investigator in March and April, 2007. He later submitted an affidavit in June,
2007. However, when he was finally
interviewed by the outside attorney investigator in July, 2007 (following
literally dozens of attempts to reach him), he admitted in his testimony that
the affidavit was written by Alan Mitchell (now Commissioner Raukar’s private
attorney) and typed by Commissioner Raukar’s secretary. Once he signed it, he was walked to a Hibbing
Courthouse notary to have it notarized.
Not only is this use of taxpayer resources unethical, but the witness,
under questioning, ended up disavowing false data in the affidavit, and instead
more closely corroborating the victim’s account of the evening.
* Following the filing of the February, 2007
complaint, the victim received two telephone calls from Commissioner Raukar at
work, attempting to coerce her into dropping the case. Raukar did not dispute
this in his testimony and admitted his actions.
These telephone calls were considered by the outside attorney
investigators to be further instances of harassment, as coercion is another
violation of the County’s sexual harassment policy.
* The February harassment was reported on February 6,
2007; the investigation was begun on March 5, 2007, and completed on April 5,
2007. Two months later, on June 5, 2007,
St. Louis County finally prepared to release the report to the press and
recommended censure and other actions for Commissioner Raukar and also Commissioner
Fink, who had a separate sexual harassment case pending. After pressure from the two Commissioners,
the County Board authorized Civil Service and the County Attorney’s Office to
re-open both cases, and delay action for several more months. Meanwhile, the
victims in both cases were denied a speedy process. Finally, both reports have
been completed, with no substantial changes, except to further corroborate the
victims’ claims in each case.
* County Commissioners have had the original reports
since May, 2007, despite claims on August 7th by some Commissioners
that they were unfamiliar with the reports and therefore could not make any
judgments in the case.
| Some points to consider in Commissioner Dennis Fink’s
case:
*County
Commissioners are never reimbursed for personal items while on business, but
instead are issued a per diem amount established by the Federal
government. There is never any reason to
submit receipts for any purchases, a fact that Commissioner Fink is undoubtably
aware of following ten years in office.
*When Commissioner Fink’s case was re-opened following
the Board’s postponement of his (and Commissioner Raukar’s) censure, and
release of their reports on June 5th, the additional witness in the
case corroborated the victim’s stance that she had complained to the witness
prior and the witness had spoken to Commissioner Fink about the victim’s
concerns.
*The additional independent investigation also
establishes that Commissioner Fink attempted to coerce his victim into dropping
the complaint and also that he retaliated towards her in the workplace, both in
direct violation of the County’s harassment policy and also contrary to the
agreement he signed at the beginning of the investigative process. St. Louis County views such coercion to be
another form of harassment.
* Commissioner Dennis Fink, whose sexual harassment
case was instigated following discoveries during Commissioner Steve Raukar’s
investigation, did not recuse himself during the August 7, 2007 County Board
deliberations on Raukar’s censure, but instead provided the swing vote needed
to kill the measure.
*The reporting victim in Raukar’s case was told by the
County Administrator the measure would not be heard by the Board that day and
so she was not present for the discussion.
The victim believes that County representatives purposefully split the
two cases into separate Board Meetings (unlike June 5, when both were slated on
the same day) in order for Fink to vote in support of Raukar and vice versa.
*Representatives of PAVSA, the Program to Aid Victims
of Sexual Assault; and other groups were interested in attending the meeting
when the County Board were to discuss adopting the Civil Service
recommendations for censure of Commissioner Fink but were told that it would
not be heard until September 4, 2007. It
was not on the Committee of the Whole agenda for August 14th, but
Commissioner Keith Nelson brought forward the motion anyway, with a second by
Commissioner Forsman, despite the recommendations of Administration and the
County Attorney’s Office, The two Commissioners then voted to reject the
findings, along with Commissioner Raukar, who did not recuse himself despite
his links to Commissioner Fink’s case.
Bringing forth a motion not on the agenda with the plan to then vote
against it is contrary to County Board practice.
*The investigators of the cases, the St. Louis County
Civil Service Department, the County Administrator, the senior Deputy County
Administration, and Commissioner Peg Sweeney were all absent from the August 14th
County Board Meeting.
*At the time the County Board voted on August 14th,
the final report on Commissioner Fink was not yet completed nor distributed to
Commissioners or the press. Therefore,
the Commissioners voted without having the additional information about further
corroboration of the victim’s account and the coercion inflicted upon her
following the initial report.
*
The total cost to taxpayers for the outside investigations as of June 28, 2007
has been $16,266 for Storaasli’s services and $735 for Torgerson’s services.
This total does not include recent work nor the significant cost of Civil
Service, County Attorney, County Administration and other St. Louis County
staff members’ time spent on the cases or the fees for the victims’ private
attorneys to advise them during the process.
Due to the St. Louis County Board’s failure to act on the
recommendations of their own Civil Service Director, their hired outside
attorney investigator, and another prominent local attorney, who gave a “second”
opinion that Commissioner Raukar’s conduct constituted a violation of the
Counties Sexual Harassment Policy; tens of thousands of dollars of local
taxpayer monies have been wasted due to the actions of these County Commissioners.
_________________________________________
|
