Experience and Change of Plea Deciding Factors
Disgraced Senator Larry Craig of Idaho has decided to resign his post in the U.S. Senate—after increasingly vociferous calls for his removal—in exchange for relocating to San Jose to take over the vacant city auditor post.
“Senator Craig has a wealth of experience that will come in very handy in the auditor’s office,” said political analyst Larry Gerston. “The bonus is that he has already been publicly vetted—shouldn’t be any more surprises there…”
Senator Craig became eligible for the job when he decided to denounce his guilty plea in the sex solicitation brouhaha in a Minneapolis airport bathroom. Under a very complicated law, the city cannot hire a known alleged felon awaiting formal arrest, even if the accused perpetrator vehemently dismisses the charges of a possibly mistaken arrest as misconstrued.
“Larryboy’s a good man, comes from good stalk,” [sic] said President Bush. “And from what I understand, most of the employees in the auditor’s office are female. (Hee hee . . .) Shouldn’t be any problem there.”
“I am very excited to be coming to the San Francisco Bay Area,” Craig announced during a news conference yesterday. He said he wants the auditor’s office to be less of a burden on the city’s budget. “I understand that the paid leaves are costing the city millions,” he said. “That is why my first order of business will be to set up a page program using San Jose State interns.”
Hoo-boy, read this bit of nausea in the WaPo yesterday..
“If you are in the stall, you tap your foot, and if the person next to you taps a foot, you keep going back and forth until one person makes a move,” he says. “Someone will then stick their hand underneath. Or they will pass a note on paper. Or, what I’ve heard is, when they think it’s safe,” they will move on to sexual contact <u>in the space beneath the partition</u>.”
Ay caramba!
And this morning on my 75 minute lightrail commute in to downtown I overheard two CH types mention that Larry Craig’s first orders of business as city auditor will be to:
– audit all city bathrooms to make sure partition floor clearance is up to code
– feed Muzak version of “If you’re happy and you know it” into all city restrooms
I know your column is supposed to poke fun at people, but I think this is pretty mean. None of us are perfect. We all have things that we want to keep private, but if you are a public figure, you know you won’t be allowed privacy. Having said that, I think sometimes the media hurts these people more than they have a right to. Can you imagine how his poor wife and family feels?
As to Silva, if he really did and said the things quoted in the paper, he was wrong. But to be berated, made fun of , and splashed all over the paper is hurting the victims of his behavior, more than him. He has already lost his job, been disgraced, and will have terrible difficulties ahead to face, without having to deal with this kind of mean spirited journalism.
Kathleen
While I believe that the uber-hypocrite “pro-family values” Sen. Craig is fair game for comedians and humorists like John McEnery (who isn’t a journalist), I agree that the corporate media is overdoing it, as usual. If, like me, you are wondering what’s going on while Americans are focusing on the exploits of Sen. Craig, moronic teenybopper warblers, yet another theory about the death of Diana and other irrelevancies, here is a strong dose of reality. Keep in mind that the author is a Republican and the former Asst. Sec. of the Treasury under Reagan.
http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts08312007.html
As for Silva, what disturbs me is that it seems a case of guilty until proven innocent. He may deserve to be fired—-I don’t know and it cannot be determined purely from one investigator’s report—-but he should get a fair hearing and a chance to present a proper defense. Justice has not been served, even under the current twisted and defiled definition that the Bush Administration is operating on.
What I think is amusing is that all the Republican members that have been caught in all these exposés, (whether sexual or criminal in nature) have all been spouting how they have “high Family Values”.
Well, I’ll tell you what—I wouldn’t want these family values to be followed in my family. Let’s give it to this administration and the Republican party—they sure set such a “GOOD” example for the rest of us to follow. I guess it takes certain types of people to be Republicans and we get to see the examples displayed every week.
Concerned Citizen
Jack,
I agree with you on Mr. Silva. I am confused about the situation myself. I don’t feel a week is an ample amount of time to read, digest, and prepare a proper defense/response to accusations against him. I also don’t agree that he has been given a fair shake here, but I also don’t think his termination will end quitely. I’m sure Mr. Silva will sue the City, and have his day in court. If he doesn’t sue than I’ll have to assume that he accepts the situation as is.
You are also correct in your statement that the media is over doing it, with regards to the Senator. If indeed, we did live in a society that allowed politicans to be human beings with flaws like the rest of us, we wouldn’t hold them to higher standards than we hold ourselves to. For example, if some members of the public wasn’t so hell bent on hating gays, than a man or woman running for office could declare their preferences openly and run on the sole basis of the issues, and their vision for their intented office. But sadly, that is not the case.
We expect perfection from every public figure, and I believe that is a very unfair burden. Hence why many of them are addicted to drugs, alcohol, and other things that give them a way to numb themselves from the pressures they feel put on them by our society.
Princess Diana’s sons are a perfect example of what I’m talking about. They have lost their mother, and yet the press continually hurts them by keeping every painful aspect of her life in the press. How does one cope with this type of monster? How will these boys ever find peace, or the time to come to terms with their loss?
In the same vain, how is this poor Senator’s wife and family ever going to come to terms with this situation? Imagine waking up one day to hear on the news that your beautiful wife has been arrested for something the public frowns on. God, I just can’t imagine how alone, terrifed, hurt and betrayed, I’d feel.
I guess my point is this, why do people take so much pleasure in seeing people fall from grace and get hurt? It seems so wrong, and inhumane to me.
Jack—RE: Silva – How do you know justice has not been served? The council hearings were closed—Silva could have requested that they be open—so we don’t really know everything that occurred. We hear his “side” from his attorney, so you know there is no spin there. And keep in mind, for this Council to vote unanimously on anything where guts might be required would indicate the situation is probably even worse than has been reported.
Wondering #7
Justice has not been served precisely because of what you point out: the “trial,” such as it may have been, was carried out in secret. And, the judge, jury and executioner were one and the same: the city council. Doesn’t this sound like a star chamber?
8 – No, it doesn’t sound like a star chamber. The “victim” had every right to have the hearing made public. He chose not to do so. Why?
Republican party is throwing Senator Craig over board regardless of guilt or innocence for political purposes not family values
They are behind in polls because of Bush’s war, bad policies and they believe they lost Congress in last midterm elections because of Florida congressman congressional page scandal
Family values is political slogan they preach not what they practice as we have seen from dozens of examples
The funniest comment I heard about Republican Presidential ” family values ” candidates is that Mitt Romney the Mormon is the only one with 1 wife – all the others have been married and divorced some more than twice
#9- First, let me say that the Mayor and Council have a vested interest in the out come, so they can’t be impartial when taking facts into consideration. They have certain rules to follow, and I assume they followed them. Knowing Mayor Reed, I’m sure they followed them!
Secondly, a week’s pre time is really not a lot of time to prepare for accusations made by many people, nor to read a 44 page investigation report, it’s findings, interview people who gave testimony, and then prepare a rebuttal, etc. I sure wouldn’t want to have to do that myself.
Finally, I really don’t know anyone who would want a public hearing on the status of their employment, especially considering the sensitive nature of these accusations! In many ways, it protects victims and witnesses from being harmed. Ideally, confidentiality encourages more open, honest venues of communication between victims, and witnesses with the intention to ensure a complete investigation is done, before any decision is made by the powers that be.
Remember, our former Vice Mayor, and most of this present Council wanted to kick Ron Gonzales off the Council without any real legal standing to do so. An indictment by the Civil Grand Jury is not a legal conviction. Also, a Civil Grand Jury indicted our former Mayor, but a Superior Court Judge found that the basis of the charges filed against Ron Gonzales were to be thrown out, because they were based on faulty instructions by the DA to the Grand Jury, and on other points of law.
Due process is a vital part of ensuring our civil rights, thank God!
11 – Silva has had more than a week to prepare. He’s been on leave since May. He also has had some “problems” well before this time.
It is debatable if having a closed hearing is better or worse and for whom. If I was innocent I would want everyone to hear everything—but that is just me.
As for Gonzales, he should have been tossed—but it wasn’t because of the legal issues. He violated the City Charter, city policies, etc. That was reason enough to dump him. His legal troubles were secondary when it came to whether or not he should have been removed. He destroyed employee morale, he cost the tax payers millions, etc. and he should have left on his own. His criminal guilt or innocence (which we will never know) had nothing to do with it.
Wondering #9
Whatever the reason that Silva asked for a closed-door session, it is evidence of nothing. What we need to be sure of is: was the punishment meted out (firing) in our name by our elected representatives properly determined. I can’t say that it was and neither can you or any other citizen as long as the exact evidence, the specific nature of the evidence and the process of logically arriving at a conclusive decision based on that evidence remains secret. As Kathleen rightly asks in #11: Was there due process?
#10’s right about one thing, Democrat’s have it all over Republicans when it comes to *not* throwing people under the bus for disgusting transgressions.
Here’s a starter list:
– Ted “The swimmer” Kennedy
– Robert “Sheets” Byrd
– William “Cold cash” Jefferson
– Barney “Risky business” Frank
– Gerry “Rock the cradle” Studds
– Bill “Too numerous to mention” Clinton
– John “Abscam” Murtha
…and so it goes.
The arresting cop in the Craig miasma summed it up perfectly. “Embarrassing, embarrassing. No wonder why we’re going down the tubes.”
And Jack, you and your boy Roberts have really gone and done it this time. You’ve just blown the lid off yet another covert Bush operation.
Up until now, no one outside of Bush’s inner circle knew that the US is putting gobs of pressure on Iran. A shocking! revelation to be sure.
Oh, and here’s an interesting tidbit about your “former Asst. Sec. of the Treasury under Reagan” guy – he’s a “truther” – you know, those types like Rosie O’Donnel who believe that 9-11 was an inside job.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2006/080206towerscollapse.htm
Looks like it’s time to find another source for your “reality”.
City Hall’s dirty political secret or as #11 said ” other points of law.”
Gonzales and lobbyists could not be convicted because San Jose has NO criminal penalties for violating city charter, lobbying laws and municipal code Most cities have both civil and criminal penalties
DA could not get a conviction since San Jose has NO criminal violation of city laws or charter
San Jose’s Reform Mayor and Council REFUSES to put in any city criminal violations, only a few have small fines while most city laws have NO penalties
#9- You are correct about one thing, Mr. Silva was on leave for months, but he was not given any information on the investigator’s findings, until a week prior to his appearance before the Mayor and Council. When Mr. Silva requested a month’s continuance to prepare his response/defense, his request was denied. Now as Jack has stated in his response to you, I am questioning whether Mr. Silva received his right to due process. I am not able to ascertain his guilt or innocence because I do not have all the facts, and until I do, I can only wonder why Mr. Silva was rushed to a closed session with only a week’s notice of the accusations against him.
I have confusion too because I know Mayor Reed is a rule follower, he has integrity, he knows and understands the law, and has always spoken highly of Mr. Silva’s work for our City. The part of me that knows him suspects that there was a good reason for this decision. So, I am seriously perplexed by the one week notification to Mr. Silva.
As to Ron Gonzales, you are right again, but the former Vice Mayor and ALL members of the Council except, Council Members Reed, and Cortese voted to censure Ron, the first time Ron’s alleged wrong doings were brought into the public eye. It was then, that they had a legal leg to boot him out, but they chose not too. The former Vice Mayor only opted to start a process to boot Ron out, after her campaign for Mayor was failing because she was so heavily linked to Ron. You might want to read the City Attorney’s memo instructing the Council on why they could not legally remove Ron from office.
Having said that let me say that it is very common for people who do not work in, nor comprehend the legal process, and the law, to base their opinions on emotion, and their own sense of wrong doing, and outrage. (I mean no disrespect to anyone here in saying that.) But the law is black and white, and it follows a process that strives to allow innocent people an opportunity to prove their case, and even more importantly allows us to remain innocent until proven guilty by a jury of our peers, or a Judge who does not have a vested interest in the outcome of our trail. And thankfully, it allows for special circumstances when someone is guilty of breaking the law, for what some might consider a life of death reason. (i.e. An abused woman killing her husband in his sleep, because she fears for her or her children’s lives. Or someone who steals because they need money to feed a hungry child.)
All I’m saying here is that something is missing here, and I for one am not going to judge the guilt or innocence of anyone until, or unless I know for a fact they are guilty. It is how I’d want to be treated, if I were in trouble with my employer, or with the law.
His first move will be to convert the office cubicles into bathroom stalls.
Some questions – was there any documented proof that Jerry Silva was guilty of the charges or was it just “he said, she said”? Unless there is documented proof, why would the council believe only those who reported problems and not believe those who denied problems existed? Is Jerry’s lawyer, Phil Sims, right and legally there is no substance to the charges? If so, how is the council going to justify its action? Personally, I think the council wanted to avoid the whole issue of sexual harrassment – it’s messy and they didn’t want to deal with it. Shame!
Bush and Republicans does not follow US constitution, protect it’s citizens rights, observe innocent until proven guilty in a court of law or follow the laws
Be Afraid, be very afraid you could be next
From Washington Post – “Craig joins the growing list of people who have been charged with morals crimes for innocuous behavior.
While it may be that people who behave as Craig did are looking for sex, there remains an important difference between seeking sex and having public sex. Society certainly has a right to uphold standards of public decorum, but increasing criminalization of harmless behavior opens up a space for injustice unevenly applied.
As a federal judge observed in the 1948 case of a D.C. man who had been arrested for lewd and immoral behavior after inviting an undercover police officer up to his apartment for a drink, “any citizen who answers a stranger’s inquiry as to direction, or time, or a request for a dime or a match is liable to be threatened with an accusation of this sort.”
One particularly egregious example of how the judge’s fear has become a legal reality is the fact that, as Harvard professor Janet Halley has shown, the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy allows military judges to treat hand-holding and other benign gestures as the legal equivalent of sex.
Sen. Craig, who voted to enact “don’t ask, don’t tell” in 1993, got caught up in a system that looks a lot like the one he helped create, a system in which innocent gestures can invite punishment. It is a trap that he and others should not have to fear. “
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/31/AR2007083101426.html
There are some troubling questions regarding the city’s handling of Mr. Silva’s situation.
1. Why did the city wait until a week before the hearing to present him with the investigator’s report containing the specific allegations against him? This report, which was the basis for the Council’s action, had been in circulation among Councilmembers weeks before it was presented to Silva.
2. Why did the city refuse to give Silva, and his attorney, the requested 30 day extension (not an unreasonable request) to prepare a defense based on the allegations in #1?
3. Why was Mr. Silva refused the right to present witnesses on his behalf in the closed door session? Apparently the only evidence the Council heard was the report presented by the investigator. Is that reasonable?
(Note to Wondering: Silva said he would welcome an open hearing if he could present his side of the case. The city refused. He did not want an open hearing if he could not effectively defend himself.)
4. Why did the city’s investigator conclude that “there is no doubt” that Silva was guilty when nearly all of Silva’s staff told her that there was not sexual harassment or hostile working environment in the auditors office? Does this not run contrary to the preponderance of the evidence? Was the testimony of the few complaining employees given more weight than the vast majority who spoke in Silva’s defense?
5. Did the investigator have any evidence other than “he said, she said” conclusions in her report?
6. Why was Silva blamed for the actions of another member of his staff who is accused of offensive conduct? It is my understanding that nowhere in the complaint or lawsuit is Silva accused of sexually harassing an employee.
7. Silva has stated in news reports that the City Attorney brought the issue to the Council only after Silva initiated an audit of the City Attorney’s office. Does the City Attorney have a conflict of interest? Why wasn’t the question of the City Attorney’s motive addressed by the investigator?
8. If Silva is guilty of pounding on his desk, speaking in a raised voice, or making remarks that some might find offensive does the city have any disciplinary options short of termination?
9. Why did the City waive attorney/client privilege and release a highly redacted investigator’s report that, after careful editing, supports the city’s decision to fire Silva?
10. Silva may have the right and a very strong case for suing the city. However does he have the financial resources to do so? To see a suit through all of the inevitable appeals would be a very expensive process!
11. From reading the highly edited investigators report released by the city it appears that the investigator presumed Mr. Silva’s guilt and only asked questions to support that presumption. The lack of objectivity should be obvious to any reasonable person reading the report. Why did the city release such a one-sided report?
12. Silva claims that his problems began when he attempted to take disciplinary action against an employee. He says the charges against him are bogus and made in retaliation. Why is there no real attempt to determine the accuracy of this claim, a central issue in Silva’s defense, in the investigator’s report?
13. Silva says he will use his right to appeal the City Council’s decision. A retired judge will hear the case. Perhaps he will be able to clear his name, but would it rescue his damaged career? If he wins, then what? Could he return to his job and report to a City Council that fired him? Could he be effective as a City Auditor?
14. What are his chances of getting a similar position in another city, even with acquittal?
15. Even if Silva is innocent the process used by the city guarantees that he has been ruined professionally, if not personally. Is this how the city rewards a person who, by all accounts, has been an extraordinarily effective City Auditor?
The whole thing smells funny.
Kathleen#6: The British certainly deal with the Craig types of scandals far more adultly than we in America do.
But, in instances when people who preach “family values” in order to get elected are caught, they deserrve what they get…and more. The duplicity must be exposed, and the punsihment for the “Elmer Gantry-types” should be more severe than for those who don’t get on a pulpit and try to push moral standards to which they themselves do not adhere onto others.
Senator Craig stated that “I am not gay”. I guess his motto should be: “once is not a lifestyle”.
Oh, and by the way, I am a registered republican.
Jack, anybody..does someone have a link to the full report Mayor Reed said would be released. Just as the judge’s opinion in the Gonzales/Guerra dismissal elucidated the reasons for the dismissal, I hope that the report sheds light on the reasons for the council’s decision. I continue to reserve judgment on the Silva matter until I have read the full report. Pleeeeze, Jack, Tom McE, someone, provide us the link. I have yet to see it in the nespaper.
#9—and Jerry is the victim? Wasn’t the victim, or the alleged victim, the woman who is suing? If anything, Jerry is the defendant, or the accused.
Kathleen #16 said:“When Mr. Silva requested a month’s continuance to prepare his response/defense, his request was denied. Now as Jack has stated in his response to you, I am questioning whether Mr. Silva received his right to due process. I am not able to ascertain his guilt or innocence because I do not have all the facts, and until I do, I can only wonder why Mr. Silva was rushed to a closed session with only a week’s notice of the accusations against him. ” I wholeheartedly agree. After many months of investigation, they denied Jerry a continuance to properly prepare his defense. If no-one else knew, at least Reed & Cortese as lawyers should know that such a denial is most probably a denial of due process.
#19 poses several interesting questions. IF more than two of his assertions are true, it would sem that we have a rush to judgment by a biased arbitrator, supported by a far too politcally correct mayor and council.
How do we check the accuracy of #19s assertions?
Can ANYONE PLEASE give us a link to what #19 says is a highly redacted report?
Why was the report redacted? I don’t want to hear that the accusers and witnesses on her behalf have some privacy right, after they have made scathing allegations that resulted in the firing of someone that Mayor Reed says has done an excellent job.
This is getting very Nixonian.
JohnMichael #20
Silva Report:
http://www.bayareanewsgroup.com/multimedia/mn/news/silvaauditorreport.pdf
Silva’s lawyer’s response:
http://www.bayareanewsgroup.com/multimedia/mn/news/silvapressrelease.pdf
Jack #21—thanks!! LOts of redactions. I’ll comment after I’ve read them.
What? A Friday post (the most appropriate of all on SJI) that doesn’t get the Burma Shave treatment from GB?
The question, Silva innocent or tease?
Carrots or peas?
Female employees on paid leaves?
Jerry Silva, accounting expertise?
Cough or a sneeze?
Ticks or fleas?
Forest or trees?
Wellness or disease?
Locks or keys?
Two’s and three’s?
By varying degrees?
Kiss or squeeze?
Comfort or unease?
Flew like the breeze?
Milk or cheese?
Haircut or shave Burmese?
No guarantees?
There’s the Mc Arthur Park icing! Thanks GB. I think this is an appropriate exercize for you re: every Friday thread.
JMO- There’s an interesting editorial in today’s paper, the Merc, by Silva. He says he would have had a public hearing, had he known what was going to take place in the closed hearing.
All of this is very disturbing. I need to make some time and read the sites Jack posted, to try and understand some of this.
Jack,
Do you happen to know anything about the investigator who was on this case? Is it a City HR person, and outside investigator, someone appointed by the Labor Union? It would be helpful to know how credible the investigator on this case is.
Interesting OpEd today by Mr. Silva. If he was innocent and shocked, etc. about the charges, why did he submit his resignation as early as May? Some things may not make sense but his reaction to the turmoil in his office doesn’t make sense either.
Jerry Silva’s Mercury opinion starts lawsuit about sloppy investigator’s report and lack of due process unless there is more not being disclosed Council will pay $$ millions to Jerry
Kathleen #26
Karen Kramer of Kramer Weise, a private investigator from Danville. Her report is addressed to Stephen Hirschfeld, an attorney in San Francisco who seems to have been retained by City of SJ to oversee investigation. This information can be found in her report (link in my post #21 above) as well as a few words about methodology that you may find interesting. I would be interested to hear what you think about this report, especially in light of Silva’s attorney’s response and Silva’s article in the Merc today.
Ms. Karen Kramer is a lawyer in Danville admitted to the bar about 15 years ago. This from the state bar website. That site contains no information other than schools attended and year admitted, and contact info.
Jerry Siilva and his attorney should look into East Palo Alto investigation and talk to Peter Evans and his attorney
Karen Kramer did East Palo Alto and San Jose investigations and in both cases the accused did not get to see the report until the week before and both were apparently not given an opportunity to correct information by Karen Kramer
East Palo Alto Vice Mayor A. Peter Evans has verbally abused city staff members,
calling them incompetent and in
some cases making derogatory
comments that could be interpreted
as racist.
Those are some of the conclusions
of an investigation conducted
by Karen Kramer of the law firm
Kramer-Wiese, hired by the city
after Assistant City Manager M.L.
Gordon filed a complaint with the
city in June.
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morguepdf/2006/2006_11_10.paw.section1.pdf
I still have not seen an official complaint. I was not privy to additional charges that were brought
against me,, while all four of you knew about them, but NO ONE TOLD ME. You voted to censure me before you had all the facts. Only after I read the Kramer Report, and asked for the documents that were alluded to in the Report did I understand what the investigation was truly about. I got the documents on Friday afternoon, December 1, 2006 and after working at my job all weekend, I responded to the allegations by the scheduled City Council meeting on Tuesday, December 5, 2006. Please keep in mind that at no time has the City Attorney advised me of my rights.
The Kramer Report did not mention that any of these individuals filed a complaint with the
City, nor did it cite expertise in the area of assessing racial complaints by the person completing the report.
Further Ms. O’Neill’s letter is totally incorrect. I made it very clear to Ms. Kramer that I did not
recommend anything that would impact or reflect Mr. Gordon’s employment with the City. I could not discuss with Ms. Kramer the retaliation charges because I did not know about them.
http://www.epa.net/launch/epafls/download/news_files/12.18.06 letter from Councilmember Evans to City Council.pdf
Because the Kramer report is so heavily redacted, it’s tough to draw any rational conclusions. With names radacted out, it’s impossible to compare claims made by the unidentified persons with the responses thereto. There is no way to assess the credibility of any person.
The City was wrong not to grant Silva a reasonable continuance. I understand that we are not using the same standards as in a criminal trial, but the short time given him to respond to a 44 page report was not due process. You’d never see a denial of a continuance re a union grievance.
It would also be helpful to see what the CSJ’s harrassment policy is, in writing. If Jerry violated it, it makes little difference if the policy may be overly PC, because it’s the policy. If he didn’t like it, he needed to work to change it.
I’d also like to know what protocol exists , if any, for an employee to report alleged wrongdoing by Jerry. He’s the top dog in the dept., so it would seem there needs to be a mecanism to go outside the dept. when the dept. head is the alleged offender.
I get a sense that Jerry Silva did and said some things in the office that were imprudent. However, two friends talking about their relationships in the office (water cooler, break room, etc.) is not uncommon. Some people may overhear things that they find inappropriate. They can leave, ask the offender not to do it again, or report it. Apparently whoever’s ox was gored did none of the above. It’s difficult to justify firing an excellent employee for something he never knew was a problem for a subordinate in the office.
Because people’s attitude toward sex covers such a wide range, it is never prudent or appropriate to discuss one’s sex life in the office. If you have a close friend in the office that you discuss those things with, and vice versa, take it outside. There is too much room for misunderstanding; and many people seem to be easily offended these days.
The laugher for me is the alleged shouting and alleged fist pounding the desk 5-7 years ago. If that rises to the level of a firing offense when the person fired is acknowledge by the Mayor and Council to have been highly effective for 22 years, we are all in BIG trouble from the PC crowd.
People, even bosses, get angry and frustrated and shout sometimes. It makes the recipient and others uncomfortable, to be sure. It would be better were it not to happen. But for it to be included as a firing offense for an effective head of a dept. is WAY overboard. It should never have been included at all.
I know a few people, and have dated a couple, who believe that any speaking volume directed at them above normal conversational tone is yelling. They are way oversensitive. Luckily, the law has long adopted a reasonableness standard. If someone’s sensilbilities are so far beyond the norm of reasonableness, no-one deserves to get fired because that person’s feelings were hurt.
In reading the report, I get a vague sense that Ms. Kramer had made up her mind from the outset, and discarded any evidence that didn’t fit her preconceived notion. But it’s only vague, and the unredacted report could clarify that issue for me.
Her failing to record the interviews and rely solely on what she chose to put down in her notes is completetly inappropriate , unprofessional, and denies anyone she investigates substantial due process.
I still believe as I did initially though—there is a HUGE disconnect between what Jerry thought was important and what the investigator & Council thought was important.
We’ll just have to wait and see. Unfortunately I did not get the chance to read Jerry’s opinion in yesterday’s Murky News.
JMOC
Look at both EPA and SJ reports by Kramer and you will see same lack of due process, not telling accused until last minute what charges are or giving time to refute charges which with city’s poorly written policies, inconsistent enforcement,
unfair treatment and damage to his reputation will be basis of lawsuit damages against city, law firm and Kramer
Jack,
I just read the report on Mr. Silva’s investigation, and his attorney’s response. Again, I maintain that one week was not enough time to prepare a response to this report. Having said that, I must agree 100% with JMO in that so much was redacted from the report that it is very difficult to follow. It also seems to reflect the investigator’s personal bias. I got the impression that she chose to believe certain people, and by the time she got to Silva, she reports his remarks in a manner in which reflect, at least to me, that he responded to her like he thought everything was a big joke.
As a mediator and at times an arbitrator, I can tell you that keeping my personal bias under control, when I’m hearing a case is vital to both of my clients. Is it difficult to listen to both sides and not feel one party is more correct than the other, yes, but making judgments is not my job! My job is to remain neutral, get to the facts, and help both parties come together in something that is fair to them both.
The methodology used or described in this report disturbs me greatly. When I am asked to fact find, it means just that. It doesn’t mean I get to omit things that could prejudice, or support the person, or issue I’m investigating. My thoughts are that due process was not served here not only for Silva, but for others accused of inappropriate behavior.
My thoughts on doing an investigation, and preparing a report to decision makers, who are not familiar with the issue/facts, are to give them a list of ALL materials reviewed with an itemized list of what was included in the report, without any personal comments on the material submitted. I would have given a fact based report on what has been asked/answered/and reported. I would include any policies, or laws governing the topic/issue, and leave the conclusion to those who were responsible for making the decision.
As to Mr. Silva’s attorney’s response, hey, I’d pay him to defend me. He raises some very good points. Having said that, I can’t really say Silva’s guilty or not. The report is too redacted, I don’t know the integrity, or credibility of the people who were interviewed, and quite frankly, I think that this investigator failed to be objective. I sure wouldn’t want to be investigated by her, especially if I knew I was innocent.
Do I think the Auditor’s Office jokes around about sex, and has discussions about their personal relationships? Yes I do. Do I think their office is the only one at the City or anywhere else in the workplace that does, nope! But I do think there are a lot of things that happened in Silva’s office, and in this case that remain a mystery~
#33; I don’t know what the EPA report is.
Right On!! Kathleen #34.
Kathleen #34
Great analysis. I couldn’t agree more and came to the same conclusion after reading the docs.
There has to be more to this story, but what? Otherwise, how could the council come to a different conclusion?
Jack,
I’m not sure how the Council came to their decision either, but recent quotes in the Merc by a few of the Council said that, while they agreed to get rid of Silva in a unanimous vote, they felt the Mayor replied too heavily on legal advise given to him by the City Attorney, etc. I’m not really sure what that means…
Since the hearing with Mr. Silva was held in closed session, I don’t think we’ll ever really know what took place, and why they fired him, that is unless Silva sues for “Wrongful Termination,” or perhaps when the sexual harassment suit that has been filed is heard. Most likely both Silva, (if he were to sue the City) and the young woman who filed the sexual harassment suit, will settle out of court with an agreement to keep the settlement confidential. So, my guess is that the true cause for Mr. Silva’s termination will remain one of the many mysteries of San Jose City Hall.
Kramer did a report for East Palo Alto in 2006 with similar methodology, procedures and conclusions and possible bias Read # 31 Isn’t Google great
http://www.epa.net/launch/epafls/download/news_files/12.18.06 letter from Councilmember Evans to City Council.pdf