Sunday, April 27, 2008
In a week or so, Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann will hold a news conference to discuss the sexual harassment scandal that has gripped his office and has jeopardized his political future.
It is to be hoped that Dann will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth — as he demanded of the Republicans during his investigation of “Coingate” when he was a state senator.
Anything less, and reporters will chew him up and spit him out.
The attorney general will not survive his current term if he is perceived to be hiding anything.
As much as Dann might want to believe that his private life is nobody’s business, e-mails between him and his former scheduler, Jessica Utovich, make it so.
While a certainly amount of informality and even closeness are to be expected, given that the two of them were in constant contact, the tone and substance of many of the e-mails suggest a deeper relationship.
Indeed, for Dann to permit a lower-level employee to send him a message that uses an expletive or another that states, “I hate you,” or yet another that calls him a “dork,” is at once troubling and demeaning — to this important office.
The messages reveal a level of familiarity that prompts the question, “What was the relationship between Dann and Utovich?”
We would not be so concerned if those and other such e-mails were from Leo Jennings III, the attorney general’s chief of communications, or Anthony Gutierrez, director of general services.
Both are long-time friends of Dann’s, both were involved in his campaign for attorney general and both are now on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of the internal investigation into the sexual harassments claims brought by two female AG employees, Cindy Stankoski and Vanessa Stout.
Stankoski and Stout work for Gutierrez and have alleged that he used his position to force them to have an outside-the-office relationship with him.
No criminal charges
Stankoski also filed a criminal complaint against Gutierrez with the Columbus Police Department. The police have concluded that there is no basis for criminal charges to be filed.
Her complaint stemmed from an incident that occurred Sept. 10 in a condo that Dann, Gutierrez and Jennings shared at the time.
The woman alleged that she and Gutierrez had been out drinking when he got a call from Dann inviting him to the condo for pizza. Stankoski claimed that she also talked to the attorney general and said she wanted Hawaiian pizza.
When they got to the townhouse, Dann was there, as was his scheduler, Utovich, who was dressed casually — supposedly sweats.
What allegedly occurred later that night in the residence prompted Stankoski’s criminal complaint.
Stankoski says she wanted to lie down and Gutierrez told her she could use his bed. When she awoke hours later, she alleged, her pants were unbuttoned and Gutierrez was lying next to her wearing only his underwear.
The attorney general will have to address this issue — not only because it involves two of his employees, one of whom was impaired, but because his scheduler was also present that night.
Only full disclosure will satisfy reporters. Any ducking and weaving or refusal to answer questions because they involve his personal life will be taken as an admission of his having done something that puts the office of attorney general in a negative light.
At that point, Dann will have lost his effectiveness as the state’s chief lawyer because his credibility will be in tatters.
Demands for his resignation will become a tsunami.
Therefore, if he wants to keep his job, he should remember the two words that got him elected in the first place: Truth and transparency.
While the focus is on the behavior of Dann and members of his inner circle, there is a larger question that arises: How could a politically astute individual not recognize the minefields that were being created in his office?
Indeed, after the November 2006 election in which he defeated veteran Republican officeholder Betty Montgomery, Dann issued a code of ethical conduct for members of his transition team.
It reads as follows:
“The Attorney General-Elect hereby adopts this Code of Conduct as the appropriate standard of conduct for members of Advisory Groups for his Transition Team. The Code is adopted to ensure public trust and confidence and to inform members of the standard of conduct expected of them.
STATEMENT OF POLICY
“The Transition Team of Attorney General-Elect Dann and any Advisory Groups exist to serve the public interest by facilitating the transfer of responsibilities of the current Attorney General and his administration to Attorney General-Elect Dann and his new administration. Accordingly, all members shall conduct themselves in the course of their duties in a manner that fosters the respect, trust and confidence of the public. Among other things, members must avoid any activity or association that is, or appears to be, a violation of the public trust, including conflicts that are substantial and material or that may bring government into disrepute. In any instance in which a member is not certain what the standard of conduct should be the member should consult Counsel to the Transition Team or a designee”.