Monday, July 18, 2016
The Western Reserve Port Authority is a public entity that operates with public dollars, and yet secrecy surrounds a sexual harassment complaint filed against the director of aviation, Dan Dickten.
Indeed, Lauren Iaderosa, a former administrative assistant for the authority, was paid $40,000 to keep under wraps the details of her claim that Dickten sexually harassed and otherwise mistreated her.
The WRPA’s insurance carrier paid the money, and in exchange, Iaderosa agreed to forever release all claims against Dickten and the authority, according to a settlement contract signed in June by Chairman Ron Klingle.
But here’s where the story gets murky. The Vindicator asked Klingle why Dickten was not fired as a result of the complaint, and here’s what the chairman said: “There’s nothing that has happened that I have seen or the board has seen that would give us any reason to dismiss.”
If that’s so, why did the authority agree to the $40,000 payment? And more specifically, why the confidentiality?
In the absence of any details about Iaderosa’s complaint or the settlement agreement, Valley residents have no alternative but to accept the word of Klingle and his colleagues on the authority board.
Dan Keating, the public entity’s lawyer, pointed out there have been no lawsuits filed against the airport or Dickten and no complaints filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or Civil Rights Commission.
John Moliterno, authority executive director, told The Vindicator he was prohibited from discussing the Iaderosa matter.
Dickten also declined to comment “at this time.”
So, why did the port authority and Dickten agree to the confidentiality agreement that resulted in the $40,000 payment to the fired employee? The answer: “ … merely to avoid litigation and buy their peace.”
‘DOUBTFUL, DISPUTED CLAIM’
But there’s more. The settlement agreement also says the WRPA “is not admitting to, and specifically denies, any violation of [Iaderosa’s] rights. It is understood and agreed that this settlement is the compromise of a doubtful and disputed claim, and that the payment made is not to be construed as an admission of liability on the part of the port authority.”
If they were so confident that the former employee’s claim was without merit, why was it so important to avoid a lawsuit and buy peace?
Iaderosa, who was hired in June 2014, was fired in September 2015. A month later, she “initiated a claim of sexual harassment, discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, slander and other allegations,” according to an authority document obtained by The Vindicator.
Given all that, the public is left to wonder why Klingle and his colleagues were so intent on deep-sixing this matter.
For our part, we recall an editorial we published about a year ago when the Western Reserve Port Authority inexplicably hired Moliterno as the executive director when his qualifications paled in comparison to two other applicants who had actual aviation-related experience.
At the time, Moliterno’s involvement in the port authority spanned just nine months as the interim director.
Klingle, in justifying the selection, said he had “known John for 20 years” and described him as “incredibly smart and a class act.”
Given the relationship between the chairman of the authority board and the executive director, we wonder what advice, if any, Moliterno provided with regard to Iaderosa’s sexual harassment claim against Dickten.
Did he raise the issue of paying public dollars to buy the silence of an employee who had been fired? Did he discuss the public’s attitude with regard to the perceived lack of transparency?
Indeed, did anyone involved with the port authority ask this question: Why are we entering into a confidentiality agreement and paying her $40,000 when we are certain that she does not have a legal leg to stand on?
Silence isn’t golden when it comes to the public sector because taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being spent.
Secrecy merely adds to the distrust people already have of government.
As for the argument some will make that the actual cost to the port authority was its $1,000 deductible, we would point out, as we’ve done in other situations, that the insurance company’s payment of $40,000 could ultimately result in higher premiums – paid with public dollars.