Senator Stace Nelson (R-19/Fulton) is reintroducing the “no sex with interns” rule that the Joint Legislative Procedure Committee and the full Senate rejected two weeks ago.
Those mind-boggling nays came before disgraced former legislator Mathew Wollmann’s sex with interns became public knowledge and forced his resignation.
Perhaps sensing that this embarrassment may make legislators more persuadable, Senator Nelson is proposing a far tougher rule that not only makes explicit the seemingly obvious notion that legislators shouldn’t boink the help but also dictates reporting and punishment:
1B-3.1 Sexual contact prohibited. No legislator or legislative employee may have sexual contact with any legislative intern or page, and no legislative intern may have sexual contact with a page. Any violation shall be reported within 24 hours of violation or knowledge, as follows:
- For a member of the Senate, a written report to the Senate President Pro Tempore, Majority Leader, & Minority Leader;
- For a member of the House of Representatives, a written report to the Speaker, Majority Leader, & Minority Leader;
- For a Legislative Research Council employee, a written report to the Director of the Legislative Research Council and the Executive Committee of the Executive Board;
- For an employee or legislative intern of the Senate, a written report to the Senate President ProTempore, Majority Leader, & Minority Leader, and the Director of the Legislative Research Council; and
- For an employee or legislative intern of the House of Representatives, a written report to the Speaker, Majority Leader, & Minority Leader, and the Director of the Legislative Research Council.
If a select committee on discipline and expulsion determines a member violated this section, it shall recommend expulsion of the member in its committee report and the intern or page shall be dismissed from service [Senator Stace Nelson, proposed rule change, obtained by Dakota Free Press 2017.01.26].
Senator Nelson has dropped the spouse/fiancé exception he included earlier as a favor to happily engaged Wollmann and his intern fiancée (not to mention a concession to pre-martial fornication, remarkable for a family-values Christian conservative like Nelson). Nelson’s rule additionally clarifies that interns shall also keep their hands and other parts off the pages. Nelson’s rule now mandates that anyone who finds out about such sexual contact notify specific Legislative leaders within 24 hours. Nelson would strip the committee investigating violations of any leeway in recommended punishment: expulsion is the sole punishment for legislators. Nelson also wants interns and pages involved in sexual contact dismissed.
Legislators may balk requiring such a strict reporting deadline and at tying the investigating committee’s hands in recommending punishment. The intern/page-dismissal clause is also unclear: I can see dismissing any legislator or intern who boinks down the chain of command. I can see dismissing anyone—legislator, intern, or page—who freely consents to such unethical conduct. But should an intern or page subjected to unwanted sexual contact be dismissed? That’s how Nelson’s draft rule reads now, and that seems unfair.
Nonetheless, if Joint Legislative Procedure takes up this rule, we will witness an interesting test of ethics, personalities, and power. Mainstream Republicans hated Nelson before this Session. Some GOP leaders probably hate him more for blowing the whistle on their apparent effort to cover up Wollmann’s misconduct. Some Democrats may even be torqued at Nelson for pressing this issue and distracting us from other important policy battles. During Nelson’s previous terms in the House, legislators reveled in opportunities to kill Nelson’s bills.
But with this tougher rule, Nelson seems to recognize that he has some wind at his back. With the Wollmann sex scandal serving as mere frosting to intensifying local and national media coverage of the Legislature’s unseemly haste to repeal ethics laws (Jim Abourezk says the ethics-law repeal makes the Legislature look like it has “the guts of a burglar“), can any legislator dare to vote against a rule that says, “No sex with interns”?
I am glad Senator Nelson is willing to fight for the obvious recognition that the State Capitol is no place for sex. Now if I can just get him to recognize that the State Capitol is no place for guns….
A legislator is also a “legislative employee” so legislators are prohibited from fraternizing with one another under this rule. Likewise, interns are also legislative employees, so they are prohibited with fraternizing with each other. That won’t fly.
Keep at ’em Sen Nelson…expose the secrets. You’ve got our back.
Wait a minute. That’s not quite right. Legislators are not prohibited from having relations with “legislative employees” so they can still have relations with each other and with LRC staff under the proposed rule. But interns can’t have relations with each other because they are both “legislative employees” and interns.
I read it the same Ror that it prohibits relations between interns.
That’s a tangle, Ror and Troy. The intent, with “employee” and “intern” used separately, seems to be to prevent down-chain nookie, but I’d be fine with an amendment to clarify. Perhaps, “You can only have sex with your own kind”?
Or maybe a more positive permissive rule: “Legislators may boink legislators, interns may boink interns, and pages may boink pages”?
Or maybe get back to our conservative, family-values roots: “The State Capitol is an abstinence-only facility”?
I like the term “boink”. I hope the rule gets amended to add than in. If they can also add in criteria for determining whether one may “need those pants” I’d approve of that also.
Ok, honestly, I can understand coworkers having to report their new romance relationship to HR to head off an instance where coworkers see some PDA and wonder about sexual harassment.
I can understand avoiding romantic relationships if they negatively effect work, but an accuser has to bring that separate evidence supporting that additional accusation to the table as well.
When it comes to consenting adults who’s age is 3-4 years apart, like the Wollmann scenario, I am not sure the dude was all that far out of bounds.
It’s too bad though, it sucks up a media cycle where real issues could have been talked about, and it makes Sen. Nelson look better than he is.
Adam, we can’t excuse improper sexual conduct based on age. This standard and every other ethical rule applies to every legislator, regardless of age. If a person is too immature to resist the temptations of comely interns, that person is too immature to hold the title of legislator.
Stace Nelson happens to be right. He happens to be throwing spokes in the wheels of the corrupt Republican leadership more vocally than any Democrat right now. Sure, he’s a rank conservative with bad policy ideas. But the fact that he’s doing the right thing here overrides other political considerations. If his doing the right thing makes him look better… well… doing the right thing should have that effect.
Cory, it’s not excusable, and nor is creating a new additional redundant law to further govern sex in Pierre.
On that latter point, Adam, I could agree. The House Select Committee said that Wollmann’s behavior violated existing rules. That ruling suggests we do not need an additional rule forbidding sexual contact… because good grief we all know that boinking interns is wrong!
However, what about the stricter reporting requirements and clearer, stiffer punishment? Do we need those for this particular offense?
Stace Nelson, Moral Police Sheriff, needs to force us all to consider more scenarios if he is to be consistent. Treating Wollmann any different than a Legislator who’s having sex with another Legislator’s son or daughter, and/or pages and interns having sex with family members of Legislators – these need to be on Nelson’s table – or he’s a flip-flopper – singling out Wollmann for cheap political points. And ya know what, these were some CHEAP political points.
@”Adam” Really tired of the ignorant propaganda distortion of the FACTS. Have Cory post the whole email chain. Explain how your asinine statement blaming me for his being outed for his misconduct jives with the REALITY that they received numerous complaints about his misconduct over two years! Are you claiming Dusty Johnson, Brook Greenfield, Dean Wink all conspired against the philandering liar?! What about the interns who made complaints to Republican AND Democratic leadership?!
Lastly, pound your comments about “CHEAP political points!” I had the misfortune of having to hear about this crap from two kids scared out of their minds of political retaliation for coming forward. Of my wife and daughters being fearful because of ignorant comments like yours from people incensed over the same lies you bought into. That lying POS is not a victim, the NUMEROUS interns he preyed on, those of us he LIED about, those numerous people he lied to, and my family for having to put up with ignorant jack wagons like you, are the victims. Now crawl back into your hole you coward.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! No need to throw those punches!
Nelson isn’t singling Wollmann with the above rule. Wollmann isn’t there to single out anymore.
“You can only have sex with your own kind”?
Wouldn’t that promote, gasp, same sex activity?
The schoolyard “Trumpy” rides again.
It’s just that there’s so much hearsay going on with this whole Wollmann thing, that it sometimes seems an entity like the National Enquirer manufactured it.
Stace, no worries, in many ways I am almost completely sick of you too.
Adam,
I’m not sure what more you can ask for. Wollmann confessed to the misconduct at issue. Legislative leaders have commented directly to the media about their knowledge and interaction with Wollmann. Named sources with direct knowledge of what the interns knew have commented on the facts.
Are you saying Wollmann confessing and acknowledging his misconduct is insufficient? Do you expect a procedure akin to a criminal trial?
Other than salacious details inherent to a sex scandal, I’m not understanding how this is a National Enquirer moment.
Comments about “hearsay” remind me of an old court case in which a witness was called to testify. The prosecution lawyer supposedly asked the witness to state his name, but the defense lawyer objected on the grounds of “hearsay,” arguing that the witness had no actual personal knowledge of his name, but had to rely on what his parents told him, and what he read on various documents. Should the witness be permitted to repeat “hearsay” statements by his parents when asked his name?
I wonder if the folks here objecting to “hearsay” about Wollman’s behavior would have sustained the defense lawyer’s objection simply because the witness had no personal knowledge to rely on to know his name, but had to rely on his parents’ out of court statements. Most experts agree that a person’s name constitutes “hearsay,” but argue that it is admissible in court under an exception to the rule excluding “hearsay.”
Perhaps there are situations where “hearsay” information can be helpful, such as in learning one’s own name, and in protecting pages and interns from sexual exploitation.
Thanks BCB for the illustration of hearsay. I was going to comment that as a technical matter most everything that we read or listen to is hearsay. Unless you are a direct witness to the conduct and are testifying under oath or by sworn affidavit, most statements are hearsay in a legal sense. Of course, there are many legal exceptions to a hearsay objection.
But information that would be hearsay in a court of law can still be reliable and informative enough to be printed in a newspaper or even used in a non-criminal investigation. The irony of people critiquing the methodology of Wollmann’s disciplinary action because it was not of the same caliber as a criminal prosecution is not lost on me in the age of Alternative Facts and Trumpist lies.
To be clear, I am glad that Wollmann resigned as he did wrong. However, of all the things that are wrong in Pierre, all the millions of dollars wasted in good old boy sweet heart deals and no bid contracts, etc., I am just not convinced that this Wollmann thing is a shining example of corruption or cover-ups in Pierre.
I am told that in Mr. Nelson’s senate lobby area as people walk past, those sitting on the soft leather couches ask or say such mutterings as “Do you need those pants?”, “You don’t need those pants,” “Nice pants,” and “yes, I do need these pants” and there is much chortling.
I am told Donald Trump had sex parties with children and urinated on prostitutes for sexual gratification. Of course, with no proof, I am not able to care much about what I have been told.
One of Mr. Nelson’s female admirers, who is actually a very pretty young lady herself, wrote a pretty sexually explicit article in that other paper that references things I would never have thought she knew about. Related to Mr. Wollmann and cops and teachers.
http://www.argusleader.com/story/opinion/readers/2017/01/28/letter-ethical-standards-imperative-governing/97164364/
What sort of proof might make you care more, Adam? Would a child victim’s sworn testimony about what happened, along with sworn testimony from an eyewitness suffice?
Audio video evidence would certainly help prove the sex culture in our state capitol.
Evidence of a promise made to an intern to give them a better work position after sex, would sure perk my ears up.
First hand account of one of the gals refusing to be groped at any given moment – giving others the impression of real actual sexual harassment would sure be interesting.
A Monica Lewinski style stain on a dress I combination with her own legal action is also widely understood to be “physical” evidence.
If no one wants to get bad behavior on ‘tape’ then the people of SD will always think of this as the same type of hearsay that they thought all of Trump’s lies were.
What Pierre did wrong about Wollmann is less clear than Trump’s lies ever were.
Mr. Adam, will all those fancy phone proliferated with every young person and probably some of the legislatures there are probably movies made of these things you describe. It is just about getting the right phones. At the parties that Mr. Nelson can tell us the schedule of I just bet you all the legislatures have movies made. The self movies, even. Selfies they call them.
Adam, my question is directed to your Donald Trump comment about sex parties with children. Are you saying you would care more if there was “First hand account of one of the gals (children)” that Trump allegedly raped?
Yes, but not that one first hand account of the 13 year old, that was scheduled for court last December out on California but was then dropped shortly after the election. If that gal is/was for real, then she should go through with her proceedings. I cannot relate to people who start legal actions like that, and then drop them for no apparent reason.
Adam–The lawsuit was dropped shortly before the election– Nov. 4th I believe. There were two signed affidavits in that lawsuit– not hearsay.
Then what in the crazy F made her back out of the legal action she initiated? I was really looking forward to that action, and WHOLLY let down by her backing out. So, I am now in put up or shut up mode, and you may have to forgive me for that.
You can dismiss the credibility of the allegations, Adam, or you can understand that the pressure of standing up to one of the most powerful people in the country and having your life examined under a microscope of media attention as well as the inevitable threats of violence against her could have made her withdraw the lawsuit. You can make your own judgment.
You may want to look into the fact that Trump’s buddy, billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, who was implicated in the Trump allegations is a Level 3 sex offender, the highest level, which is sex offender deemed a threat to public safety.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html
I do know these things, but until we can show Trump voters the video of him whizzing on prostitutes – this aint going nowhere. South Dakota is Trumpland.
Adam, rather than rely on potentially fake stories about the child rape, I opened an account on the Court’s PACER (Public Access to Court’s Electronic Records) and looked up the case to see what was filed. The Plaintiff submitted a sworn Affidavit fully describing being raped by Trump when she was a child. Another person submitted a sworn Affidavit describing her role in recruiting the 13 year old and in helping Trump rape the child. Both Affidavits were signed under penalties for perjury.
Now that she has dismissed her federal lawsuit do you think the Plaintiff and the eyewitness should be prosecuted for perjury and imprisoned for up to 5 years?
BCB, that is a mighty fine question.
No, I don’t think they should get jail time. But they should get shamed by the public for likely trumping up false charges.
If enough people called them ‘lying publicity stunt manufacturers,’ maybe they’d try to save face by going through with the GD legal proceedings!
Trump’s personality profile is pretty darn congruent with the worst things anyone ever said about him, but getting through to rural voters is as simple as A/V record of being caught in any given act. It’s not entrapment if it’s not the cops doing it.
Adam, what do you think might have motivated these two women to sign false Affidavits under oath accusing Trump of child rape and face federal felony perjury charges? Maybe money for the Plaintiff? But what about the witness as she would not be entitled to any money damages in return even if the Plaintiff prevailed in such a lawsuit and was awarded damages?
And if you read the witness’s sworn Affidavit she also admitted to engaging in criminal behavior for which she may well have been prosecuted if the allegations against Trump were determined to be true. She swore that she assisted Epstein in recruiting the child and helped put together the raping of the Plaintiff when she was 13, which makes her a criminal accomplice to child rape and various other sex offenses. What do you suppose motivated her to sign a sworn Affidavit that was totally against her interest and for which she could receive no monetary damages?
And consider the Plaintiff’s lawyers – if they suborned perjury by assisting with the Affidavits they too would face federal criminal charges and disbarment. Do you think they thought it might be worth it to prepare and file a false Affidavit in the hope of obtaining attorneys fees when by doing so they could have faced prison and disbarment, while attempting to sue one of the most powerful and litigious men in the Country and his bank of lawyers?
Finally, what do you think motivated the Plaintiff to drop the lawsuit just before the election when she possibly could face perjury charges?