jimnyc
08-24-2018, 02:23 PM
Nope, not Trump, but CONGRESS in total. And I have to wonder, how much is hidden. Apparently the funding is not hidden, but I don't trust any payouts as to whether the public is made aware - fully.
---
How Congress plays by different rules on sexual harassment and misconduct
Briony Whitehouse was a 19-year-old intern in 2003 when she boarded an elevator in the Russell Senate Office Building with a Republican senator who, she said, groped her until the doors reopened.
She never reported the incident to her bosses for fear of jeopardizing her career. But she recently tweeted about her experience on Twitter as part of the #MeToo campaign, a social-media phenomenon that has aired thousands of complaints about sexual harassment.
Some of the accounts have called out by name Hollywood moguls, media stars, even a former U.S. president. Other women such as Whitehouse have stopped short of naming harassers. Whitehouse in an interview last week with The Washington Post declined to name the politician who made unwanted advances, convinced that he would retaliate.
"At the time, I didn't know what to do, so I did nothing at all," said Whitehouse, who works overseas as a political consultant. "Because this happened so early on for me, I just assumed this was the way things worked and that I'd have to accept it."
If Whitehouse had chosen to pursue a complaint against the senator, she would have discovered a process unlike other parts of the federal government or much of the private sector. Her complaint likely would have been thrown out because interns have limited harassment protections under the unique employment law that Congress applies to itself.
Congress makes its own rules about the handling of sexual complaints against members and staff, passing laws exempting it from practices that apply to other employers.
Rest - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-congress-plays-by-different-rules-on-sexual-harassment-and-misconduct/2017/10/26/2b9a8412-b80c-11e7-9e58-e6288544af98_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.044cc3425758
Congress owes taxpayers answers about its harassment 'shush' fund
Since when are members of Congress and their staffs accused of sexual harassment allowed to hush up and pay off their accusers from a secret “shush” fund full of taxpayer dollars? Since 1995, it turns out.
Congress, we all know, chooses to exempt itself from many of the same laws it foists on the rest of us. It’s a grievance I hear regularly during my travels around the country, as grassroots activists complain about this law or that regulation. “If only Congress had to live under the same laws we do, they’d get it, and they’d change it” is a common refrain.
For years, for instance, I’ve been speaking out about the illegal special exemption of Congress from ObamaCare, which allows members and staff to avoid the financial burdens they imposed on us when they passed that terrible law. If only they had to live under the law the same way the rest of us do, without benefit of taxpayer dollars to subsidize their premiums purchased fraudulently on the D.C. small business exchange, they might be more incentivized to repeal that law.
But until recently, I did not know about the “shush fund” of Congress, a fund managed by the “Office of Compliance,” which itself was created following the 1995 enactment of the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA), the first law enacted by the first Republican House in four decades.
Ironically, the CAA was a serious attempt to bring Congress under many labor laws from which it had previously exempted itself. In fact, under the CAA, Congress applied 12 different labor laws to itself for the first time, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Federal Service Labor Management Relations Statute, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, among others.
Rest - http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/360355-congress-owes-american-taxpayers-answers-about-secret-shush-fund
Sexual harassment fund exposes Congress
When sexual harassers agree on confidential settlements with victims, at least the payments come out of the harassers' own pockets or from companies that choose to employ them.
But not, as the nation has learned this month, when the harasser serves in Congress. Then, taxpayers foot the bill. And the entire episode remains hidden.
This outrageous system grows out of a 1995 law, known as the Congressional Accountability Act, that was intended to make lawmakers subject to the same workplace laws against harassment and discrimination as the rest of American employers.
The law was a well-intentioned and much needed effort to end Congress' status as the "last plantation." But some of the fine-print provisions — such as mandating that settlements be secret and having taxpayers pick up the tab for lawmakers violating the law — represent the opposite of accountability.
Rest - https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/11/27/sexual-harassment-fund-exposes-congress-editorials-debates/898008001/
And even "Snopes", the FAR left leaning "fact checker", while they claim this is false, it's only because it's not "hidden". BS.
Did Congress Use a ‘Slush Fund’ to Pay $17 Million to Women They Sexually Harassed?
Although the term "slush fund" signals secret money stashed for illicit purposes, Congress has authorized public money in a fund set aside to pay settlements.
Claim - Congress has a "slush fund" from which it has paid $17 million to women who accused members of sexual harassment or abuse.
Rating - False
Origin - In November 2017, a meme circulating on social media reported that Congress has been using a “slush fund” to quietly pay out $17 million in settlements to women who had been sexually harassed or abused by lawmakers.
Although there is a U.S. Treasury fund devoted to paying settlements, it is not a “slush fund” which implies it is secret and utilized for illicit purposes. The fund is administered by the Office of Compliance (OOC), which was established in 1995 with the Congressional Accountability Act and is used for the payment of awards and settlements. The OOC is overseen by the House Administration and Senate Rules committees.
Unlike a “slush fund” which would be off the books, the fund is a line item and every year its activity can be viewed by the public in Treasury reports — for example money laid out from the fund in Fiscal Year 2016 can be viewed here under “Awards and Settlements, Office of Compliance.” In FY 2016 the fund paid out a total of $491,733.97.
Yearly breakdowns dating back to 1995 can be viewed here (click on the year desired then scroll to “Part Three Fiscal Year 2016 Detail of Appropriations, Outlays, and Balances,” then click on the report for the Legislative Branch).
Citing increased public interest in the issue of sexual harassment settlement funding sources, Office of Compliance Director Susan Tsui Grundmann released a compilation of money paid from the fund by year since 1997, totaling more than $17 million. But not all of that money went to congressional harassment cases, she pointed out. The money is used to settle workplace disputes on Capitol Hill and the amounts for various complaints are not broken out by type:
A large portion of cases originate from employing offices in the legislative branch other than the House of Representatives or the Senate, and involve various statutory provisions incorporated by the [Congressional Accountability Act], such as the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The statistics on payments are not further broken down into specific claims because settlements may involve cases that allege violations of more than one of the 13 statutes incorporated by the CAA.
In at least one of the high-profile cases, that of accusations of harassment leveled against Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan), settlement money was paid by his congressional office budget, not the Treasury fund overseen by OOC.
The meme is false — the money isn’t paid from an illegal “slush fund.” It’s unknown how much of the $17 million total over the last 20 years went to sexual harassment claim settlements. However, allegations of sexual abuse and harassment against powerful men like Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, Rep. Conyers and Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesota), NBC News anchor Matt Lauer and in the days leading up to the 2016 presidential election, President Donald Trump, have raised awareness of how rampant the problem is and how secretive and bureaucratically-cumbersome the process is for handling complaints against legislators — at the expense of taxpayers.
This has prompted Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Callifornia) to draft legislation to make the OOC’s process more transparent and user-friendly for victims of harassment. (A spokesperson for Speier said the way the system currently works “is obviously created to protect the institution over the victims.”) As it stands, people seeking to file complaints of harassment on Capitol Hill have to wait a minimum of 90 days after filing their initial incident report with OOC, during which time they must receive mandatory counseling and mediation, then wait an additional 30 days in a “cooling off” period.
According to documents provided by Speier’s office, the bill (dubbed “Me Too” after a social media campaign in which women and some men shared their stories of assault and abuse) seeks to change the process and help prevent future harassment by making the mandatory counseling and mediation voluntary, giving OOC more investigative power, allowing victims to file complaints anonymously, giving them more time to do so and providing them a central platform they can use. It would also implement sexual harassment training and require any members of Congress who settle a claim to personally reimburse the Treasury fund. OOC would also be required to publish the name of the employing office and amount awarded in settlements.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/congress-use-slush-fund-pay-17-million-women-sexually-harassed/
---
How Congress plays by different rules on sexual harassment and misconduct
Briony Whitehouse was a 19-year-old intern in 2003 when she boarded an elevator in the Russell Senate Office Building with a Republican senator who, she said, groped her until the doors reopened.
She never reported the incident to her bosses for fear of jeopardizing her career. But she recently tweeted about her experience on Twitter as part of the #MeToo campaign, a social-media phenomenon that has aired thousands of complaints about sexual harassment.
Some of the accounts have called out by name Hollywood moguls, media stars, even a former U.S. president. Other women such as Whitehouse have stopped short of naming harassers. Whitehouse in an interview last week with The Washington Post declined to name the politician who made unwanted advances, convinced that he would retaliate.
"At the time, I didn't know what to do, so I did nothing at all," said Whitehouse, who works overseas as a political consultant. "Because this happened so early on for me, I just assumed this was the way things worked and that I'd have to accept it."
If Whitehouse had chosen to pursue a complaint against the senator, she would have discovered a process unlike other parts of the federal government or much of the private sector. Her complaint likely would have been thrown out because interns have limited harassment protections under the unique employment law that Congress applies to itself.
Congress makes its own rules about the handling of sexual complaints against members and staff, passing laws exempting it from practices that apply to other employers.
Rest - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-congress-plays-by-different-rules-on-sexual-harassment-and-misconduct/2017/10/26/2b9a8412-b80c-11e7-9e58-e6288544af98_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.044cc3425758
Congress owes taxpayers answers about its harassment 'shush' fund
Since when are members of Congress and their staffs accused of sexual harassment allowed to hush up and pay off their accusers from a secret “shush” fund full of taxpayer dollars? Since 1995, it turns out.
Congress, we all know, chooses to exempt itself from many of the same laws it foists on the rest of us. It’s a grievance I hear regularly during my travels around the country, as grassroots activists complain about this law or that regulation. “If only Congress had to live under the same laws we do, they’d get it, and they’d change it” is a common refrain.
For years, for instance, I’ve been speaking out about the illegal special exemption of Congress from ObamaCare, which allows members and staff to avoid the financial burdens they imposed on us when they passed that terrible law. If only they had to live under the law the same way the rest of us do, without benefit of taxpayer dollars to subsidize their premiums purchased fraudulently on the D.C. small business exchange, they might be more incentivized to repeal that law.
But until recently, I did not know about the “shush fund” of Congress, a fund managed by the “Office of Compliance,” which itself was created following the 1995 enactment of the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA), the first law enacted by the first Republican House in four decades.
Ironically, the CAA was a serious attempt to bring Congress under many labor laws from which it had previously exempted itself. In fact, under the CAA, Congress applied 12 different labor laws to itself for the first time, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Federal Service Labor Management Relations Statute, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, among others.
Rest - http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/360355-congress-owes-american-taxpayers-answers-about-secret-shush-fund
Sexual harassment fund exposes Congress
When sexual harassers agree on confidential settlements with victims, at least the payments come out of the harassers' own pockets or from companies that choose to employ them.
But not, as the nation has learned this month, when the harasser serves in Congress. Then, taxpayers foot the bill. And the entire episode remains hidden.
This outrageous system grows out of a 1995 law, known as the Congressional Accountability Act, that was intended to make lawmakers subject to the same workplace laws against harassment and discrimination as the rest of American employers.
The law was a well-intentioned and much needed effort to end Congress' status as the "last plantation." But some of the fine-print provisions — such as mandating that settlements be secret and having taxpayers pick up the tab for lawmakers violating the law — represent the opposite of accountability.
Rest - https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/11/27/sexual-harassment-fund-exposes-congress-editorials-debates/898008001/
And even "Snopes", the FAR left leaning "fact checker", while they claim this is false, it's only because it's not "hidden". BS.
Did Congress Use a ‘Slush Fund’ to Pay $17 Million to Women They Sexually Harassed?
Although the term "slush fund" signals secret money stashed for illicit purposes, Congress has authorized public money in a fund set aside to pay settlements.
Claim - Congress has a "slush fund" from which it has paid $17 million to women who accused members of sexual harassment or abuse.
Rating - False
Origin - In November 2017, a meme circulating on social media reported that Congress has been using a “slush fund” to quietly pay out $17 million in settlements to women who had been sexually harassed or abused by lawmakers.
Although there is a U.S. Treasury fund devoted to paying settlements, it is not a “slush fund” which implies it is secret and utilized for illicit purposes. The fund is administered by the Office of Compliance (OOC), which was established in 1995 with the Congressional Accountability Act and is used for the payment of awards and settlements. The OOC is overseen by the House Administration and Senate Rules committees.
Unlike a “slush fund” which would be off the books, the fund is a line item and every year its activity can be viewed by the public in Treasury reports — for example money laid out from the fund in Fiscal Year 2016 can be viewed here under “Awards and Settlements, Office of Compliance.” In FY 2016 the fund paid out a total of $491,733.97.
Yearly breakdowns dating back to 1995 can be viewed here (click on the year desired then scroll to “Part Three Fiscal Year 2016 Detail of Appropriations, Outlays, and Balances,” then click on the report for the Legislative Branch).
Citing increased public interest in the issue of sexual harassment settlement funding sources, Office of Compliance Director Susan Tsui Grundmann released a compilation of money paid from the fund by year since 1997, totaling more than $17 million. But not all of that money went to congressional harassment cases, she pointed out. The money is used to settle workplace disputes on Capitol Hill and the amounts for various complaints are not broken out by type:
A large portion of cases originate from employing offices in the legislative branch other than the House of Representatives or the Senate, and involve various statutory provisions incorporated by the [Congressional Accountability Act], such as the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The statistics on payments are not further broken down into specific claims because settlements may involve cases that allege violations of more than one of the 13 statutes incorporated by the CAA.
In at least one of the high-profile cases, that of accusations of harassment leveled against Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan), settlement money was paid by his congressional office budget, not the Treasury fund overseen by OOC.
The meme is false — the money isn’t paid from an illegal “slush fund.” It’s unknown how much of the $17 million total over the last 20 years went to sexual harassment claim settlements. However, allegations of sexual abuse and harassment against powerful men like Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, Rep. Conyers and Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesota), NBC News anchor Matt Lauer and in the days leading up to the 2016 presidential election, President Donald Trump, have raised awareness of how rampant the problem is and how secretive and bureaucratically-cumbersome the process is for handling complaints against legislators — at the expense of taxpayers.
This has prompted Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Callifornia) to draft legislation to make the OOC’s process more transparent and user-friendly for victims of harassment. (A spokesperson for Speier said the way the system currently works “is obviously created to protect the institution over the victims.”) As it stands, people seeking to file complaints of harassment on Capitol Hill have to wait a minimum of 90 days after filing their initial incident report with OOC, during which time they must receive mandatory counseling and mediation, then wait an additional 30 days in a “cooling off” period.
According to documents provided by Speier’s office, the bill (dubbed “Me Too” after a social media campaign in which women and some men shared their stories of assault and abuse) seeks to change the process and help prevent future harassment by making the mandatory counseling and mediation voluntary, giving OOC more investigative power, allowing victims to file complaints anonymously, giving them more time to do so and providing them a central platform they can use. It would also implement sexual harassment training and require any members of Congress who settle a claim to personally reimburse the Treasury fund. OOC would also be required to publish the name of the employing office and amount awarded in settlements.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/congress-use-slush-fund-pay-17-million-women-sexually-harassed/