Legislative committee to send letters? How about a scarlet one?

Pat Powers

I think we’re starting down a path of the bizarre in the Legislature’s investigation of twenty-something year olds’ canoodling in a consensual manner:

Committee Chair Tim Johns says they are sending out letters to interns from the past two years asking if they have any information and would like to come forward.

And…

The letters sent out to interns have contact information for the Director of the Legislative Research Council Jason Hancock or Johns. They want to have forewarning before the hearing because those with information may not know what direction they plan on going. Rep. Wollmann is entitled to know the allegations against him.

Read it all here.

Sending out letters to interns to look for gossip or sex-partners? Anyone familiar with the term “slut-shaming?” Because that seems to be what’s happening in this instance:

In human sexuality, slut-shaming is a form of social stigma applied to people, especially women and girls, who are perceived to violate traditional expectations for sexual behaviors. Some examples of circumstances wherein women are “slut-shamed” include violating dress code policies by dressing in perceived sexually provocative ways, requesting access to birth control, having premarital, casual, or promiscuous sex…..

Read that here.

If this was a case where someone had complained of harassment, or something criminal, that’s one thing. But the whole thing smacks of trying to impose one’s moral code on another. 

Now we’re sending out letters looking for sexual partners to come forward – possibly to be livestreamed on keloland.com or argusleader.com, and splashed across the state’s media – to tell the committee about it?

Ugh.

Instead of a reprimand or censure, maybe the committee should plan on issuing scarlet legislative badges?

21 thoughts on “Legislative committee to send letters? How about a scarlet one?”

  1. Send out a letter for interns in the past couple decades. You might be surprised what you find out. It will definitely more than anybody wanted to know.

  2. Instead of setting an agenda meeting Conservative Goals and talking about how absolutely great it is to have a true outsider winning the Presidency we are now thinking and talking about this stupid shit.
    Which none of can be stored high in transit.

  4. I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that they are sending these letters out to see if any interns come forward because they know there aren’t any interns that are going to come forward.

    They are doing this for show to show that Wollmann is not a bad dude and no one is insinuating anything against him other than a one man wrecking crew searching for a little revenge.

    There will not be one intern that comes forward against Wollmann. Wollmann should have been told to knock it off a long time ago and if he was and he still acted like a juvenile then he shouldn’t have continued to serve in the legislature until he could grow up.

    I really think Stace is blowing this out of proportion and I really think Wollmann showed himself to be an adolescent who needs to realize he is representing himself, his district and his state.

    I wouldn’t mind seeing both of them resign in the next couple weeks so we can get on to bigger and better issues.

  5. Who do you mean? Who would be “slut shamed”? Interns or legislators? Who are you most worried about? Using such strong language in ambiguity deserves an explanation.

    1. He means anybody who comes forward will be publicly exposed as a slut. Nobody is accusing Wollmann of rape. There are no victims here, just sluts.

  6. Anne and the essence of this thread is exactly capturing my conversation with two women (one younger and one older who both are professionals) yesterday. They basically “lit” me up with regard to this entire matter.

    In summary, their point was:

    Just another example of men thinking women need their protection. Even when they have consensual sex, its because they are giddy by the man’s power and in effect been taken advantage by a man OR they are just sluts who spread their legs for any man who comes along. Men get to learn their mistakes but women should be protected from theirs. One said “Sexism about sex is all this is.”

    I wish I had known about this letter as I suspect they’d react negatively with the comment something to the effect: “WTH? Do these MEN think if something was done wrong they can’t figure out how to handle it?” I say this because they both said they learn very quickly how to handle “letches” who misinterpret being friendly and make inappropriate advances. They don’t want to be part of an investigation because they need to be protected.

    One final common comment both said: Some people think too much about sex.

    When this all broke, I said I leaned toward a specific prohibition of sexual contact between legislators and interns. Both of these women said if both parties are single, it is nobody’s business and just another example of the double standard.

    1. I can see your point Troy but this happened in multiple sessions. It really shouldn’t be happening during session. Parents are probably concerned about this process now when it is supposed to be a great resume builder and learning experience.

    2. First of all, I do not approve of a legislator having sex with an intern regardless of whether the legislator is a man or woman and whether the intern is a man or woman. If both people are of consenting age, then there is no law being broken. However just because something is not legal does not mean it is a good idea to engage a practice. The mature thing would be for both parties to wait until the session is over and then go at it to their hearts contents. Bottom line, though, I do not see how the legislature has the authority, moral or legal, to expel this guy.

  7. Anonymous 9:02,

    1) This is not my point. This is how these two women see the matter.

    2) They don’t care it happened in multiple sessions and see the “it shouldn’t be happening” an example of condescending “protection of adult women.”

    3) These parents trust their children going to college for a “resume builder and learning experience.” I am having a hard time imagining they are really more concerned this is worse than what occurs in college. If they do, I think they don’t have a very realistic grasp of what occurs at college.

  8. Like I mentioned before, this is analogous to a mid-level manager boffing the interns. Would any decent company allow that? As usual, legislators are all talk when they blather on about running government like a business.

    What it comes down to is too often legislators get by with Do As I Say, Not As I Do–telling the Executive Branch to adopt Lean Culture when the Legislature itself is the epitome of waste, for example–and this is just not going to change until there is real leadership in the Legislature again.

    1. No it’s not analogous to a mid-level manager, because the legislators do not supervise the interns, do they? They don’t hire or fire them. I see this as more like a customer getting into a relationship with a bartender.

      As for parents worrying about their daughters’ chastity, it’s too late once they’ve turned 16. If the parents think their kids need chaperones they had better accompany them to Pierre themselves.

      1. By “mid-level managers,” Anne, I mean those managers who don’t supervise the interns directly. Interns are assigned to particular legislators, but even though the legislator may ask for specific research or tasks, the legislator does not supervise the intern. Legislators are supervised by the LRC staff and the Executive Board. My point was: I believe a well run business would not allow this kind of activity between managers and interns, even if the interns don’t report directly to the particular manager.

        That said, were an intern to decline an advance by a legislator, the legislator could make things miserable for the intern.

        As for your example, I think bartenders are free to go home with their customers. They’re not both employed by the establishment. Legislators, on the other hand, should not be going to Pierre to hook up with the help.

  9. I think it is within the purview of the Ethics Commission of the state legislature to reprimand Wollman. He broke no laws, everything was concensual. I understand the women to be over the age of consent. I find it interesting that there are those who feel that sex between interns and legislators should just be banned during he session. Do the people in power in this state think they have the power to control the libido of those who serve? Good luck. Should it have happened? No. Should the legislator been smarter? Hell, yes. Let the voters in his district make the decision on whether or not he is allowed to continue to serve at the ballot box next election. Send the man a formal letter of reprimand and get on with the business of the state.

    1. I’m sure there are rules about sex that marines live under. Both Nelson and Wollmann probably know these.

      It’s inappropriate for legislators to be chasing interns around for sex. I don’t care if they are old enough. It’s disrespectful of the opportunity the interns were given. Many parents want their kids to intern in the legislature and I’m sure they don’t want legislators having sex with them.

      Stace takes this issue to far one direction but Wollmann should be made an example of so it stops this kind of behavior in the future.

      To all involved… grow up.

  10. So can the interns be allowed to have sex with each other?

    And since the “kids” are legally adults, what their parents think of it is irrelevant. Stop worrying about the parents.

  11. Stace isn’t going to stop with Wollmann, either. If he succeeds in this endeavor, he will move on to attacking somebody else. That’s how he operates. He will seek out damaging information on everybody he can think of and there will be no end to this.

Comments are closed.