“Specifically, the Select Committee finds, and requests the Senate concur in its finding, that Senator Julie Frye-Mueller engaged in harassment”
The Senate Select Committee on Discipline and Expulsion has met for what is hopefully a final time regarding the conduct of Senator Julie Frye Mueller, and has issued it’s report.
The committee found specifically that, despite her denials, “that Senator Julie Frye-Mueller engaged in harassment.”
While the Committee has voted to remove her suspension from the Senate, they are in agreement that she should be censured for her conduct and “bringing the Honor of the Senate into public disrepute.”
And as part of making sure it doesn’t happen again, they are recommending that “Senator Julie Frye-Mueller’s interaction and contact with staff of the Legislative Research Council, including interns and pages, be limited to the director or the director’s designees.”
You can read the report here:
Mr. President:
Your Select Committee on Discipline and Expulsion respectfully reports that it has completed its investigation of the conduct of Senator Julie Frye-Mueller; and, after due deliberation, recommends that the Senate do now endorse the finding of the Select Committee that Senator Julie Frye-Mueller should, and by the approval of three-fifths vote of the Senate shall be, censured for conduct by a senator unbecoming the Senate. Specifically, the Select Committee finds, and requests the Senate concur in its finding, that Senator Julie Frye-Mueller engaged in harassment, as specified in Joint Rule 1B-3(2), that had the effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual employee’s work performance and creating an intimidating working environment in the Legislative Research Council.
The Select Committee finds, and the Senate to concur, that Senator Julie Frye-Mueller’s suspension is part of the Senate discipline for bringing the Honor of the Senate into public disrepute. The Select Committee further recommends the Senate immediately lift the suspension of Senator Julie Frye-Mueller.
Finally, to ensure that an intimidating work environment does not re-occur during the remainder of the Ninety-eighth Legislative Session, the Select Committee recommends that Senator Julie Frye-Mueller’s interaction and contact with staff of the Legislative Research Council, including interns and pages, be limited to the director or the director’s designees.
Respectfully submitted,
David Wheeler, Chair
Select Committee on Discipline and Expulsion
appropriate. time to move on.
Kind of dishonest to call it a “scandal.” Sounds like someone filed a hurt-feelings complaint against her. Move on and get back to work.
The legal definition of harassment requires intent. It doesn’t apply to sincere advice just because someone takes offense at it. Intelligent, mature legislators would have immediately informed Julie of the accusations and given her a chance to resolve any misunderstandings privately.
Formally censuring a state legislator based on the trivial, one-sided perceptions of a witness Julie was never even allowed to publicly cross-examine is a mockery of justice, and the senators on the select committee have already brought the honor of the senate into far more public disrepute than Julie has.
Is that an accurate statement of the law? It appears that South Dakota statute requires knowing OR willful mens rea under harassment claims.
Really? “…sincere advice…”..”trivial, one-sided perceptions of a witness..”? Ok Jody, did you not read the staffer’s statement? Your sister denied saying everything and Mike was like…”ah, just gals talking”.
I don’t have a sister involved, I don’t know what Mike you mean, and I don’t know why you seem to be calling me Jody.
Yes, I read the statement of the anonymous LRC staffer.
The legal definition of harassment “really” doesn’t apply to sincere advice just because someone takes offense at it, and formally censuring a state legislator based on the trivial, one-sided perceptions of a witness Julie was never even allowed to publicly cross-examine is “really” a mockery of justice.
i’m beyond tired of hearing the ‘sincere motherhood advice’ defense. it was conservative virtue signaling, and was portraying political belief rather than helpful science. it is what it is. own it.
Own what? You’ve apparently missed my points. Conservative virtue signaling and “portraying political belief” wouldn’t automatically meet the legal definition of harassment or justify formally censuring a state legislator without due process.
unwanted advice on breast milk management, inappropriate discussion of a person’s intimate physicality, in the presence of a conscious unrelated adult male was covered in my general reference to virtue signaling and politicized science beliefs. but thanks hey.
The legal definition of harassment requires intent. It doesn’t apply to anything you’ve listed just because someone says afterward that she was offended.
the willful promulgation of unsolicited virtue signaling and politicized pseudoscience under the guise of ‘friendly chit chat” is certainly loaded with potentially abusive intent, which crossed the line into clear abuse, according to the allegations. the elements were present, but of course what would hold up in court would be the question. I know you’d just rather wish it all away.
You’re the one who seems to be wishing the facts away.
ooo the google says harassment can be “intent” based or “impact” based separate from intent. ok.
Right call. Never met any legitimate threshold for expulsion (ex. selling votes, physical assault) but conduct below that of an elected official.
Hopefully, this spurs creation of a more formalized process to handle situations where suspension and investigation is warranted. Seemed very ad hoc for such a procedure driven place.