Hawaii’s House of Representatives has revamped its sexual harassment policy following pressure brought on by the #MeToo movement and resignation of former Rep. Joe Souki last year amid complaints by several women that he had made unwanted advances toward them, including sexual comments, touching and kissing.
But the policy’s section on confidentiality, which states that a party to a complaint can be disciplined if they speak publicly about an investigation, has alarmed some, including one of Souki’s accusers.
Former Director of Human Services Rachael Wong filed allegations against Souki with the Hawaii State Ethics Commission. After the Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported on that complaint last year, at least four other women came forward with similar allegations against Souki, who eventually resigned as part of a settlement agreement with the commission.
Wong said that the policy’s section on confidentiality amounted to “adding another layer of silence on those who are already subjected to abuse of positional power.”
She said it was “putting a gag on those who have come forward and gone through a process that is already stacked against them, that requires individuals to put their names, their livelihood, their reputation on the line, to go uphill.”
Wong said that she was particularly concerned
because the outcome of an investigation could be anything — “the person goes on to continue in their job, is reprimanded, goes on to another job and nobody knows why and that person lands well and could commit a similar offense to other people.”
The policy states that all aspects of the reporting, investigation and resolution of a harassment complaint be kept confidential to the greatest extent possible, something that attorneys say is standard and meant to protect the parties to an investigation as well as the integrity of the investigation itself. The policy also states that “any breach of confidentiality shall be treated as
misconduct subject to disciplinary action.”
House Speaker Scott Saiki said that the part of the policy threatening discipline if a party to an investigation breaks that confidentiality was meant to apply only during the period a complaint is being investigated, not after it has been resolved, though this isn’t made clear in the policy’s wording.
Potential disciplinary actions aside, both Saiki and Rep. Della Au Belatti said that the policy does urge confidentiality among parties even after a complaint is resolved.
“For purposes of the House investigation, it is considered a personnel matter, and standard practice is that investigations be kept confidential,” said Saiki.
Au Belatti said that if the case involved a lawmaker, there were mechanisms by which that information would likely become public if the complaint was found to have merit and deserving of significant punishment. A
legislator can be censured, lose committee assignments or be expelled from the House.
The new policy also includes revised definitions of sexual harassment, clarifies reporting procedures for filing a complaint, prohibits retaliation against someone who files a complaint and requires annual training for all House members and employees, among other changes. It also clarifies procedures in the event the House speaker is accused of sexual harassment.
The House still needs to vote on the policy for it to be adopted.
Wong said that overall she thought the new policy was positive.
“I really appreciate the House of Representatives taking workplace harassment seriously,” she said. “So this is a really good start.”
