Action needed
Kootenai County Prosecutor Bill Douglas is lucky he didn’t face voters Tuesday.
He might have been shown the door. For the second time in two years, his office is involved in a controversy over sex.
Last year, Douglas’ personal conduct was called into question after a $69,150 settlement between the county’s insurer and Marina Kalani, the former Juvenile Education and Training Court supervisor. Disclosures revealed that Douglas and Kalani had exchanged 1,060 e-mails on county computers and time, including a few that were released that hinted at an improper relationship. Now, new Chief Deputy Prosecutor Rick Baughman is facing allegations that he has sexually harassed two females on an ongoing basis. The claims included inappropriate touching and lewd comments.
Douglas has placed Baughman on paid leave and called for an independent investigation by someone outside the county “who knows the issues.” He wouldn’t name the investigator or say if the findings would be made public – only that the investigator would be asked to make a recommendation should the claims prove substantive. Douglas’ initial approach is a good one. But he needs to go further. In the wake of his own problems, he should ensure that the process is as open as possible, that staff members are protected from retribution for discussing the office environment, and that Baughman be fired if the allegations are true.
In the modern workplace, there is no room for an individual to touch another improperly, to make suggestive comments, or to pester someone for a date. In a county prosecutor’s office, which is charged with protecting the public from all kinds of misconduct, there shouldn’t be a hint of sexual harassment.
Twelve years ago, female legal secretary Carol Fowler was fired by Douglas after she repeatedly complained of sexual harassment by Baughman. Douglas investigated the charges on his own and determined they were “unfounded.” Shortly afterward, Douglas dismissed Fowler for tardiness and causing disruptions in the workplace. Her harassment claim resulted in a $7,500 payout. The settlement conveniently stipulated that no one could discuss the case.
Douglas showed his propensity for keeping embarrassing office conduct away from the public again when he fought a lawsuit filed on behalf of this newspaper to prevent the county from releasing 889 other e-mails between Kalani and himself. A lower court ruled that the e-mails were public. But they have yet to be released because Douglas and Kalani appealed that verdict to the Idaho Supreme Court. Douglas withdrew his appeal a year ago. Kalani, however, is pursuing hers. The Supreme Court is expected to render a decision next spring.
During the Kalani-Douglas controversy, another female staffer filed a $354,000 tort claim, alleging Douglas harassed and intimidated her.
These repeated accusations imply a pattern of tolerance for questionable behavior in the prosecutor’s office. Douglas, as a longtime prosecutor, is the person responsible for the behavior of his subordinates. He’s also responsible for promoting to his second in command a person whom he investigated for sexual harassment in the past. If the allegations are true, Douglas must take decisive action to assure the public that his office models the behavior it expects of citizens.