Evergreen Magazine had an interesting article here.
QUESTIONS FLORA RECENTLY SHARED WITH US AS THEY PERTAIN TO ADDRESSING HARASSMENT WITHIN THE AGENCY OF THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE:
What protocol is in place – within the agency – that effectively protects those who report harassment?
Is there a policy that addresses swift investigation and resolution? If so, is it being adhered to?
How fast and effective is the investigative process?
How quickly are these cases fully resolved?
What are the consequences if a USFS employee is found guilty of harassment?
How many individuals accused of harassment were moved in lieu of investigation?
How many individuals accused of harassment were investigated, found not guilty and then moved?
Are there protocols in place to prevent differential treatment in harassment cases by grade and position?
How many individuals have lost their jobs due to being found guilty of harassment?
How many individuals have left the agency due to ongoing harassment?
When do outside law enforcement agencies become involved? Are rapes and other sex crimes under a statute of mandatory reporting?
SUSAN MARSH WHO JUST PUBLISHED HER ARTICLE #METOO IN A CULTURE OF GOOD OLD BOYS, REMINDS US:
“In December of 2016 (just over a year ago), the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, held a hearing on sexual harassment and discrimination within the Forest Service. Some of its “take-aways” included:
Harassment and discrimination have gotten worse since 2008.
Witnesses testified sexual assault, harassment, discrimination, and resulting retaliation have increased since 2008.
Whistleblowers shared personal accounts of sexual harassment, hostile work environments, and discrimination.
The Forest Service has shown a lack of accountability and a poor record of investigating allegations of sexual harassment, with perpetrators often escaping discipline by retiring, moving, or seeking [and getting] a promotion.
Here’s a link to Susan’s piece #Metoo in a culture of good old boys” which is worth a read. Susan and I started on the same forest at about the same time, and my memories were similar:
There was no hint of sexual harassment. But once I went to work in an office instead of out in the woods, I found that gender mattered. Women filled lower-grade clerical positions; men were professionals and decision-makers. Being one of the few professional women was lonely: we were largely dismissed by the men, resented by the clerks, and condescended to by leadership.
To be fair, though, there were more ways to be “not OK” than to be OK. Technicians were not as OK as professionals, but people with too much education beyond a college degree were eggheads, and not OK either. I once got into trouble in Region 5 for writing in my Consent Decree Action Plan that we could design training for administrative folks in natural resources so they could become line officers.. definitely admin people were not quite OK! (I was told “not to get their hopes up”). Of course, most admin people were women. Timber people were OK but silviculturists were kind of geeky and geneticists.. well…an unnecessary millstone that someone upstairs had hung around the FS neck. Wildlifers could be questionable. and engineers.. well one got to be Chief and that was shocking! Line officers are the OK-est of all, of course. People who had never worked on a district would never be legitimate, like never ever. Being OK was indeed a very, very small target and many of us gave up the pursuit of fitting in somewhere along the way. I think that this is much better nowadays, but I’m curious as to what current employees think.