Rhee alleged to be involved in cover-up of fiance's sexual misconduct

[jsteele]

First, let me preface this by saying the information is from a report compiled by a couple of Republicans that I wouldn't trust to tell me the time of day. That said, this is an official Congressional document:

http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/Reports/20091120JointStaffReport.pdf

A joint committee has been investigating the firing of an inspector general who had made accusations concerning Kevin Johnson's St. Hope (which he headed before becoming mayor of Sacramento). The report on that investigation includes the following:

While in Sacramento, Agents Wingers and Morales became aware of allegations of inappropriate contact between Johnson and three female St. HOPE students. Mr. Johnson's attorney, Kevin Hiestand, approached at least one of the students describing himself only as "a friend of Johnson's," and "basically asked me to keep quiet." According to her interview with OIG investigators, about one week later, Kevin Johnson offered her $1,000 a month until the end of the program, which she refused to accept. Moreover, the OIG uncovered evidence of two other female St. HOPE students reporting Johnson for inappropriate sexual conduct towards them. These are not the first such allegations. Johnson was also accused of fondling a young woman in the mid 1990's, but no charges were ever filed.

Then, about Michelle Rhee, it says:

Michelle Rhee, who is currently Chancellor of the District of Columbia Schools, was a St. HOPE board member at the time. According to Wong-Hernandez, Rhee learned of the allegations and played the role of a fixer, doing "damage control." Wong-Hernandez's OIG interview summary states, "When there was a problem at St. HOPE, Ms. Rhee was there the next day taking care of the problem." After Wong-Hernandez informed Rhee of the allegations of Johnson's inappropriate sexual conduct, Rhee told her she was "making this her number one priority, and she would take care of the situation." Soon after that, Wong-Hernandez heard that Kevin Johnson's lawyer had contacted the victim. Wong-Hernandez resigned and told Rhee in her exit interview that her reason was St. HOPE's handling of the incident.

I think we deserve to hear an explanation from Rhee about her role in this affair. It would be very troubling to have a Chancellor who not only turned a blind eye toward, but actively engaged in "fixing" incidents of inappropriate sexual contact. The report does not state the ages of the alleged victims, but since they are described as "students", I suppose they could actually be minors. If Rhee has been involved in covering up inappropriate sexual contact between an adult and minors, I don't see how she could continue in her current job.

But, then again, all of this could be right up there with "death panels" and Kenyan birth certificates.

[Anonymous]

This is all over the place.

http://www.sacbee.com/latest/story/2338165.html?mi_rss=Latest%20News

[Anonymous]

I'm not a fan of Rhee, but we don't know if the allegations are true. They may very well be untrue, and if that is the case her role in trying the manage a situation full of false accusations isn't necessarily interesting or relevant.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a fan of Rhee, but we don't know if the allegations are true. They may very well be untrue, and if that is the case her role in trying the manage a situation full of false accusations isn't necessarily interesting or relevant.

I agree and I think I made clear that I am not that impressed with the source of the charges. But, there are multiple allegations and the charges are very serious. I don't think it is the type of situation that can be addressed with a simple "no comment".

Editing to add: Apparently, at least two St. Hope employees quit because of the handling of the sexual misconduct allegations. That strongly suggests that those two individuals did not believe the accusations were false.

[Anonymous]

i read the articles in the la times and the city paper about this. it seems to me that it is adding up to be something significant. i think one or two of the accusers were americorp members who reported it to their superiors in that organization. when there are multiple women reporting something, each of whom told multiple sources about the misconduct, it doesn't look good. for johnson.

that said, i find rhee's role to be quite puzzling at this point. there doesn't seem to be all that much to hang on her, at least at this time.

[Anonymous]

Some may not agree with her policies, but let's not try her before we know the facts. Rhee like others have right to the due process of law.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Some may not agree with her policies, but let's not try her before we know the facts. Rhee like others have right to the due process of law.

The facts are exactly what we'd like to know. Unfortunately, Rhee has refused comment to reporters who have approached her about this. A request for clarification is not a trial. Do you propose that we ignore the implications of what has been reported?

[Anonymous]

I'm glad to see this posted here, but I have a feeling that she will manage to spin this one away.

Can I say though, ICK. Especially from a woman that has two young daughters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some may not agree with her policies, but let's not try her before we know the facts. Rhee like others have right to the due process of law.

True, but ironic, because she's trying very hard to abolish due process for teachers.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some may not agree with her policies, but let's not try her before we know the facts. Rhee like others have right to the due process of law.

The facts are exactly what we'd like to know. Unfortunately, Rhee has refused comment to reporters who have approached her about this. A request for clarification is not a trial. Do you propose that we ignore the implications of what has been reported?

If there's sufficient data, then they should subpoena her to give evidence. These are serious charges and I will certainly not ignore it. But I am not ready to form an opinion.

[Anonymous]

Can't help feeling like, for Rhee, this is going to be one of those "it's not the crime, it's the coverup" situations. There will have to be some miraculous turnaround in her communications skills to tackle this one.

[Anonymous]

Rhee is not the primary target of the investigation. The lawyers are not going to allow her to comment on it. Period. If you want to know what she has to say on the matter, you're going to have to wait until it is concluded or until she has made some sort of statement or testimony. It's simply inconceivable that she can speak out of turn and against the advice of the attorneys on this.

So far the only thing she's "guilty" of is following the advice of legal counsel.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Rhee is not the primary target of the investigation. The lawyers are not going to allow her to comment on it. Period. If you want to know what she has to say on the matter, you're going to have to wait until it is concluded or until she has made some sort of statement or testimony. It's simply inconceivable that she can speak out of turn and against the advice of the attorneys on this.

So far the only thing she's "guilty" of is following the advice of legal counsel.

There is no investigation of Rhee or Johnson. The "investigation", such as it is, is whether Walpin was wrongly fired as IG. Walpin referred charges to the US Attorney, who cut a deal with Johnson. As a result, all the charges have been resolved, yet the sexual misconduct charges were not addressed at all (this was primarily a misuse of funds case).

Also, it is not clear that either Rhee's or Johnson's actions would rise to the level of criminal behavior. Johnson was probably open to an EEOC case, but none of the alleged victims chose to pursue it and probably have no interest in it now (and it's probably too late in any case).

Therefore, I don't see what legal obligations Rhee would have to remain silent. However, it is certainly in her interest to do so. I see that the Post has not addressed this affair outside of a blog posting. Therefore, Rhee can probably count on her "friends" at the Post to help her stay silent.

It is outrageous that the schools chancellor was aware of repeated charges of sexual misconduct involving an executive of an organization on whose board she sat, yet apparently did nothing to assist the alleged victims in those cases. Indeed, the fact that she is now engaged to the alleged perpetrator is surreal.

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't call the Post writers her friends, I would call them her hostages. She freezes them out when she doesn't like their coverage, so they can't do their jobs. I agree, I think she should comment but I doubt she will, the less she says, the more quickly the story goes away.

[Anonymous]

This happened awhile ago, but the similarities ...

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2008-05-22/news/can-former-phoenix-sun-kevin-johnson-overcome-his-past-to-become-sacramento-s-mayor/