What’s next for #wesaidenough?

It has been over five years since more than 140 women in the California Capitol community signed a letter calling for an end to what they termed a “pervasive” atmosphere of sexual harassment and “dehumanizing behavior by men with power in our workplaces.”

A lot has happened since. In 2019, legislative leaders announced the creation of the Workplace Conduct Unit to investigate harassment claims under the auspices of the Office of Legislative Counsel. A handful of lawmakers have resigned. Dozens of staffers have been disciplined, including several who were fired.

But has there been any real change in the behavior that drove some of the most knowledgeable and experienced women in the Capitol to publicly speak out in the first place?

“I don’t think things have gotten worse, let’s start there” says Samantha Corbin, the Sacramento lobbyist who co-founded the #wesaidenough nonprofit, set up as a resource for those experiencing harassment to find support and help in reporting their stories.

“Some things are even better, even if it’s just people self-policing themselves, knowing that the community is more cognizant, more aware, more clued into certain bad behavior,” she says. “But that doesn’t mean there are not bad behaviors. And let’s be real. At some point, if you’re the type of guy that’s going to expose himself to an intern in your office, you’ll just be more creative about who sees how you behave, right?”

“We’re what, six years out? And we still don’t go a month without a phone call from someone who has an issue, whether that’s a discriminatory thing or to say that ‘Someone behaved this way and what do you think I should do about it?’”

Corbin says during #wesaidenough’s first year the group was getting inundated with phone calls and emails every day from women wanting to share their experiences. Some were so traumatized, she says, that it was challenging for the people taking the calls just to hear the anguish in their voices.

“Some of them were just heart-wrenching,” she says. “Members of our team actually had to go to trauma counseling, just because some of the stories we heard were really awful.”

That volume has dropped considerably but has hardly gone away.

“We’re what, six years out? And we still don’t go a month without a phone call from someone who has an issue, whether that’s a discriminatory thing or to say that ‘Someone behaved this way and what do you think I should do about it?’”

Another longtime staffer, who asked to not be identified, put it even more bluntly.

“The culture is still to protect the institution. All of this is just about avoiding lawsuits.”

Corbin says she appreciates the efforts made by legislative leaders to improve the process, which in theory is completely independent from the oversight or influence of legislative leaders. But she and many like her aren’t buying it.

“I think we’re worlds apart on that,” she says. “If you talk to [legislative leadership] they’re going to say, ‘The WCU is independent; they act autonomously.’ But if you control their budget, you control the rules, and you’re their check and balance.”

That isn’t the only concern. The WCU has also faced complaints over the length of time investigations take, during which those filing grievances say they have often been left completely in the dark about the status of that process. Worse, some have found themselves the subject of what they viewed as retaliatory actions.

Ruth Ferguson is intimately familiar with those concerns. For a time, she essentially became the new face of the movement over how her allegations of misconduct during her time working in the district office of Assemblymember Marc Berman were handled by the WCU. Ferguson says she experienced all of that – the delays, the lack of communication, and even the retaliation – during the almost two years from when she first reported the harassment to when her case was deemed to be resolved.

“If you talk to [legislative leadership] they’re going to say, ‘The WCU is independent; they act autonomously.’ But if you control their budget, you control the rules, and you’re their check and balance.”

By then, she was long gone from the job, taking a medical leave in 2020 she says was brought on by the intense stress of the situation. She never returned, nor has she sought any other positions in the Capitol. She says the entire experience shakes her to this day.

“I was really excited to be working on housing and transportation policy, and I learned so, so much. That can be really exciting if you want to be learning. And that’s part of the reason why it was so devastating when it felt there was no way for me to ever come back to that after going through the experience with the WCU,” she says.

To address some of the criticism, Senate pro Tem Toni Atkins and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon announced last August that the WCU was adding a “navigator” position to “provide any needed clarity and support for those participating in the WCU process.” They said the unit would also release more information on disciplinary action. In that regard, a later report said the unit had substantiated 91 cases and taken disciplinary action against 86 employees, including nine terminations. No details of those actions or who they were against were included.

Corbin lauds those actions, but still questions whether the WCU can ever truly operate as an independent agent in addressing harassment complaints when it is still beholden in any way to lawmakers.

“I think the pro Tem has really tried to be in front of this and be receptive to folks. She and I have had a number of conversations that I do think are very genuine to try and improve the existing structure [of the WCU],” she says. “But the reality is, it’s not independent, it’s not autonomous. It’s still a quasi-legislative entity, and that creates some inherent conflicts.”

So what happens now?

Ferguson has since joined with others with similar experiences to create a political coalition called Stop Sexual Harassment in Politics.  The group, which is exploring possible 501(c)(3) status, tried this session to get a measure introduced similar to a 2018 bill (AB 2032) from then-Assemblyman Mark Stone that would have granted greater public access to the Legislature’s misconduct records. That access is currently blocked by the Legislative Open Records Act (LORA), which – in contradiction to its name – shields such records from public view. Stone’s bill died without getting a hearing from the Assembly Rules Committee.

The effort this year has so far not fared much better. Sen. Dave Cortese, a Democrat who represents Santa Clara County, said he was willing to co-author the bill, but really wanted to get the endorsement of the Legislative Women’s Caucus. That would only happen if a female lawmaker would serve as primary author, but that legislative partner could not be found before the February 17^th bill introduction deadline.

Cortese says he viewed the proposal more as a beginning point for discussion about how the Legislature handles harassment cases than an end unto itself, but isn’t sure that’s how the proposal’s supporters saw it.

“My understanding is that where the advocates are at right now is a starting point,” he says. “Everything and anything could be amended or negotiated up or down from there. But they’re looking not just for the outcome [of investigations] to be released but the actual records, the underlying records. And that’s a pretty major leap forward.”

He says nobody in the Legislature wants to allow someone to stay in a position where they can do harm to others, but changing the process will involve butting heads with “decades and decades of personnel privilege that has been protected by this Legislature and by the courts.”

Even so, he thinks there is significant value in lawmakers at least considering the options.

“Hey, look, let’s have the debate,” he says. “Let’s get it in the committee hearing. Let’s not speculate. Let’s see what they actually say. Isn’t that democracy? Let’s hear what some of these committees have to say.”

“Let’s get it in the committee hearing. Let’s not speculate. Let’s see what they actually say. Isn’t that democracy? Let’s hear what some of these committees have to say.”

Corbin doubts that will ever happen, and says it any further substantive change will come from outside the Capitol.

“I don’t see a universe in which the Legislature creates a piece of legislation that creates a stand-alone body, they all vote for it and the governor signs it. I think that’s deeply unrealistic,” she says. “And so the only other way to hold the Legislature accountable would be with voters through a ballot initiative.”

Which leads to the million-dollar question: Where will the millions of dollars come from to get such an initiative on the ballot? Is there a monied interest or two that would bankroll the effort it would take to get something put before voters?

Most of the people interviewed for this piece – both on the record and off – say the answer right now is “no.”

“It would take someone with really deep pockets who has a special interest in this issue,” a longtime public affairs consultant who asked not to be identified by name told Capitol Weekly. “Right now I don’t know that such a person exists.”

Even if that person could be found, it is a serious question as to whether the matter would resonate with voters.

“Even if you could get it on the ballot, it would gain zero interest from voters. None at all,” says one former staffer who also asked to remain anonymous.

Not everyone sees it that way.

Alicia Benavidez Lewis has also been at the forefront of #wesaidenough from the beginning. She acknowledges the heaviness of such a lift, but thinks it there is a chance both to get the funding and public support if advocates were willing to make the effort about overall LORA reform.

“It could work if you did a cleaner effort to reform LORA, including things like meeting access and notifications, which we know have already been problematic. If groups viewed this as about more than just sexual harassment, if it was more about good government and better access, you could have a broader coalition come behind it,” she says.

Cortese would add one more thing to the list: One unified system for handling harassment complaints. Currently, the WCU process leaves final action after an investigation to each chamber, either the Senate Rules Committee or the Assembly Speaker. Cortese says that is making an already highly charged situation that much worse.

“Credibility’s tough enough around these issues without trying to sell to the public or to our employees that there’s actually two good ways to do this,” he says. “We should have one system in both houses.”

Lewis agrees, and not only for dealing with harassment issues.

“They should have done this forever ago to better manage training, promotions and salary issues, and just to professionalize the work more,” she says.

There is also the question of how the behavior of lobbyists should factor into all this.

“That’s another unique challenge,” Corbin says. “What do you do with a lobbyist who is harassing someone? Do you prevent them from coming in the Capitol? And can that be construed as diminishing their constitutional right to petition their elected official? And does that right extend on the behalf of clients for money? So what is the appropriate penalty? Is it a flag on their Secretary of State account or somewhere else where you could see there’s something about their behavior that was inappropriate or dangerous?”

“Credibility’s tough enough around these issues without trying to sell to the public or to our employees that there’s actually two good ways to do this,” he says. “We should have one system in both houses.”

Barring legislation or a ballot measure, changes for now seem to be dependent on culture change. In an interview with Capitol Weekly, Sen. Nancy Skinner and Assemblymember Cecilia Aguilar-Curry – both Democrats and the chair and vice-chair respectively of the Legislative Women’s Caucus – believe the situation has gotten better, if for no other reason than the extreme attention it has drawn.

“Awareness of the issue has definitely improved,” Skinner says, who notes that the WCU’s creation coincided closely with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, forcing the unit to use external contractors for investigations. She says the return to more normal order with its own lawyers and others conducting those inquires has helped the WCU become faster and more efficient.

“It’s taken a while, but we are finding closure on complaints much faster than before,” she says.

Even so, she thinks now is a good time for both chambers to survey its staff to really know how they view the situation.

Aguilar-Curry believes there should also be a consistent reminder from all levels of leadership to elected members to treat their staffs with respect and consideration at all times.

“Sometimes I think members forget where they came from, and they’ve lost respect for their staff,” says Aguilar-Curry. “So I tell them often that these people are family and you have to treat them well, and they will treat you well. It does us all well to have that conversation periodically.”

Whatever the means, Ferguson believes that any effort to make the building a more respectful workplace is worth it, and not just for staffers and others who do business there.

“I think the question that has to be reckoned with is what does this mean for public policy as a whole? If we know that in California there’s a problem with harassment and discrimination in state government, what does that mean for public policy outcomes, especially since we know that staff have a great influence on legislation?”