Workplace sexual harassment can significantly impair workplace productivity for both victims and bystanders as well as have a devasting impact on the victims. According to the American Psychological Association [APA] “decades of research has documented the extensive damage suffered by victims of sexual harassment, including anxiety, depression, eating disorders, drug and alcohol abuse, job turnover and post-traumatic stress.” But if it has such a negative impact on the workplace then why haven’t companies done more to reduce it and why do so many perpetrators escape accountability? * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Columbia University psychology professor Elissa Perry, PhD, who has researched sexual harassment training programs, says, "It's not just about providing one training and you're done. It's got to be a comprehensive approach,". "The tone is set at the top. Are they just checking a box? If they are only doing it for legal reasons, then they don't care if it works." I note that she says the tone is set at the top. So what happens when the person at the top, who is setting the tone, is the abuser?
Often it means that the abuse goes unreported. The ADA reports that the EEOC estimates that less than 14 percent of individuals experiencing harassment ever file a formal complaint. It is this lack of reporting that gives a green light to perpetrators.
If something is so detrimental and no one seems to want perpetrators to go free to abuse others then why the low reporting rate? What happens to those who report? Often organizations close ranks and ostracize the victims who are seen as impeding productivity or casting a dark cloud over the organization. Additionally, victims may be fired or retaliated against in other ways. According to the APA more than 70 percent of EEOC sexual harassment charges filed during fiscal years 2016 and 2017 included charges of retaliation. In the end victims often feel that the costs of reporting exceeds the benefit.
When news broke in late July 2019 that DCS Associate Director Todd Meyer had resigned without explanation some of us had an inkling as to the root of his sudden, unexpected and unexplained departure. When I received confirmation on 12 August 2019 I posted the following on Facebook;
I am seeking YOUNG GIRLS/WOMEN who were offered plea bargains or reduced charges in exchange for sex during October 2002 - June 2018 on Boone County Indiana charges. Please send message. Also anyone who was referred to the Juvenile Court by Jerry Taylor who formerly worked for Western Boone Schools.
Those dates were while Todd Meyer was the Boone County, Indiana Prosecuting Attorney. That is when some victims allege Meyer used his authority to coerce them into yielding to his unwanted advances.
It wasn’t until 29 August 2019 that the popular media disclosed that Meyer resigned because he sexually harassed an intern beginning immediately after he hired her in May 2019. Meyer located the young woman on Linked In and asked her to come work for him although she wasn’t seeking such an opportunity.
This was the first time that a young woman had officially complained against Meyer. Yet I have a list of other victims and, based upon long ago complaints, I raised the issue of a child sex ring operating in Boone County beginning more than 12 years ago. At that time the community rallied against me while supporting the abusers.
Meyer and I battled each other at the time. He filed false criminal charges against me numerous times but as a competent litigator I defeated them and even went so far as to seek reinstatement of the felony charge after a special prosecutor sought dismissal. I also got the Disciplinary Commision of the Indiana Supreme Court to charge him with “misconduct”. So imagine what a young woman would face if she came forward. Particularly if she was already facing criminal charges.
In 2006 when Jerry Taylor, an assistant principal at Western Boone High School, abruptly retired the community held a support rally for him. He subsequently left the county. The victim, who told me that Taylor had sexually assaulted her, complained to school administrators and Todd Meyer but did not attend that rally. Taylor claimed that he had an “arrangement” with Boone County Juvenile Court Judge Steve David when speaking about young girls and referring them to the court. Implicit in the conversation was that it was girls who were not receptive to his, as Todd Meyer would say, “friendliness”. Meyer refused to investigate the sexual assault allegation or prosecute.
This sexual harassment went unpunished because those facilitating it were the people in power. For Taylor it was kept from the public because, like Meyer, he simply resigned. The school administration, of course, didn’t want to publicize it because who wants to be known for running a school that employs a man leching after young girls who also sexually assaults a parent.
If not for members of the community pressuring the media and a young woman coming forward and disclosing Meyer’s communications to her his offense would have remained opaque. His employer, DCS, kept quiet about it and wouldn’t disclose the reason for Meyer’s sudden departure. This is how they save face and perpetrators get by with it. Those in power who could publicize it choose not to, and like the Catholic Church, are just pleased to have the perpetrator removed from the environment of the current victims. The perpetrators are then free to shop for new victims to sexually abuse from whatever batch of people they are exposed to in their new location.
But according to James Campbell Quick, PhD, a professor of leadership and management at the University of Texas at Arlington, "Sexual harassment is really not about sex. It's about power and aggression and manipulation. It's an abuse of power problem,". If it is a power issue then that gives us an additional dynamic to add to the rubric for formulating strategic responses and creating formulas to mitigate opportunities for harassment to occur.
Clearly the people in positions of power should receive greater scrutiny. When these positions are in government offices, such as Meyer has worked in, policies need to be established that provide greater transparency to the public. DCS should not be allowed to keep silent about one of its workers being sexually harassed just because the perpetrator took advantage of a legal way to avoid disclosure of the offense.[fn1]
When Meyer was the elected prosecutor for Boone County he was the person who held the greatest power in the office. He was the second most powerful official in the county. He was his own overseer. It is no coincidence though that sexually abusive people seek positions of power. As it has been stated, sexual harassment is not about sex but it is about power, aggression, and an abuse of power.
On Meyer’s Linked In page he notes that he is the Founder and President of Sylvia's Child Advocacy Center. This association along with prosecutorial access to the communications between sexual abusers and their young victims have exposed Meyer to the grooming practices used to manipulate and test the receptiveness of young girls. The texts of Meyer’s sent to the young intern clearly demonstrate grooming practices. The Indiana Governor, Eric Holcomb, called these messages “disgusting” while Meyer referred to them as “positive” and “friendly”. That says quite a bit about his personality and ability to perform a psychological self-assessment.
The APA studies this issue and the roots behind it but they say more research is needed to identify personality traits that may contribute to sexual harassment. One study published in a 2017 issue of Personality and Individual Differences found a positive association between sexual harassment proclivity and the "dark triad" personality traits. Those are narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism. These are three traits which Meyer clearly expresses.
Employers should look for these traits in prospective employees, especially those who will be in a supervisory position. They should also create a culture which demonstrates that workplace sexual harassment will not be tolerated. This would include favouring the more costly ongoing sexual harassment prevention programs rather than the less expensive sexual harassment claim settlement insurance. Finally, it is imperative that governments promote transparency by requiring disclosure of verified sexual harassment complaints rather than the current veil of secrecy such as that used by the Department of Child Services regarding Todd Meyer.
Footnotes
[1] The Indiana Access to Public Records Act makes termination notices of public employees part of the public record but not resignation letters.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions. 
Wednesday, September 4, 2019
How Todd Meyer and other public officials escape accountability for Sexual Harassment
Friday, May 18, 2018
Voters in Boone County Indiana choose to oust long-term officer holder
I often hear the laments of voters and non-voters [which include those who feel that it is pointless] who decry the power that career politicians hold on political offices. A particular solution which is continually proposed is to restrict the options of the electorate. These proposals center on the contention that voters should be barred from choosing experienced office holders following a particular number of their terms in service. However, there already exist a limit on the number of terms officer holders may have which does not impinge upon the options voters may have. Here I use the recent primary and a particular office holder as illustrative of that.
Footnotes * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Voters in Boone County Indiana made a strong statement in the 2018 Republican Primary race for Boone Circuit Court Judge this month by employing this limit.
The number of contestants exceeding positions for local elections in Boone County and its cities and towns are still somewhat unusual - County assessor, clerk and prosecutor all had single candidates. But after the sitting judge of the Boone Circuit Court, Jeff Edens, decided not to seek re-election three candidates filed to become the Republican nominee to fill that vacancy. Those were Todd Meyer [elected county prosecutor], Tamie Morog [an attorney in private practice], and Lori Schein [a former deputy Boone County prosecutor now working for the DMV].
Lori Schein narrowly beat Todd Meyer, edging him by just 41 votes. The final tally was 3478 [33.6%] Schein, 3437 [33.3%] Meyer, and 1491 [14.4%] Morog[fn1]. That outcome brought to an end Meyer’s 16 year reign in the Boone County Courthouse as the elected prosecutor.
Although not statutorily barred from seeking re-election to the Office of the Boone County Prosecutor or judge of the Boone Circuit Court voters instead chose to remove him from elected office by employing their existing term-limit option. Of the total voters casting ballots during the 2018 primary only 33% were for Meyer.
In the 2014 primary race 5469 of the 7185 voters selected Meyer. At that time he received 76% of the vote. In 2018 when two additional candidates were on the ballot he dropped to 33%. All it took was the addition of candidates. The unchallenged candidate to replace him as prosecutor received 6968 [67.4%] votes.
Apparently there was constituent dissatisfaction with the status quo even though he was repeatedly re-elected while running unchallenged.
His tenure could conservatively be described as a pay-to-play system where prosecutions were withheld against criminals represented in private practice by his deputy prosecutors, plea agreements were regularly offered [some which included financial payment in lieu of incarceration], and prosecutions were initiated against potential civil litigants to protect their targets.
Routinely offenders who had committed offenses against other people escaped punishment through guilty pleas while avoiding jail time. While police departments and their officers worked diligently in attempting to curtail offenses and hold offenders responsible, their efforts were regularly eschewed by a prosecutor who sought a high conviction rate over protecting the community. The political aspirations were readily apparent during his first term. Meyer intended to use the position of prosecutor not as an opportunity to best serve the community but, rather, as a launch pad for higher political office. His case history supports this contention.
In one such case Meyer brought charges against a parent whom he accused of planning to murder her teenage daughter who had Down-Syndrome. Meyer alleged that the mother had surreptitiously placed over 100 pills into a soda can and gave to the daughter thus causing her death. After all pre-trial efforts by the defense team were denied by Judge Rebecca McClure [former prosecutor and deputy prosecutor currently], Meyer offered a plea to a reduced charge calling for 6 months of jail time and three years of probation. Meyer, being aided by McClure from the bench, should have had a slam-dunk case of a parent murdering a disabled child as he alleged. However, rather than risk anything other that a jury verdict of guilty he offered a plea -- six months in jail, as time served awaiting trial, for allegedly murdering a disabled child.
Recently a Letter to the Editor of mine was printed in the Lebanon Reporter in response to Meyer’s contradictory messages regarding the killing of Boone County Sheriff’s Deputy Jacob Pickett and a plea agreement reached in a hostage taking incident where two juveniles were accosted and held at gunpoint. The plea agreement in the hostage taking incident was to the offense of not being licensed to carry the handgun used in the crime. In effect Meyer stated that had the offender obtained a license to carry the gun used in the crime that no offense would have occurred.
His contradictory statements about the revolving door for criminals sentenced by judges and his statement that judges give appropriate sentences, couple with his pleas that call for little or no incarceration, is the epitome of politically motivated action.
Meyer has been tough on some people though. Particularly when it comes to false allegations. In one highly publicized case Meyer sought convictions against victims of an arson fire. There, John Dixon was arrested and charged with a multitude of crimes including arson. This charge was based upon evidence as alleged in the charging information that; 1] Dixon ran from his burning residence after awakening to the fire, 2] moved his vehicle away from the front of the building, and 3] kept a small gas can in his work truck. Additionally, his girlfriend with whom he cohabitated was also charged in relation to the fire. Although charges against Dixon were dropped when John Middleton admitted to setting the fire, the girlfriend went to trial before a jury in the courtroom occupied by Rebecca McClure who clearly expressing hostility toward this fire victim, at one point slamming a folder on the bench and declaring that the victim was wasting the jurors’ time.
About 40 minutes after the conclusion of the trial the jury returned a not guilty verdict and two of the jurors hugged her and expressed their regret that she had been again victimized by having to go through the trial. She had already lost her home and contents including pets, children’s photos and momentos, plus other irreplaceables to an arsonist. A plea was offered to her calling for one year of no-report probation, no fees, and expungement of conviction upon the termination of the year but, as an innocent victim, she honorably declined the offer.
Then there are a multitude of Domestic Violence cases in which victims were prosecuted, charges were withheld against perpetrators, and perpetrators were overcharged. No consistency at all. When it comes to Domestic Violence in Boone County who you are and how you are related to government employees matters greatly.
You have likely heard that when it comes to criminal charges the amount you can pay to defend yourself has substantial influence on the outcome. In short, “justice” is for sale and poor people can’t buy their way out. Jack Trudeau, the Zionsville resident who played for the Indianapolis Colts was convicted of hosting an underage drinking party. In 2007, through a plea agreement, he paid a $5000 fine in lieu of jail time. In 2015 under a combined plea agreement he was sentenced to three days in jail after threatening to kill a Zionsville Police Officer and for his second drunk driving offense. His BAC was .31 in the immediate case.
Finally, as far as what I am mentioning here, is the use of the office for personal objectives. Twice I was charged and jailed for alleged crimes but when it came time to get the matters before jurors I was stymied at every turn by Meyer and his cohort Judge Steve David. Even after charges were dismissed and I filed a motion to reinstate the felony charge, risking imprisonment if found guilty, and demand for jury trial Judge David denied that request.
I had previously alleged through invitations to the trial posted around Lebanon that corruption by Judge David and Todd Meyer would be revealed at trial. Meyer filed a motion asking David to vacate the trial which he did without giving me an opportunity to respond.
I had also drafted a charge against Meyer for prosecutorial misconduct and submitted to the Disciplinary Commission of the Indiana Supreme Court which subsequently charged him with the offense. Although the underlying action of the alleged offense was published in a local newspaper no judge, lawyer, law enforcement officer or any other person aligned with the judicial system bothered to report the offense. That says quite a bit in itself.
Clearly Boone County residents had experienced enough of Meyer’s 16-year reign as prosecutor where these and similar incidents were the norm. Although Meyer had overwhelming support from owners of vacant properties throughout Lebanon it was not enough to overcome the feelings of his victims throughout Boone County - those people who have been impacted by the gross mishandling of the Office of the Boone County Prosecutor.
Meyer intended to use the Office of Boone County Prosecutor as a stepping stone to higher office. This is evinced by his frequent use of special prosecutors. He gains political clout for bringing the charge and “taking aggressive action” but then seeks a special prosecutor knowing that the case will crumble.
Voters can limit the number of terms of their elected officials and they don’t need a legislative act limiting their options to do it. What is needed is challengers of high ethical character who are willing to subject themselves to the grilling of the protectors of the status quo.
Meyer was ejected from the next term of public office and, I think likely from future political office, because he lacks integrity. His interests are selfish.
I initially met him in 2003 and my first impression was that he was like the unskilled son who inherited the CEO position when daddy retired or died and is only able to put on the face of running the show because of the strength of those under him.
I felt that he was still on the tit. That he lacked the competence and fortitude to best serve the residents of Boone County. He is like the child who gets upset, takes his toys and runs home to mommy for comfort.
He and other politicians like him should pack up and run home. Our elected officials should, foremost, demonstrate integrity. As voters it is our duty to demand it and throw them out when they don’t demonstrate it. Political office holders are bound by so many rules and receive ample assistance and advice from advisors that little more than character fitness is necessary.
1] Total does not equal 100% because voters choosing a Democrat ballot could not select Republican nominees. Total votes were 10336. Total votes for Republican nominees for circuit court judge were 8406. Highest vote for a Democrat position was 1583. Party selection of 347 voters is unknown.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
Thursday, April 19, 2018
Boone Circuit Court judge candidate Todd Meyer in his own words
I asked each of the candidates six questions relating to what may be described as a candidates platform. These included the operation of the court, what they thought they could do to better serve the people appearing in court, their personal motivation to be a candidate, and what they could do to mitigate the impact of custody cases on children. Finally, I offered them an opportunity to submit an essay of any length to be reproduced here word-for-word. I did not ask for comment on specific cases or for prejudicial opinions -- that is, how he or she would rule on a potential matter.
I received the following response from candidate Todd Meyer;
“Thank you for your message and for your interest in the judicial race for Boone Circuit Court. I reviewed your proposed questions and consulted with the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications and regretfully must decline participation in this process. As you may know, as a candidate for judicial office I am required to follow the rules set forth in Indiana’s Code of Judicial Conduct. While I would like to respond to your questions I believe doing so may put me at risk of violating certain sections of the Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically Rules 4.1 and 2.4 that are more specifically explained within the respective comments to those rules.”
First, I feel that I should disclose that Todd Meyer has an incident in his past relating to a rule violation while prosecutor. An extra-judicial statement [one made outside of the courtroom] about evidentiary matters in an upcoming trial were attributed to him in a newspaper article. The problem with discussing evidence outside of the courtroom is that it could reach potential jurors yet later be ruled inadmissable. This potentially deprives the defendant of due process. It is a rather serious offense.
A complaint was made to the Disciplinary Commission of the Indiana Supreme Court not by the defendant, the defendant’s attorney, nor any other attorney but by the author here, yours truly -- Stuart Showalter. Meyer was susequently charged with misconduct. Thus, it is understandable that he would be reticent to provide comment to questions about judicial administration, especially to me.
I had no plans to gather information about the candidates from their promotional materials or any other source for my purpose here. To do so now would compromise objectivity. Instead I am providing the text of the two rules Mr Meyer cited and I will leave it to you to do your research or otherwise.
RULE 2.4: External Influences on Judicial Conduct
(A) A judge shall not be swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism.
(B) A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment.
(C) A judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge.
Comment
[1] An independent judiciary requires that judges decide cases according to the law and facts, without regard to whether particular laws or litigants are popular or unpopular with the public, the media, government officials, or the judge's friends or family. Confidence in the judiciary is eroded if judicial decision making is perceived to be subject to inappropriate outside influences.
RULE 4.1: Political and Campaign Activities of Judges and Judicial Candidates in General
(A) Except as permitted by law,* or by Rules 4.1(B), 4.1(C), 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4, a judge or a judicial candidate* shall not:
(1) act as a leader in or hold an office in a political organization;*
(2) make speeches on behalf of a political organization;
(3) publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for any public office;
(4) solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution* to a political organization or a candidate for public office;
(5) attend or purchase tickets for dinners or other events sponsored by a political organization or a candidate for public office;
(6) publicly identify himself or herself as a member or candidate of a political organization;
(7) seek, accept, or use endorsements from a political organization;
(8) personally solicit* or accept campaign contributions other than through a campaign committee authorized by Rule 4.4;
(9) use or permit the use of campaign contributions for the private benefit of the judge, the candidate, or others;
(10) use court staff, facilities, or other court resources in a campaign for judicial office or for any political purpose;
(11) knowingly,* or with reckless disregard for the truth, make any false or misleading statement;
(12) make any statement that would reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending* or impending* in any court; or
(13) in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial* performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office.
(B) A judge or judicial candidate shall take reasonable measures to ensure that other persons do not undertake, on behalf of the judge or judicial candidate, any activities prohibited under paragraph (A).
(C) A judge in an office filled by partisan election, a judicial candidate seeking that office, and a judicial officer serving for a judge in office filled by partisan election may at any time:
(1) identify himself or herself as a member of a political party;
(2) voluntarily contribute to and attend meetings of political organizations; and
(3) attend dinners and other events sponsored by political organizations and may purchase a ticket for such an event and a ticket for a guest.
(D) A judge in an office filled by nonpartisan election other than a retention election, a judicial candidate seeking that office, and a judicial officer serving for a judge in an office filled by nonpartisan election may at any time attend dinners and other events sponsored by political organizations and may purchase a ticket for such an event and a ticket for a guest.
Thank you for your interest in the election. The 2018 primary election occurs on Tuesday 08 May.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
