OREGON LEGISLATIVE ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT - Investigation of Complaint by Peggy Boquist against Senate President Peter Courtney – Case 39
November 6, 2019
Prepared by: Sarah J. Ryan Jackson Lewis P.C. 200 SW Market St., Ste. 540 Portland, OR 97201 pg. 1 Complainant: Peggy Boquist Respondent: Senate President Peter Courtney
I. INTRODUCTION The Oregon Legislative Administration Committee (“LAC”) retained the law firm of Jackson Lewis P.C. (“Investigator”) to investigate a complaint asserted by Peggy Boquist against Senate President Peter Courtney. The complaint, which is attached as Exhibit 1, was received by this office on or about July 29, 2019. On August 29, 2019, Ms. Boquist notified us that she desired to pursue her complaint against President Courtney as a formal complaint under Legislative Branch Personnel Rule 27 (“Rule 27”). 1
The complaint addresses several issues. First, the complaint asserts that President Courtney would not speak to Ms. Boquist about pay equity and that President Courtney’s then Chief of Staff, Betsy Imholt, dismissed Ms. Boquist’s efforts to discuss pay equity with her. The complaint generally criticizes the manner in which pay equity has been approached. In our interview, Ms. Boquist asserted that her own pay equity calculation does not provide sufficient credit for her military service.
Second, the complaint asserts that Ms. Boquist was effectively called a thief regarding Senator Brian Boquist’s alleged failure to pay for 50 pins, which his office did not receive. In our interview, Ms. Boquist elaborated that Senator Courtney’s refusal to approve payment for the purchase was retaliatory (due to her pay equity advocacy) because she was told by a third party that he approved payment for the purchase once it was determined that the actual recipient of the pins was Senator Jackie Winters.
The third issue raised by the complaint relates to workplace safety. Ms. Boquist asserts that she went to President Courtney’s office on June 26, 2019, to discuss personal threats that she received. The complaint asserts that President Courtney and his then Legislative Director, Anna Braun, walked away when Ms. Boquist arrived and that President Courtney’s receptionist said, “Nothing could be done.” Ms. Boquist also complains about safety at the Capitol, generally.
Fourth, the complaint asserts that the at-will, non-union nature of the Legislative employees’ employment leads to retaliation or fear of retaliation.
This report contains factual findings based upon the information made available in the course of investigating this complaint. Based on my factual findings, this report makes conclusions regarding disputed events, except where otherwise noted. Finally, this report makes recommendations based on my findings and conclusions.
1 Rule 27 was recently amended, but its amendments, as are relevant to this complaint, are not yet effective. This investigation was conducted pursuant to the “old” Rule 27.
pg. 2 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As detailed below, I find that President Courtney did not violate Rule 27 as it relates to pay equity, 50 pins received from the Capitol gift shop, threats received by the Boquist family, and the at-will nature of Legislative staff’s employment. Specifically, I find that President Courtney’s involvement in most of the issues raised in Exhibit 1 was limited. Finally, to the extent that President Courtney was involved his conduct did not implicate Rule 27. III. INVESTIGATIVE FRAMEWORK As relevant to this complaint, Rule 27 (eff. January 14, 2019) states that the Legislative Branch is committed to providing a safe and respectful workplace that is free from harassment. Under Rule 27(2)(b), harassment includes sexual harassment or workplace harassment, and both phrases are defined by the Rule. As relevant to this complaint, workplace harassment is defined as “unwelcome conduct in the form of treatment or behavior that, to a reasonable person, creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. ‘Workplace harassment’ includes discrimination based on a person’s protected class. ‘Workplace harassment’ also includes unwelcome conduct that occurs outside of work during non-working hours if the conduct creates a work environment that a reasonable employee would find intimidating, hostile, or offensive. ‘Workplace harassment’ does not include every minor annoyance or disappointment that an employee may encounter in the course of performing the employee’s job.” Rule 27(2)(h). As relevant to this complaint, unwelcome conduct means, “conduct that an individual does not incite or solicit and that the individual regards as undesirable or offensive.” Rule 27(2)(g).
Rule 27 provides for both an informal and formal reporting process concerning workplace harassment or discrimination. As noted above, this complaint is being processed as a formal complaint. Rule 27(6) governs the formal complaint process, which applies to this investigation. Pursuant to Rule 27 (6)(f), all employees “involved in the investigation shall cooperate with the investigation.”
Following the conclusion of a formal harassment investigation, Rule 27 directs the Investigator to present draft findings of fact and recommendations to the Human Resources Director, the Office of the Legislative Counsel, the Complainant, and the person(s) alleged to be involved in the harassment or discrimination.2
Within five days after receiving draft findings of fact, recipients may request modification to the findings of fact. Any requests to modify the findings of fact must be made in writing and must explain the reason for modification. Any requests for a revision should be sent in writing to Jackson Lewis, P.C., Attn: Sarah J. Ryan, 200 SW Market Street, Suite 540, Portland, OR, 97201, or to [email protected]. Complainant responded by email requesting modifications to the final report, some of which have been included. Exhibit 5. I did not receive a response from President Courtney. The Human Resources Director and Office of Legislative Counsel will have no role in review of requests for modification to the report and any requests for modification should
2 In accordance with Rule 27, a draft of this report was provided to the Human Resources Director, the Office of Legislative Counsel, Senate President Peter Courtney, and Peggy Boquist.
pg. 3 be made to the Investigator for review and consideration. Any decision to modify will rest solely with the Investigator.
Under subsection 7(d)(A) of Rule 27, when a formal harassment complaint involves a member of the Legislative Assembly, the final report’s factual findings and recommendations shall be provided to the highest-ranking member of the same caucus of the chamber in which the accused harasser serves or works. In the case where the person alleged to be involved in the harassment is a presiding officer, the report will be provided to the caucus leader of the same caucus and chamber as the presiding officer. Rule 27(7)(e)(B). The final report will be delivered to Senator Ginny Burdick.
IV. INTERVIEWEES The following ten individuals were interviewed.3 Witnesses were reminded about Rule 27’s policy against retaliation. In addition, witnesses were advised that the Investigator was retained by the Legislative Administrative Committee to conduct an investigation in accordance with Rule 27. Interview Subject Position Date Interviewed Peggy Boquist Staff member of Senator August 2, 2019 Brian Boquist
Anna Braun Chief of Staff to Senate September 11, 2019 and President Peter Courtney October 14, 2019 (by phone)
Peter Courtney Senator, Senate President September 11, 2019
Meredith Coba Executive Assistant to October 2, 2019 (by phone) Senate President Peter Courtney
Betsy Imholt Former Chief of Staff to October 18, 2019 (by phone) Senate President Peter Courtney
Pamela McClain Chief of Staff to October 29, 2019 (by phone) Representative Raquel Moore-Green (former Chief of Staff to the late Senator Jackie Winters)
Debbie Miller Retired October 10, 2019 (by phone)
3 As I investigated Case 39, I discovered that some information provided in connection with Cases 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, was relevant to my Case 39 inquiry. Those witnesses and documents obtained for Cases 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 are not separately listed here.
pg. 4 Lisa Taylor Deputy Chief of Staff, October 14, 2019 (by email) Senate President Peter Courtney’s Office
Jessica Wangler Executive Assistant to October 14, 2019 (by email) Senate President Peter and October 16, 2019 (by Courtney phone)
Susan Wheeler Legislative Administration October 18, 2019 (by email) Financial Services
V. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED The following is a list of documents and materials reviewed during the course of the investigation: No. Description 1 Legislative Branch Personnel Rule 27: Harassment-Free Workplace 2 Materials provided by Ms. Boquist 3 Correspondence and information provided by President Courtney and his office 4 June 20, 2019, Memorandum from President Courtney and Speaker Kotek regarding Capitol Safety and Health Concerns 5 June 25, 2019, Confidential Memorandum from Brenda Baumgart to Jessica Knieling and Dexter Johnson regarding Senator Brian Boquist/Interim Finding & Recommendations 6 June 28, 2019, email from Jessica Knieling to employees at the Capitol regarding building safety and security 7 News articles and media posts on various subjects from December 2018 to October 2019 8 January 27, 2015, and December 21, 2018, Memoranda from President Courtney to members of the Oregon State Senate regarding Services & Supplies Expenditure Clarification 9 Senate Rule 16.01
VI. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1. Peggy Boquist is an Oregon state employee. She works with her husband, Senator Brian Boquist, a Senator representing District 12.
2. In 2017, the Oregon Legislature passed the Oregon Equal Pay Act of 2017. The law took effect in early 2018. The Legislature then began working on implementing pay equity for Legislative employees. Ms. Boquist is passionate about pay equity. President Courtney did not view Ms. Boquist as an advocate (or detractor) with regard to pay equity.
pg. 5 3. On Thursday, November 29, 2018, Debbie Miller, then Legislative Assistant to President Courtney, emailed Senator Boquist about 50 state seal tac pins she understood Senator Boquist received from the Capitol gift shop. Ms. Miller advised Senator Boquist “If these items are for constituents, we cannot pay for it with S&S [Services and Supplies] funds.” On the same day, Senator Boquist responded and said his office had not received any pins. Ms. Miller (and others) quickly determined that Senator Boquist did not receive the pins.
4. On Tuesday, December 4, 2018, Ms. Miller sent Senator Boquist an email apologizing for the error regarding the pins and stating that Senator Boquist would not be charged. After her December 4, 2018, email to Senator Boquist, Ms. Miller considered the matter closed.
5. According to a December 21, 2018, memorandum from President Courtney, which I understand is issued in advance of every Legislative Session, “Services and Supplies [S&S] funds may not be used to purchase gifts (i.e., flags or pins) for constituents.” Ms. Miller states (and others confirmed) that Senator Boquist was treated just as every other Senator would have been treated when he was asked whether the pins were for constituents. According to Ms. Miller, and others, Senators’ S&S funds cannot be used for gifts for constituents or entertainment of constituents.
6. Witnesses confirmed that President Courtney had no involvement in the pin confusion. President Courtney also stated that he had no knowledge or involvement in the pin issue and that his staff handles account approvals.
7. Although Ms. Boquist states that she was told that Senator Winters was the ultimate recipient of the pins, I did not uncover any evidence suggesting that that was the case. Although Ms. Boquist states that she was told that Senator Winters had been allowed to utilize her S&S funds for the pins when Senator Boquist had not been, witnesses, including from Legislative Administration Financial Services, advised me that Senator Winters did not use S&S funds to acquire pins from the gift shop.
8. In December 2018, Ms. Boquist objected to the evaluation of her seniority. which is one of the elements utilized by the Legislature to review pay equity. Exhibit 2. The then director of Human Resources, Lore Christopher, responded and explained that seniority was the number of years in an employee’s current classification (in Ms. Boquist’s case almost four years) and directly related experience was prior work experience. In response to further inquiry from Ms. Boquist, Ms. Christopher advised her that an evaluation of Ms. Boquist’s experience resulted in a determination that she had 41 years and six months of directly related work experience, which included military experience. Based upon Ms. Boquist’s age (which she shared with me) and given Ms. Boquist’s 24 years with the military, it is reasonable to conclude that the state did give her credit for her military experience.
9. Human Resources determined Ms. Boquist’s salary range following its pay equity review. President Courtney had no involvement in establishing Ms. Boquist’s pay.
10. For some number of years, safety at the Capitol has been a subject of concern. As stated by the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL), making the state capitols safe
pg. 6 requires a balance between security and access. Individuals at the Oregon Capitol have struggled in addressing that balance. Currently, the Oregon Capitol provides open access with no requirement that visitors pass through X-ray machines or other such devices before entering the building. According to a New York Times article, as of 2018, more than half of the state Legislatures utilized metal detectors. In addition, individuals are allowed to possess weapons in the Oregon Capitol.
11. Over the years, various safety measures have been considered, and some have been implemented. Recently, panic buttons at staff members’ desks have been upgraded. Security cameras have also been upgraded. The Oregon State Police’s offices at the Capitol were moved from the basement to the First Floor where they would be more accessible and visible. The number of Oregon State Police at the Capitol has increased, as have the number of stairwells that can be used in the event of an emergency. Individuals at the Capitol have also considered, but not implemented, requiring visitors to pass through security check points before entering the Capitol, prohibiting weapons at the Capitol, and sequestering Legislative staff in chambers’ offices thereby preventing free access to staff members by the public.
12. During the week of June 17, 2019, the Oregon State Police identified credible threats from outsiders to harm the state police, people at the Capitol, and the Capitol itself. The third-party threats were not necessarily the result of any actions or public statements by any elected official. Some threats came from individuals outside of the state of Oregon.
13. On June 20, 2019, President Courtney and House Speaker Tina Kotek sent a memo to the Capitol staff and occupants. The memo addressed safety issues and stated that the Legislature was requesting the Oregon State Police expertise in ensuring safety and security at the Capitol. The memo encouraged employees to discuss safety concerns with their supervisors, Jessica Knieling in Employee Services, or the Oregon State Police.
14. Due to third-party threats, Travis Hampton, the superintendent of the Oregon State Police recommended that the presiding officer (Senate President Courtney) close the Capitol on June 22, 2019, in order to protect the Capitol and its occupants. President Courtney agreed. The Capitol closed on June 22, 2019, and reopened the following day.
15. The Oregon State Police determined that it was appropriate to arrange for increased police presence during the final days of the Legislative Session. Oregon State Police believed that the stress level at the Capitol was very high. There were concerns about a potential challenge to the legislative process in the final days of the Legislative Session, and potential harm to the Capitol and its occupants.
16. According to a print article quoting Polk County Sheriff Mark Garton, on or about June 21, 2019, a letter was received at Senator Boquist’s home and at his office that threatened Senator Boquist and his family. This letter caused Ms. Boquist great concern.
17. On or about June 25, 2019, Brenda Baumgart of Stoel Rives LLP sent a confidential memorandum to Jessica Knieling, Interim HR Director, and Dexter Johnson, Legislative Counsel, commenting on two public statements made by Senator Boquist and recommending measures be
pg. 7 taken “to ensure that the Capitol is free from threats of (or actual) violence and intimidation.” The press became aware of this memorandum.
18. On June 26, 2019, a reporter contacted Senator Boquist’s office and asked for comment on a post by Senator Kim Thatcher on Facebook that Senator Boquist was banned from the Capitol and would be heading to the Conduct Committee. On June 27, 2019, Ms. Boquist responded and referenced a letter from “Stoel Reeves”.
19. On or about June 26, 2019, Ms. Boquist went to President Courtney’s office. Ms. Boquist spoke to President Courtney’s Executive Assistant, Meredith Coba. Ms. Boquist did not reference any threats she had received. Instead, Ms. Boquist asked Ms. Coba if President Courtney’s office had leaked the June 25, 2019, Baumgart memo.
20. In or about June 2019, Senator Boquist and other Senators received a letter, addressed to all 11 Absent Senators, that was extremely threatening. The letter criticized the 11 Republican Senators for being away from the Capitol, and it criticized Senator Boquist for a public statement. Other threatening communications were directed to Senator Boquist. The Oregon State Police were made aware of these threats and implemented safety measures.
21. A newspaper article referring to the threats against Senator Boquist and his family was published by The Oregonian on July 11, 2019. Exhibit 3. On July 11, 2019, President Courtney issued a press release condemning threats of violence against Senator Boquist and his family. That press release is attached as Exhibit 4.
22. In or about August 2019, the Legislature retained an outside expert to conduct a comprehensive study intended to support the goal of pay equity. That study is ongoing.
VII. CONCLUSIONS Allegation No. 1: President Courtney mishandled Ms. Boquist’s inquiry about pay equity. Finding: Not Substantiated. President Courtney does not recall Ms. Boquist asking to speak to him about pay equity. But if she did, it would not have been unusual for President Courtney to refer her to his then Chief of Staff, Betsy Imholt, as she was very involved in pay equity issues. If President Courtney referred Ms. Boquist to Ms. Imholt consistent with his usual practice for information regarding pay equity, it would not have violated Rule 27.
Allegation No. 2: Ms. Imholt dismissed Ms. Boquist’s efforts to discuss pay equity with her. Finding: Not Substantiated. Ms. Imholt and Ms. Boquist did discuss pay equity in the summer of 2018. Ms. Imholt recalls that Ms. Boquist was talking to Ms. Miller about pay equity and Ms. Boquist appeared concerned. There were a number of rumors at the Capitol regarding pay equity. Ms. Imholt joined the conversation to try to alleviate Ms. Boquist’s concerns. The methodology for pay equity had not been determined as of the date of this discussion. However, what was known was that no one’s pay would be reduced. Ms. Imholt may have volunteered that information to Ms. Boquist.
pg. 8 Even if Ms. Imholt dismissed Ms. Boquist’s efforts to discuss pay equity with her, that would not have constituted a violation of Rule 27. In considering whether conduct is objectively offensive, conduct cannot be viewed in isolation. Any challenged conduct necessarily falls on a spectrum. At one end of the spectrum, there are the types of minor annoyances or disappointments that do not rise to the level of violating Rule 27. On the other end of the spectrum is the sort of conduct that is patently offensive, clearly inappropriate, and creates an abusive work environment.
Under Rule 27, workplace harassment is defined as behavior that, to a reasonable person, creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. The discussion with Ms. Boquist regarding pay equity did not create a hostile or offensive work environment. In so finding, I follow a well-accepted legal framework. When assessing hostile work environment claims, courts consider “all the circumstances,” which may include “the frequency of the … conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.” Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enters., 256 F.3d 864, 872 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23, 114 S. Ct. 367, 126 L. Ed. 2d 295 (1993)). The environment must be both objectively and subjectively offensive; “one that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive, and one that the victim in fact did perceive to be so.” Id. at 871–72. The required level of severity or seriousness varies inversely with the pervasiveness or frequency of the conduct. Id. at 872. Accordingly, a single incident must be “extremely severe” to support a hostile work environment claim. Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917, 926 (9th Cir. 2000). If Ms. Imholt had dismissed Ms. Boquist’s efforts to discuss pay equity, that is the type of conduct that falls on the minor annoyance or disappointment end of the spectrum.
Even if Ms. Imholt had violated Rule 27 (which Ms. Boquist emphasizes she is not asserting), there is no evidence that President Courtney did so. Rule 27 does not require President Courtney to guarantee that all members of his staff comply with Rule 27. Rather, Rule 27 requires an appointing authority or supervisor to take appropriate action to prevent, promptly correct, and report harassment about which the supervisor or the appointing authority knew or, with the exercise of reasonable care, should have known. Rule 27(3)(b)(c). Based upon Ms. Boquist’s description of her interaction with Ms. Imholt there is no reason to conclude that President Courtney knew or with the exercise of reasonable care, should have known of a Rule 27 violation (had one occurred, which I find did not).
Allegation No. 3: The Legislature’s approach to pay equity has been mishandled. Finding: Not Substantiated. Based on the evidence provided, I cannot conclude that the Legislature has mishandled its approach to pay equity. Even if the Legislature could have approached pay equity in a more efficient, transparent, or expeditious way, that would not violate Rule 27. Finally, it does not appear that President Courtney is responsible for implementation of pay equity. Therefore, any failures by the Legislature in that regard would not constitute a Rule 27 violation by President Courtney.
Allegation No. 4: Ms. Boquist’s pay equity calculation does not provide sufficient credit for her military service. Finding: Not Substantiated. As set forth in Section VI, 8 above, the evidence submitted suggests that Ms. Boquist has been given work experience credit for her military service.
pg. 9 Moreover, there is no evidence that President Courtney had any involvement in the determination of Ms. Boquist’s seniority or past work history credit.
Allegation No. 5: Ms. Boquist was effectively called a thief when Senator Boquist was asked if pins from the gift shop were for constituents, which could not be paid for with S&S funds. Finding: Not Substantiated. There is no evidence that Ms. Boquist (or Senator Boquist) was effectively called a thief or accused of misappropriation. There was a misunderstanding about who received 50 pins from the gift shop that was quickly corrected by Ms. Miller. Even if Ms. Miller’s behavior was somehow inappropriate, that would not constitute a violation of Rule 27 as it falls on the annoyance or disappointment end of the spectrum. Moreover, both Ms. Miller and President Courtney advised me that President Courtney had nothing to do with the pin confusion. Therefore, President Courtney did not and could not have violated Rule 27 based on the confusion regarding the recipient of the pins.
Allegation No. 6: President Courtney’s refusal to approve payment for the pins was retaliatory (based on Ms. Boquist’s pay equity advocacy) because he approved payment once he learned the actual recipient was Senator Winters. Finding: Not Substantiated. Both President Courtney and Ms. Miller state that President Courtney had no direct involvement in payment approval for the pins at issue. Ms. Miller (and others) stated that regardless of the recipient of the pins, they could not be paid for with S&S funds if they were for constituents. President Courtney’s annual Service and Supplies memoranda specifically state that Services and Supplies funds may not be used to purchase pins for constituents. In addition, I confirmed through the Legislature’s Financial Services that no S&S account was used to pay for pins received from the gift shop. Finally, no evidence supports the assertion that President Courtney harbored animus against Ms. Boquist because of her pay equity advocacy.
Based on the foregoing, I conclude that President Courtney did not engage in retaliatory behavior in violation of Rule 27.
Allegation No. 7: President Courtney ignored Ms. Boquist’s request for help when she received a personal threat. Finding: Not Substantiated. Both President Courtney and his Chief of Staff, Anna Braun, deny that Ms. Boquist requested assistance due to a threat. President Courtney’s Executive Assistant, Meredith Coba (referred to by Ms. Boquist as a receptionist), also denies any conversation with Ms. Boquist regarding a threat. The only conversation Ms. Coba had with Ms. Boquist is that referred to in Section VI, 19 above. Two other members of President Courtney’s staff overheard the conversation between Ms. Coba and Ms. Boquist and agree with Ms. Coba that the subject of the conversation was an alleged leak of the Baumgart memo, not threats received by Ms. Boquist. Ms. Coba spoke to two other individuals shortly after her discussion with Ms. Boquist. Ms. Coba’s contemporaneous description of her discussion with Ms. Boquist was consistent with the description that she provided to me during her interview.
To the extent that Ms. Boquist’s complaint encompasses the assertion that President Courtney has not taken adequate steps to ensure the safety of those at the Capitol, I do not
pg. 10 substantiate that assertion. While President Courtney is concerned about safety at the Capitol, he is not solely responsible for it. Based upon the actions described in Sections VI, 10-15, and 20-21 above, President Courtney appears to have reacted appropriately when safety issues were raised in the final weeks of the 2019 Legislative Session. I further find that the subject of safety at the Capitol is an issue that has received consideration by many elected officials, and it should continue to receive consideration by the Oregon State Police and Legislative leadership. The balancing of public access and security is a difficult one which offers no easy solutions.
In my interview with Ms. Boquist, she suggested that President Courtney’s July 11, 2019, press release was disingenuous because it stated that he learned of a threat against the Boquist family for the first time on July 11. I do not read the press release as so stating. See Exhibit 4. I further find that President Courtney issued his press release (Exhibit 4) on the “first” day he read a newspaper article (Exhibit 3) referring to the threats against Ms. Boquist and her family. While President Courtney had previous, general awareness that the 11 Republican Senators who left the Capitol during the last two weeks of the Legislative Session had received threats, he was also aware that the Oregon State Police were handling the situation. The timing and content of President Courtney’s press release did not violate Rule 27.
Allegation No. 8: The at-will nature of the Legislative employees’ employment leads to retaliation or fear of retaliation. Finding: Not Substantiated. Rule 27 prohibits retaliation. In addition, at-will employees enjoy statutory protection from retaliation. While employees of any type may fear retaliation, I do not find that the at-will nature of an employment relationship necessarily heightens those fears. Finally, President Courtney is not responsible for the at-will nature of the employment of Legislative employees.
VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS Ms. Boquist did not request any discipline of President Courtney as a remedy (see Exhibit 1, pages 7 and 8). Moreover, based on my conclusions, there is no reason to discipline President Courtney.
4822-8381-4569, v. 1
pg. 11 From: Boquist Peggy Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 5:04 PM To: Freeman Lorey
July 25, 2019
Dear Ms. Freeman:
Subject: Complaint under Rule 27 (Pre- BOLI Civil Rights)
1 Case 39 Exhibit 1 - Page 1 of 20 ONE: Name of person alleged to be involved: Senate President Peter Courtney
TWO: Witnesses - Senate President Peter Courtney, Chief of Staff Betsey Imholt, Debbie Miller, and Anna Braun.
THREE: Several events are submitted in the following submission in chronological order:
First: The inequity of pay equity - Wednesday August 22, 2018, I was working at our Senate Office in the Oregon State Capitol. During the interim it is common for staffers who tele-commute In District to come in person to their Capitol offices to work together on joint projects, and other legislative business on Wednesdays. While pouring coffee in the minority caucus room several employees, staffers, from the 3rd floor senate offices, were discussing the information they had heard or witnessed from the Joint Work Group on the implementation of the new pay equity law. These staffers were confused, and concerned about what they had heard. In an effort to quell rumors, and miss-information, I decided to seek assistance in the Senate President’s Office. My husband the Senator was not in the building that day, so I could not consult him, and I had never been in the Senate President’s Office, but I knew Senator Courtney, we attend the same Church, St. Joseph’s Catholic Church in Salem, Oregon. My efforts were to bring truth to gossip and calm some fears of other staffers. I was searching for someone in a position of power and authority that would know the truth. When I entered the reception area of the Senate President’s Office, both Ms. Betsey Imholt, Chief of Staff for the Senate President, and the Senate President, Senator Peter Courtney were in the open reception area. Senator Courtney said hello, and asked me what was up? I asked about Pay Equity and the Implementation there of? He turned to Ms. Imholt as he walked away into his private office, and asked her to talk to me. She obliged. She came to me and stated that I need not worry about the implementation of Pay Equity, I would be fine. There was no plan to lower anyone’s payroll. Again, she said we will take care of you and others who are already employed. No one will have a lower salary. To say the least I was stunned. The legislative staffers are already known as the lowest paid state employees in the state government. I did not even get a question out of my mouth, as I was dismissed. Ms. Imholt walked away. That day began my inquiry into the pay equity implementation or rather the inequity of Pay Equity implementation in Oregon’s Legislative Branch. My husband’s work in some small part is through my influence. He requested information be brought forward through our then Minority Leader, the Late Senator Jackie Winters, see email thread attached, the very next day, Thursday, August 23th, 2018. I have
2 Case 39 Exhibit 1 - Page 2 of 20 encouraged and helped with my husband’s, Senator Boquist’s, many public records requests. These requests which are still incomplete have resulted in information that has identified many problems, discrimination and intentional inequity provided to ‘at will’ employees of the legislative branch. To discuss the inequities discovered would cover many pages of information which I possess as a result of the public records requests made by multiple Senators. Those many, yet incomplete documents have been sent via email, to House and Senate Members and Members’ Staff as well. Several have come to seek my guidance and assistance as they believe they have been evaluated wrongly, and are afraid to complain, as they are ‘at will’ employees. I myself have not been evaluated properly. “At Will” employees have legitimate fear. They can be terminated for anything; indeed, they can be terminated for dating the wrong person, let alone asking a question about their pay evaluation. The reaction and treatment I received in the Legislative Branch by Senate leadership, since that date has been tense and in irritatingly hostile. I have been to HR maybe 4 times in the 15 years, in which I have worked in the building. When I went to HR the next week, to ask a question about the upcoming renewal of medical insurance documents, I was met by Ceder, the nicest employee in HR, OBTW, with, this comment, “I hope you are not here regarding pay equity, I know nothing about it”….Yes, the word was out, and I was then treated differently, and not welcome in manner or words in HR. All the employees in HR are ‘at will’ and under the authority of Senator Courtney. An information briefing requested by the late Senate Minority Leader Jackie Winters, to HR , was scheduled by HR for Tuesday, September 25th, 2018, however it was actually conducted earlier on September 20, 2018, in the pre- legislative work days. On that date during the briefing, we were told to provide all our documentation for evaluation of our payroll status, to determine our payroll range and step, by 5:00 PM on Tuesday, September 25, 2018. If you count the 20th we had six days to collect and provide our documents. This briefing did not clarify concerns. It was not a power point presentation; it was not a brief with handouts. It was a questions and answer platform with more emphasis on the “Q” without the “A”. It only made the situation worse for staffers and employees. The brief was a disaster, with a notice of suspense for documents to their office in 6 days! No one in HR can explain my 24 years of military service evaluation. No one can explain my civilian work experience evaluation. I am a retired United States Army Major, Engineer Branch, and my last assignment as an assistant operations officer (S3) in a Separate Brigade (3K personnel). Prior to that assignment I served as a personnel officer (S1) of a battalion consisting of separate units that consisted of 750 serving soldiers. I was responsible for payroll, per diem, promotions, disciplinary actions, non- judicial punishment, along with Article 15 actions, medical support and countless other work with deployments and family programs, wellness, casualty assistance and so on. The evaluation of my civilian job of over 10 years as a comptroller of an international business, which included downline of two sub-contractors under my authority, for budget, payrolls, travel, which was significant, and other budgetary, administration and logistical issues from the day to day operations throughout the United States, and in some many cases internationally was never evaluated. It is still a mystery to me how I was designated at 3 Case 39 Exhibit 1 - Page 3 of 20 Range 20 Step 6. The only evaluation pieces that make sense are two, the time as a paid state employee and education. First, I would ask the question how was the Range 20 and the Range 18 start points for legislative assistants determined? There was no evaluation of scope of work, no discussion on what a legislative, ‘at will,’ staffer for an elected member’s work consists of. In addition this ‘at will’ position was not compared to other similar positions throughout the Executive Branch. The nature of our work, the travel, the weekends, and the holiday work, the long hours especially if our member is on many Committees, and has evening Committees as well. Not to mention the hazardous duty situation, in an open office, with open space and no exits or private doors, and only a police button that was finally installed during the 2017 long session, after a large housing protest took over the building. I am certain LC, LAC, LRO, LFO, Employee Services, and other non- member staffers, do not have to respond to the public on a daily basis. Political work is inherently robust, and citizens that are engaged in the dialogue what their voices heard, and their first stop in the staffer that is serving in the elected member’s office. The mention of ‘at will’ employees should also be addressed. My range and step designation as in my belief were many others, was primarily set up entirely by budget driven points. The budget could not grow, and existing personnel were guaranteed at a minimum same pay. How can that premise bring “pay equity?” Am I the only one this happened to? I think not. I could blame HR, and there is some blame there, but the leadership of the Senate President is where the fault lies. All personnel of HR are ‘at will’ employees, and thus at risk when challenging the leadership. True to Ms. Imholt’s word, my pay was not lowered, indeed, the suito evaluation brought about the exact same payroll budget that I had prior to the pay equity implementation. My Legislative peers in the Executive Branch earn upward of 40% more. Do they work weekends, do they work holidays, do they work with the potential of a mob of protesters circling their desk and chanting ‘lower rent’ ‘more housing’ and are they all ‘at will.’ Are they not reimbursed for travel, or are they required to come hat in hand to the Senate President’s office for reimbursement for gas money to drive to Ontario, or Pendleton, or Klamath Falls? Again, am I the only one who sees the inequity? I think not! The inequity lies with the Senate Majority Leadership, and Senate President Peter Courtney.
Second: Accused of Theft - Thursday, November 29, 2018, I received an email from Debbie Miller, Legislative Assistant, to Senator, Senate President Peter Courtney. She stated in her email (attached) that she was holding an AFP (vendor bill) that came to the Senate President’s office for payment of the purchase of 50 State Seal Tax Pins from the Capitol Gift Shop. In essence, in a telephone conversation with her, she stated the purchase was not approved by the Senate President, and that she was holding the invoice awaiting my payment. The resolution of this mistaken AFP took until December 4th, 2018 to conclude. During that time, I searched and discovered many things, but in short was accused of miss-appropriation of funds, effectively called a thief for more than a week. It appeared there was some confusion about a 4 Case 39 Exhibit 1 - Page 4 of 20 member/staff purchase in the Capitol Gift Shop. I was told that my charge purchase of 50 State Seal Oregon Pins would have to be paid for, as Senate President Courtney would not approve my purchase. As was discovered, it appears that a part-time employee or an intern as was described to me, in this inquiry, had wrongly put down our Senate District number by mistake. This document, which I finally secured, with someone else’s signature, cleared my responsibility for the charge purchase. However, the charge purchase by the other member who possessed the pins was approved. Sometimes it’s the little things that matter so very much. I was completely unaware, that Senate members could charge items in the Capitol Gift Shop, and that those purchases can be approved for payment from the Senate President’s office, from a fund in which he overseas. What fund is this? Who gets their purchases approved, and who does not? Again, ‘it’s the little things,’ so very telling. The Senate President acts as an abusive punitive banker. He would not approve a purchase for me, but once he discovered it was a mistake, he did approve the funds for someone else. Abusive and retaliatory, being labeled a thief for over a week, and having to prove with documentation my innocence is abuse of authority and retaliatory. Yes, it may appear like a ‘little thing’ but as Senate President stated in a Legislative Session Opening Ceremony Speech several years ago, it is the little things that matter so very much, and he was right.
Third: Violence and Threats in the Workplace: Senator Courtney’s most recent press release 11 July 2019, condemning the violence and threats sent to my family regarding HB 2020 and the Senate Republican walkout, I find intentionally insulting. He stated publicly that he was unaware of the threats. On Wednesday, June 26, 2019, for the third time, I personally went to the Senate President’s Office, with the most recent threat letter in my hand. I entered the front reception area; both Ms. Anna Braun and Senate President Courtney were standing together at Ms. Braun’s doorway to her office. I mentioned to the receptionist that these threats were getting personal, what could be done about this. She was concerned, yet confused, her answer ‘nothing can be done.’ I looked directly at both Anna Braun and Senator Courtney. They looked away, and Ms. Braun walked into her private office and shut the door, and then Senate President Courtney raced by me to his private office and shut his door. They both heard my words. I mentioned to the Receptionist my thanks, but that now the Senate President’s office is aware just how dangerous things have become. I returned to work to my Senate office work space, which is not a private office, and does not have a door, a complete open space in the far right corner of the Senate side 3rd floor, and soldiered on.
5 Case 39 Exhibit 1 - Page 5 of 20 I have threatening messages saved on the telephone recorder at the Capitol. They are also saved on the online audio documents. Both the Oregon State Police and the Polk County Sheriff’s Office have open cases and are doing their best to chronicle these threats. During the HB 2020 Senate Republican walkout our constituents were rightly concerned. I had appointments with them during this time; I had to be at my post to ensure service to them. Part of that meant in some cases answering the telephone. The most threatening and vulgar and disgusting telephone calls, were the ones I answered, and there is no way to record them, you can only hang up, and often they call back. If you recognized the number you can stop the caller. If not you have to listen at least for some time, again, before you can disconnect. Many may think that harassing vulgar telephone messages are just part of the job, and that you will get used to it. When people are mentioning your children’s names, indeed mentioning your late son, and detailing your address and how they will take revenge on a ‘climate denier’ and in one case, attacking my Black Angus cow, it gets right personal. I had to come home to an empty house, lock exterior and interior gates to and from my rural gravel driveway, all the while looking around to see if anything was out of place on my 17 acre rural Polk County orchard land. The majority of the online threats came from those supporting HB 2020. The unnumbered but many robo calls were also initiated by supporters of HB 2020. No guidance, no assistance, no word from the Senate President or his office, regarding these threats until July 11th, with the exception, from the Senate President’s reception area on June 26th,“nothing can be done.”
Lastly: To wrap up this narrative complaint the situation of hostility in the work place, and tension throughout the Session can be rightly blamed, I believe on abuse of power. The Senate President has hiring and firing authority either directly, or one step down, directly for a pyramid of ‘at will’ employees. His reach in hiring and firing ‘at will’ employees is far and beyond any single person to my knowledge in the State of Oregon. Why is LPRO staff, ‘at will,’ why is LC staff ‘at will,’ why is Revenue Office staff ‘at will,’ why is Administrative Services ‘at will,’? I restate, these were questions that should have been investigated in the pay equity implementation work group, along with so many other relevant and pertinent questions, which I have already touched on. As we get back to travel, and per diem, for the most part member staffers are on their own if they travel. Only the Senate President can approve reimbursements. Most staffers that need to travel work for Republican Senators. Where does this travel money come from, who gets to use it, and what fund is it, and why is the Senate President the approving authority? Is this fund similar to the unknown fund for Capitol Gift Shop purchases? A young staffer coming hat in hand to the most powerful person in the Legislature is a fine picture to imagine. Why was this not addressed by the pay equity work group? So many more questions which I cannot in this space enumerate. Senator Courtney, through his Office as Senate President, has massive 6 Case 39 Exhibit 1 - Page 6 of 20 power and authority over ‘at will’ employees and the dynamics of this ‘power and authority’ that plays out in the legislative branch, is rife for abuse, and cronyism, and has resulted in same. Even the contracted Capitol State Police, to some degree fall under this dynamic. For the Senate President to request from the Governor, what I believe is an illegal order, for the Oregon State Police to be sent out to arrest, confine, and compel to return recalcitrant Republican State Senators, without a warrant, without a crime, or a judge’s order, is simple political fascism. His request was honored by the Governor, in her effort to successfully pass HB 2020 at any cost. On the advice of an ‘at will’ employee this illegal order was sanction by Senate President Courtney. I hold most importantly Senate President Courtney responsible for his abuse of power in promoting retaliatory fear of threat and violence, to me and my family, both at the State Capitol and at my home, in rural Polk County, and indeed, the safety of my Black Angus cow, too. Whether this order was legal or not legal, my family and I are still living with the consequences and continued threats of violence from his order. Just because the session has ended, does not mean the threats have ended. They are still coming in via snail mail, telephone, and email every day. Today, I delivered three more snail mail letters to the Polk County Sheriff’s Office.
Remedy:
1. Independent investigation, non-partisan, and non-biased into the implementation of the Pay Equity Law inside the Legislative Branch. Recommendations for relevant improvements, and frank discussion, of why so many non- member employees are ‘at will’ employees, and comparison of statement of work (SOW) as related to State Agency positions of like nature, their pay and benefits far exceed those in the Legislative Branch, and they are not ‘at will’. Recommendations for relevant improvements and standards for evaluation of and frank discussion of the personnel evaluations, to include civilian experience, to include veteran experience, to include other government experience, to include the protected classes. Recommendations to control and quell the power and authority of one single person, in one single position in the Oregon State Legislature, so corruption and the corrupting and insidious power and abuse by a Senate President is partially remedied.
2. Investigate at a minimum the two mystifying money pots, for purchases at the State Capitol gift shop and reimbursement for travel and per-diem for members, member staff or other branch employees, that can only be approved by the Senate President, to partially remedy ongoing abuse of power on financial disbursements. Make transparent all other secret fund sources if they exist?
7 Case 39 Exhibit 1 - Page 7 of 20 3. An authentic legal clarification of the legality of calling upon the Oregon State Police, or any Law Enforcement Agency to arrest, detain, and force elected officials to go or do anything against their will without a warrant or a Judge’s Order. In short, a declaratory judgement from the courts is required!
4. A full and transparent investigation and hearing into the abuse of power that led to the sexual harassment settlement, the failed pay equity implementation and the real threats of violence perpetrated on the staff by the President of the Senate.
5. Failing a true investigation, mid-level managers should call for a formal federal investigation of the Oregon State Senate.
Respectfully Submitted
Peggy Boquist, “At Will’ State Employee
8 Case 39 Exhibit 1 - Page 8 of 20 Case 39 Exhibit 1 - Page 9 of 20 Case 39 Exhibit 1 - Page 10 of 20 Case 39 Exhibit 1 - Page 11 of 20 Case 39 Exhibit 1 - Page 12 of 20 Case 39 Exhibit 1 - Page 13 of 20 Case 39 Exhibit 1 - Page 14 of 20 Case 39 Exhibit 1 - Page 15 of 20 Case 39 Exhibit 1 - Page 16 of 20 Case 39 Exhibit 1 - Page 17 of 20 Case 39 Exhibit 1 - Page 18 of 20 Case 39 Exhibit 1 - Page 19 of 20 Case 39 Exhibit 1 - Page 20 of 20 From: Boquist Peggy Sent: Friday, December 7, 2018 10:57 AM To: Christopher Lore D
Dear Ms. Christopher:
I find it amazing that your office has not developed a standardized articulated, numerical, matrix system of calculation and evaluation for decision making, in the scrutinizing of placement of personnel with a range and step payroll system. For example how does an employee determine what tasks, or efforts it may take to go from range 20 step 6, to range 20 step 7? This is common, if not required, in federal service, other State agencies, and for sub- contractors that are working on contract with the federal government or state agencies. Why have you not replicated, or enhanced existing systems with government range and step payroll formularies? How is your evaluations of personnel that effects their payroll defended?
2 Case 39 Exhibit 2 - Page 1 of 6 Two human resource persons, no matter how competent or qualified, are subjectively deciding on the range and step for 90 legislative assistants that serve relatively full time even during the interim, and 90 legislative assistants serving temporary full time during the long session, and others legislative assistants that serve part-time, as temporary, or full time part time. This is a herculean effort on the part of those two individuals, and in my estimation after 4 decades of work in the field, very unusual in the reality I know of human resources management. If fact, based on the Oregon’s new law, impossible, and indefensible.
I am asking, as a public records request, for all personnel documents you have concerning my employment, volunteer time, and any other documents within my paper and/or digital personnel folder to include any deleted documents, be provide to me as soon as possible. I have copied Legislative Counsel to make this formal.
Sincerely,
Peggy Boquist Legislative Assistant State Senator Brian Boquist, SD12
From: Sen Boquist Sent: Friday, December 7, 2018 10:02 AM To: Boquist Peggy
From: Christopher Lore D Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 5:19 PM To: Sen Boquist
Peggy,
Every employee has received an evaluation of three Pay Equity factors: Directly Related Experience, Education and Seniority. These are the only factors evaluated based on the approved Pay Equity formula.
Directly Related Experience: This includes all prior paid work experience that is relevant to the position you hold. Appointing Authorities will make the final determination of relevancy. This does not include your current paid work time in your current classification, that time is counted as seniority per the Pay Equity analysis formula.
3 Case 39 Exhibit 2 - Page 2 of 6 Education: This includes any formal education from an accredited institution resulting in a degree. Recent decisions were made to include all formal and military education that converted to college credits which did not result in a degree. This education is NOT included in your analysis but can be added once school/military transcripts are provided to Employee Services, there is no deadline to provide this information. This additional education credit may or may not change your compensation.
Seniority: Seniority is defined as the time you have been a paid employee working in your current classification. All other paid work experience (including your time with the State of Oregon and the Legislature) is considered work experience.
Every employee received an evaluation of their directly related paid work experience; education and seniority. This information was evaluated independently by two human resource analysts; Karen Hupp (40 year analyst) and Aimee Steketee (7 year analyst).
We do not have an evaluation matrix. We do not have an evaluation form for each employee. Each employee’s information in contained within a master preliminary findings spreadsheet.
We evaluated your paid work experience and determined that you had 41 years and 6 months directly related work experience. This amount includes military experience.
We evaluated your education and determined that you had a Bachelor’s Degree. In September, only educational credits that resulted in a degree were counted. In November the decision was made to also count educational college credit equivalents that did not result in a degree. You included your DD-214 that states under military education Engineer Officer Basic Course 15 weeks, May 1983. All we need is the course number and we can convert this education into college credits. This may or may not result in additional compensation.
We evaluated your seniority and determined that you have been a paid employee working for Senator Boquist since August 2014. For the purposes of Pay Equity your seniority would be counted through May 31, 2018. Your paid time in this position equals 3 years, 9 months. The Pay Equity formula counts full years so you received credit for three years seniority in your current classification.
There are no additional documents that detail your Pay Equity results. Every employee will receive a memo on Mom-Tue of next week with their personal Pay Equity information if they have been approved by their appointing authority. Senator Boquist has not approved your increase yet, so you will not receive this memo, but it contains the same information as I have provided you here.
Peggy, please advise us if we have gotten your evaluated information wrong and we will correct any incorrect information promptly.
Thank you,
Lore Christopher Director of Human Resources 503-986-1370
4 Case 39 Exhibit 2 - Page 3 of 6 From: Sen Boquist Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 4:01 PM To: Christopher Lore D
Dear Lore:
Thank you for your response. I provided my military documents, along with other documents on September 25, 2018 to your office. Were these documents evaluated? Do you have an evaluation matrix, and worksheet, anything? If so, what is the evaluation? If not, why not? Please provide copies of all these documents and the evaluation, so I can understand the results below.
In addition, it seems odd to me, that in my September 25th letter, with allied documents, I asked for an evaluation. I did not receive one. Is this not a customary request or a responsibility of your office?
Thank you.
Peggy
Peggy Boquist Legislative Assistant to State Senator Brian Boquist, SD12
From: Christopher Lore D Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 3:29 PM To: Boquist Peggy
Peggy,
Karen forwarded your email to me for response.
Your Pay Equity analysis has been based on these factors:
Directly Related Experience: This includes all prior paid work experience that is relevant to the position you hold. Appointing Authorities will make the final determination of relevancy. This does not include your current work time in your current classification, that time is counted as seniority per the Pay Equity analysis formula.
Education: This includes any formal education from an accredited institution resulting in a degree. Recent decisions were made to include all formal and military education that converted to college credits which did not result in a degree. This education is NOT included in your analysis but can be added once school/military transcripts are provided to
5 Case 39 Exhibit 2 - Page 4 of 6 Employee Services, there is no deadline to provide this information. This additional education credit may or may not change your compensation.
Seniority: Seniority is defined as the time you have been a paid employee working in your current classification. All other paid work experience (including your time with the State of Oregon and the Legislature) is considered work experience.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your analysis:
Your Directly related experience = 41 years and 6 months
Your Education = Bachelor’s Degree (you can get credit for additional military training/education when you provide Employee Services with your transcripts (there is no deadline), we will help you to convert military training/education to college credits. You will receive an additional year for every 24 semester equivalent credits you have earned. This additional education may or may not result in additional compensation. Any compensation changes will be retroactive to 6/1/2018 when determined.
Your Seniority as a paid employee in your current classification (in full years) = August 2014 – May 31, 2018 (the Pay Equity cut-off date) 3 years, 9 months = 3 years
Your current salary as of 5/31/2018 = $4,000
Your predicted step within the Pay Equity Formula is salary range 20, Step 6 = $4,055 this amount is retroactive to 6/1/2018.
You will also receive the general cost of living adjustment that occurred on 6/15/2018 which will increase your salary to $4,096.
If we have made an error, it is very important to us to correct our mistake so that every employee receives all credit they are due.
Please advise me of the information you feel is incorrect and it will be corrected as needed.
Thank you Peggy,
Lore Christopher Director of Human Resources 503-986-1370
6 Case 39 Exhibit 2 - Page 5 of 6 From: Boquist Peggy Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 11:52 AM To: Hupp Karen L
Dear Karen:
In a search in my outlook emails, this is the most recent email I have received from you. So I am using it as a reply mechanism.
On the 25th of September 2018, I hand carried to your office my biographical sketch, and associated documentation of my military service, assignments, and education. I also formally disagreed with the evaluation of my position of seniority and it associated calculation, which was not made clear in the document provided to my Member. I asked that my documents provided be considered and evaluated. I have not received an evaluation, or a response, from your office.
As this correspondence was addressed to you personally, I am following up with you personally. I realize you have quasi retired, so someone else may be responsible for this evaluation. If someone else is responsible, please provide me with that persons contact information.
I thank you in advance.
Peggy Boquist Legislative Assistant Senate District 12
7 Case 39 Exhibit 2 - Page 6 of 6 Sheriff investigating threats against Boquist
The Oregonian (Portland Oregon) July 11, 2019 Thursday, ORE - MAIN EDITION
Copyright 2019 The Oregonian All Rights Reserved Section: A; Pg. 002 Length: 563 words Byline: Hillary Borrud The Oregonian/OregonLive
Body
The Polk County Sheriff’s Office is investigating death threats against state Sen. Brian Boquist and his family, Sheriff Mark Garton confirmed Wednesday.
Two days after Boquist issued his own threat on June 19 to any state troopers who might try to haul him back to the Capitol after he and other Republicans walked out, an anonymous letter arrived at his home in Dallas. A similar letter, likely written by the same person, arrived at Boquist’s Capitol office a few days later, Garton said.
“Those two (letters) were threatening to himself and his family,” Garton said.
At the time, Boquist and the Senate’s 10 other Republicans were believed to be out of the state during a boycott that aimed at killing Democrats’ climate change bill. The threats Boquist received were specific.
“In the letters, they talked about ‘I’m gonna find you in my crosshairs and shoot you in the head and your family as well,’” Garton said.
Voicemails left in the following days at Boquist’s Capitol office did not involve the caller threatening to take a specific action against Boquist or his family, Garton said. They did reference Boquist’s statement on how he would respond if Gov. Kate Brown and Senate President Peter Courtney sent the Oregon State Police out to bring him back to the Capitol. Boquist said he told OSP Superintendent Travis Hampton, “Send bachelors and come heavily armed. I’m not going to be a political prisoner in the state of Oregon. It’s just that simple.”
An anonymous woman who left the voicemails at Boquist’s office said she hoped state troopers would bring a lot of ammunition and shoot Boquist, Garton said.
All of the anonymous threats contained specific references to Boquist’s family, including the names of his wife and children, Garton said.
In testimony submitted to the Oregon Legislature, Boquist’s wife, Peggy — who is a member of his staff — said she received more than 30 threatening voicemails at the office and many threatening emails, in addition to the letters. The voicemails “include threats against me, and my five living children and monstrous comments regarding my late son,” Peggy Boquist wrote regarding the voicemails.
The Boquists said they also reported the threats to the Oregon State Police. A spokesperson for the agency declined to comment Wednesday. Case 39 Exhibit 3 - Page 1 of 2 Page 2 of 2 Sheriff investigating threats against Boquist
State police have previously declined to say whether they investigated Boquist’s threat against troopers. But private attorney Brenda Baumgart, who was hired by the Legislature to handle workplace matters, said on Monday the Oregon State Police conducted an assessment of whether Boquist posed a threat to lawmakers and other employees at the Capitol.
Baumgart spoke during a legislative committee meeting to determine what, if any, interim steps lawmakers should take to address fear or intimidation that some Capitol workers reported in the wake of Boquist’s comments. Boquist also told Courtney in a June 19 floor speech that “If you send the state police to get me, hell is coming to visit you personally.”
The Senate Special Committee on Conduct ultimately decided to require Boquist to provide 12 hours’ notice before showing up at the Capitol, so officials can arrange for additional state police to be present. Baumgart is still investigating what workplace rules Boquist’s comments might have violated and she has yet to recommend any potential penalties. [email protected]; 503-294-4034
Graphic
An Oregon state trooper stands guard as Republican Sen. Brian Boquist waits with his wife, Peggy Boquist, to walk onto the Senate floor June 30. Sarah Zimmerman, Associated Press
Load-Date: July 12, 2019
End of Document
Case 39 Exhibit 3 - Page 2 of 2 Case 39 Exhibit 4 - Page 1 of 1 From: Boquist Peggy
I am in rural Oregon with my laptop this has been difficult to forward to you via unstable wifi here in the rural part of the State, please confirm receipt.
Thank you, Peggy
From: Boquist Peggy Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 5:57 PM To: Boquist Peggy
Dear Ms. Ryan and Ms. Rainey:
Please find below my comments for review and consideration in regard to corrections, or clarification of comments /narrative found within the Draft Confidential Report regarding the Investigation of the Complaint by Peggy Boquist against Senate President Peter Courtney – Case 39, dated 29 October 2019. I have listed them in order of the submission for easier review.
Page 2:
Third paragraph: Ms. Debbie Miller never used the word ‘thief.’ Her words, I paraphrase here to clarify, informed me that Senate President Courtney would not allow the government purchase, to be used for constituent’s handouts. In my statement I said I was treated as if I was a thief, I did not say I was called a thief. This treatment was not from Ms. Miller. As I mentioned, innumerable times, getting to the bottom of this Capitol Gift Shop ‘Pin issue’ took days, and I was required to interact with many people. Please correct.
Third paragraph: I was told the purchase of the pins came from the Senate District of Senator Jackie Winters. I do not have firsthand knowledge of this. I was told this, and I was told that the purchase was ultimately approved by Senate President Courtney. I merely told you what I was told. Did you in your investigation, consult the accounting office that handles the purchases by elected members from the Capitol Gift Shop and discover the purchaser? What truth did you find?
1 Case 39 Exhibit 5 - Page 1 of 5 Fifth paragraph: Under the fourth point - “at will” employees within the State of Oregon’s Legislative Branch are not supported by a union or affiliated with same, this would clarify the situation. Although we know all Oregon employees are technically ‘at will’ however, many have rules surrounding their employment to protect them. Most State Employees have protections, or have union memberships and affiliation. The Legislative Branch has neither. A clarification of this reality may be appropriate in your comment, as that does make the case for potential abuse by authority graver and a lens of reality.
Page 6: Number 7: I believe this turn of phrase, appears to insinuate that I am lying about the late Senator Jackie Winters and the purchase. In my dialogue with you I stated I was told that another Senate District had mistakenly made the request. Indeed, you asked me directly in an email, subsequent to our face to face meeting interview, in the investigation process, which Senator’s office was I alluding to? I made every effort to keep the late Senator Jackie Winters name out of this complaint, as it is not about her and I would not want to harm her memory. It is about a mistake that was made, and how the purchase was finally, as told to me, approved for another member. Naming the late Senator disgraces her, and me. What is your point in this? The real question, was the purchase approved for whoever made the request? Was that person a ‘member’? Was there special treatment? What did your investigation reveal?
Page 6: Number 8: The 24 years of military service, is federal service. I was not given federal service credit in the pay equity evaluation. Your statement says I was, can you prove that? Was the listing of 41 years of work experience taken into consideration for my range or step? Was federal government service a player in my evaluation? As a protected class, I find your argument that HR met the standard for evaluating my military service /federal service sufficient for the implementation of pay equity difficult to understand, coming from an employment lawyer. The Pay Equity re-work, under a sub-contractor, as you well know, is at this very moment determining the start point for evaluation, job descriptions. Currently the pay equity evaluations for all the ‘at will’ workers in the legislature are under scrutiny. My federal service did not count when deciding range and step. As a veteran that is discrimination of a protected class. When I notified the Senate President’s office, of my concerns, I was dismissed. I never intended to speak directly to Senate President Courtney; he was in the open reception area and invited me into his conversation with Ms. Imholt. Then stated she would help me. I would never believe that I could without appointment speak directly to the Senate President in a business environment during business hours, he is a busy person. It would be as if a junior military officer wanted a conversation with a flag officer. Senate President Courtney invited me into the conversation that day. Your investigation into this matter, in particular, as the fundamental matter for which I claim retaliation, and retribution, is insufficient. You have not proved your point of my proper evaluation. With that how do you determine no merit for retaliation or retribution? What does a whistle blower merit? What is the standard? Is this type of investigation beyond your scope of work? Is there some other explanation? There are other veterans, and other former federal employees working in the legislative branch. They need a voice. I believe I am that voice. In addition, apparently, you are not aware of the legal issues expressed in the Legislative Council Opinion and the AG Opinion discussed in the Legislative 2 Case 39 Exhibit 5 - Page 2 of 5 Administration Committee yesterday, October 30, 2019, in regard to pay equity and the legislative rules. My understanding of these two opinions, coupled with public hearing testimony, contradict your draft report’s assertions on pay equity analysis. As an investigator what is the standard of due diligence?
Page 6: Number 9: Two clerical people in HR determined my range and step, as well documented in the emails, and papers I provided to you. Number 9 should be deleted in its entirety. It was never claimed that the Senate President had any personal responsibility for my pay equity analysis or determination of range and step. This paragraph insinuates, in a subtle yet deliberate way, that a claim to this effect exists. Not only does this paragraph impugn and undermine my character, it negatively impacts my work within and without the legislature. The idea planted here is an egregious and spurious addition to the investigation, totally unnecessary, yet deliberate on your part. I believe you fully comprehend 42 US Code 1983. Delete the Number 9 paragraph on page 6 in its entirety.
Page 7: Number 19: I did mention threats of violence to me and my family to Ms. Coba. I also said things were getting dangerous. It was a very brief conversation. I believe she did not know who I was, initially as we had never met. But I did tell her the threats were becoming dangerous. I emphatically used the word ‘dangerous.’ Also, both Ms. Braun and Senate President Courtney were standing in the open area of the President’s Office. Before they bolted to their private offices and closed their doors, they saw me, and knew I was there. As I was talking to Ms. Coba they may have not have heard my comments, but they did see me, and they avoided me. Please correct Number 19, I did make the Senate President’s Office aware of threats to me and my family in our rural home in Polk County. This during the period of time the Senate Minority Caucus was still out of State in protest of quorum. It was an intense time, the Senate President’s Office was very busy and Ms Coba may have not taken in, all that I had said. Again, it was a very brief conversation. Please correct.
VII – CONCLUSIONS
Please consider rewording some of your conclusions to include the correction of errors or lack of clarity that I have outlined in the above comments.
Allegation No. 1: President Courtney would not speak to Ms. Boquist about pay equity. I never sought him out, he was in the reception area, we know each other, we go to the same church, I worked at Oregon College of Education as a Veterans Representative in the Registrar’s Office for years when he was working at the same College. I also, was a member of the College Alumni Board for 9 years, after retirement from the U.S. Army, and had interaction with Senator Courtney who worked on behalf of the College President. I have known Senator Courtney for decades. He invited me into his casual conversation with Ms. Imholt in the open area of the Senate President’s Office. He directed me to Ms. Imholt when I brought up the pay equity issue. You have painted a picture that puts me in a dim light, a demanding pariah staffer who pesters the Senate President and I resent this. Yes he would not talk to me about pay equity, he most likely knew very little about it at the time, but he did talk to me about sports, 3 Case 39 Exhibit 5 - Page 3 of 5 weather and a variety of other topics. You can rewrite this paragraph without the added besmirching of my character or mischaracterization of my actions, and still maintain your outcome. Please do so.
Allegation No. 2: I never accused Ms. Imholt of harassment, or violating rule 27, where does this come from? Again, are you impugning my character with this added emphasis and legal references? She was in the room, and spoke with me. Why was Ms. Imholt brought into this complaint as other than a witness or bystander? Why must you express that she is innocent of any Rule 27 violation, when none was charged? Very Odd.
Allegation No. 3, 4: I dispute your analysis and outcomes, and I belief the future will prove me right in the debacle that is the legislative branch’s implementation of pay equity. You may want to take a look at OLIS and watch yesterday’s Legislative Administration Committee Hearing (30 October 2019), as the two legal opinions discussed in the pay equity ongoing saga are contradictory to your assertions.
Allegation No. 5: As I have stated, and it is worth restating, Ms. Miller never said I was a thief. To again, place this within the body of this report is an attempted to not only to mischaracterize my comments, but slander another staffer. Indeed, she assisted me with my search for records.
Allegation No. 6: You state the late Senator Winters as a matter of fact. Neither of us knows this. Indeed, your investigation expresses that it was not the late Senator Winters who purchased the pins. I only told you what I was told. As you state that Senator Winters’ account was not used for the purchase, whose was? Do you know what member’s office purchased those pins? Did your investigation find the purchaser? Why it is necessary to bring the late Senator Winters’ into this, other than to discredit me, or derive some sympathy from the reader for your report. You could simply state another ‘member’ that is what we call all the elected senators and representatives. These repeated comments on your part are mystifying, and portray a cruelty.
VIII. Recommendations: Your recommendations do not address the Remedy List I was required to provide within my Rule 27 Complaint. None of those ‘Remedies’ required discipline of Senate President Courtney. Again, is this a mischaracterization of my complaint, or my intent? You could easily non-substantiate the need for the 5 Remedies as you have done with the complaint itself, rather than make it appear my remedy was to discipline the Senate President. Or you could have said something even shorter than addressing the Remedies. Indeed, what kind of discipline would there be for a Senate President? You comment begs the question, and again casts aspersions on me.
Lastly, the entire report insidiously and deliberately diminishes my person. Your use of descriptive words, innuendo, and remarks are intent on placing me in a diminutive light. This report does not require that you insult, or diminish the complainant; however, you have done so repeatedly. Are you a prosecutor or an independent investigator? Must you belittle the whistle 4 Case 39 Exhibit 5 - Page 4 of 5 blower, or the complainant? I must still work at the Oregon State Capitol, and I must still work with employees that you have mentioned within this document. This report, albeit confidential now will become a public document as it is a ‘formal’ complaint. Indeed it has most likely already been leaked. Your tone as is currently prescribed in this draft could be seen by many as an attempt at retaliation and retribution itself. It could also be seen as written in a manner to encourage me to withdraw my complaint or face retribution of your words and report. Deals have been made in the past, and many staffers have withdrawn their complaints, in fear. This is called conspiracy under federal civil law as you know full well. It appears this tried and true method may be in play again. As I mentioned during one of our discussions, I do not know a single legislative employee who has had a successful outcome from a Rule 27 Complaint. I have seen them brutalized in hearings though, when they gave testimony. This is not necessary. Your outcomes of the complaint ruling can remain unchanged in your estimation ‘not substantiated’ without personal attacks on me, the complainant. Please consider the language you use, and the casting of aspersions that you direct toward me and my position as a Staffer in the Oregon State Senate, a Small Business Owner, an Officer and Board Member, of a variety of Boards and Organizations, and Non-Profits, and a Veteran.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Boquist Oregon State Employee
5 Case 39 Exhibit 5 - Page 5 of 5