00:00:01:13 - 00:00:22:04 Speaker 1 Good evening, everyone. My name is Krista Carlino. I am the chair of the Investigative Committee. I'm joined by my colleagues this evening. It is Thursday, May 29th, 2025. We are in room 221 and we will begin tonight's meeting with introductions from councilors beginning to my left. 00:00:22:06 - 00:00:28:05 Speaker 2 Thank you, Madam Chair. Josh Bayne, District 21. Thank you, Madam Chair. Brian Maori District 25. 00:00:28:07 - 00:00:31:10 Speaker 1 Thank you, Madam Chair. René Allen District 15 Thank you. 00:00:31:10 - 00:00:33:23 Speaker 2 Chairwoman Andy Nielsen District 14. 00:00:34:00 - 00:00:34:13 Speaker 3 Thank you, Madam. 00:00:34:13 - 00:00:37:08 Speaker 1 Chair. Kirsten Jones District 18 Thank you. 00:00:37:08 - 00:00:40:01 Speaker 4 Chairwoman Jessica McCormick District 16. 00:00:40:03 - 00:01:06:12 Speaker 1 And again, District 11. Krista Carlino. We have one item on our agenda this evening to receive the official update and final report from the Fisher Phillips Law firm, which we have retained. I can see technology is working well, so I'll begin with a brief opening statement. As many of you know, last year, my colleagues and I on the council made it clear and firm commitment. 00:01:06:14 - 00:01:42:07 Speaker 1 Harassment in the workplace will not be tolerated in the city of Indianapolis. And with unanimous support from both sides of the aisle, we established an investigative committee and we are going to take action on that commitment. Our primary role was to hire an independent out of state law firm with no political ties to Indianapolis. After reviewing several firms and with unanimous support from this committee, we retained Fisher Phillips, one of the nation's top ten employment law firms. 00:01:42:09 - 00:02:09:23 Speaker 1 They come to us widely respected and trusted in their field, and they were tasked with investigating how the mayor's administration responded to harassment allegations involving a former cabinet member and with providing policy recommendations to strengthen and create more robust reporting mechanisms and protections for city employees. I want to be clear this committee has not been involved in the investigation itself. 00:02:10:00 - 00:02:33:10 Speaker 1 That responsibility rested solely with the Fisher Phillips team as intended. We understood from the beginning that retaining a law firm with the qualifications would come with a cost. But we also understood that ensuring accountability and preventing future incidents of harassment had to be our top priority. Today we're here to receive the final report, as I indicated, and to protect the integrity of the process. 00:02:33:11 - 00:02:56:20 Speaker 1 The report was not shared in advance with counsel or members of the public, allowing the Fisher Phillips team to present their findings directly and without influence. With that, I'd like to now turn it over to the Fisher Phillips team to present the final report. Hello, Danielle. How are you? 00:02:56:22 - 00:02:58:23 Speaker 3 Well. 00:02:59:00 - 00:03:04:07 Speaker 1 We can hear you. It's not the best time to try to make you try again. 00:03:04:09 - 00:03:11:01 Speaker 3 Yeah, I thought I heard some static that began when we began speaking to her, you know, so. 00:03:11:03 - 00:03:33:20 Speaker 1 I'm not sure. Maybe you sound much better. I'm going to mute myself. I'm just. I was just going to say I'm going to mute myself. Turn off my microphone. You can. You have the floor. Thank you, Miss Case, not her microphone. 00:03:33:21 - 00:03:58:08 Speaker 3 So I will I will proceed. Thank you very much. But anyway, you need to speak louder for the check for something. Please give up now. So again, thanks very much for that. Welcome. My name is Daniel Hayes and I will partner at the law firm District of That's to offer a serious general resignation from the board. One investment times. 00:03:58:08 - 00:04:26:24 Speaker 3 Our firm is conducting an independent investigation. A certain allegation from an SMOLENS at the administration. It has a review. It is to get a new set of systems policy services to investigation facilities under Resolution 41. And we talk with parents on the situation. We work with our families, as was mentioned, is that report was internal to the council. 00:04:27:01 - 00:04:52:08 Speaker 3 We will wrap around this evidence more and more important to assist by the standards frameworks to see historically. 00:04:52:10 - 00:05:26:07 Speaker 1 We can see it if you could maximize the screen or present it so that it's more clearly viewable, viewable for those at home and in the audience. Many of them, some of us. 00:05:26:09 - 00:05:41:14 Speaker 3 But there is some difference with the standards that 5.4% or whatever it is, half a million standards. 00:05:41:16 - 00:05:50:12 Speaker 1 Can you move to the second slide? I think I better put. 00:05:50:14 - 00:06:06:23 Speaker 3 Together from simple is divided into three phases. We will set the performance from the sets, the user interface through the beginning stages. We have to address the second step in phase three and provide an up to date providing for investigative committee. 00:06:06:23 - 00:06:09:17 Speaker 1 Content. 00:06:09:19 - 00:06:34:01 Speaker 3 And then engagement into the interviews. Part of the visuals and those are important probably basic principles that we're working out. Two books that I would almost always do for the people. We empower those in our report as important as one lesson. So we also have a clip of staff from Pakistan once or. 00:06:34:01 - 00:06:34:18 Speaker 5 Twice. 00:06:34:20 - 00:06:35:06 Speaker 3 Over one. 00:06:35:07 - 00:06:49:06 Speaker 1 Thousand peers. We're having really serious difficulties here in here. Up here. I don't know if it's if the same is for members of the audience, but yes, it's quite difficult. 00:06:49:08 - 00:07:04:13 Speaker 3 It's quite difficult for me to sit here as well as we started. Let me just get better will show. 00:07:04:15 - 00:07:10:01 Speaker 1 Should we let her know you're going to restart the meeting? Okay. We're going to restart the meeting. Daniel. 00:07:10:03 - 00:07:11:18 Speaker 2 The person for the. 00:07:11:20 - 00:07:34:00 Speaker 1 Virtually it seems like the connection is maybe poor on your end. So but let's try and do a restart. I think my colleagues would agree that it's important that we hear everything as crystal clear as possible and then, yes, larger as well. 00:07:34:02 - 00:07:37:05 Speaker 2 Why didn't they come in person for this. 00:07:37:07 - 00:07:38:24 Speaker 1 Cost, frankly. 00:07:39:01 - 00:07:41:07 Speaker 2 As much as we pay them, they can't afford to get down here. 00:07:41:09 - 00:09:00:09 Unknown So we have to continue it here. 00:09:00:09 - 00:09:00:23 Speaker 3 And can you hear me? 00:09:00:24 - 00:09:09:17 Speaker 1 Does maybe speak a little bit more. It was garbled at the end. 00:09:09:17 - 00:09:15:17 Speaker 3 Daniel, I do not. 00:09:15:19 - 00:09:37:11 Speaker 1 Know if you as their captioning capability. Yes. 00:09:37:13 - 00:09:39:03 Speaker 5 I think so. 00:09:39:05 - 00:09:47:07 Speaker 1 Daniel, would you mind saying a few words? We're going to try to produce a transcript for caption. 00:09:47:09 - 00:09:54:22 Speaker 3 So listen, you better. 00:09:54:24 - 00:10:02:09 Speaker 1 The sound is not better, but we can see your words Turn her. Careful. If she turns. 00:10:02:09 - 00:10:07:09 Speaker 3 Our camera off, it may be her connection. 00:10:07:11 - 00:10:33:15 Speaker 1 That's a fair point. Thank you for that. I'm going to present and then try to present your slides once again. Please. Where is that happening in here? I don't know what's happening behind the curtain. You can like as it gets smaller. 00:10:33:17 - 00:10:40:24 Speaker 3 In that you see. 00:10:41:01 - 00:10:50:01 Speaker 1 It is perfect. All right, Danielle, let's let's try this. 00:10:50:03 - 00:11:23:23 Speaker 3 Well. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate the circumstance. I don't consider you so. But I started to say this, that our public works items replace some of last night with this council and sometimes based on your face to you, immediately stupid enough for us to discuss, based and provide update on our reports that you hear today. Our investigation included the dates of 12 individuals. 00:11:24:00 - 00:11:49:02 Speaker 3 These included two women. Look families against the premier males staff a list privacy implications. We identify those women I reports as complainants one and complainant two Just trying to make sure that you can still hear me well. 00:11:49:04 - 00:11:53:01 Speaker 1 We can still hear you. Well, Danielle, thank you. 00:11:53:03 - 00:12:31:01 Speaker 3 Okay. Thank you very much. We identify in our reports the former chief of staff that some women complained as respondents in our presentation and in the reports in addition to the two complaint, this one complainants who we interviewed there have said we also interviewed nine other individuals who are current or former members of the administration. We note that we did reach out to the respondents multiple times and requested an interview, but we received no response of likes. 00:12:31:01 - 00:13:04:19 Speaker 3 We share a few points that are important considerations and we're providing aspects of our investigation. The first is all witness memories have stated, given the passage of 5 to 7 years since the underlying events occurred, this was expected. It is normal. Our investigation also has evaluated what people knew at the time of these complaints as it would be inappropriate to impute current knowledge of any witnesses past state of mind. 00:13:04:21 - 00:13:49:06 Speaker 3 We also consider the state of the law in and harassment training and processes as they existed at the time of each complaints. We also notes that the acknowledged mutuality of certain conduct must be considered in analyzing response to each complaints. We also note, though, that nothing in our report should be read or interpreted as condoning respondent's alleged conduct towards Complainant one or complainant two, but also nothing that our report should be read or interpreted as being critical or questioning the intent in timing or credibility of Complainant one A complainant to allegations against the respondent. 00:13:49:08 - 00:14:22:16 Speaker 3 And finally, this presentation here tonight provides an overview summary and does not contain all of our findings, determinations or conclusions which are contained in our final report. Now, we'd like to move through some of our factual findings. First, at the beginning of the New Year, Hub sets administration. In 2015, the city county Air Division provided near Hogsett and his appointed officials a copy of the City County's employee handbook that contains employee policies and an anti sexual harassment policy. 00:14:22:18 - 00:14:50:02 Speaker 3 We also note that merit Hobson and appointed officials, including the respondents and new employees. Once we identify in our report as employee, A is completed to try to complete sexual harassment training by watching a subject matter video. This was a general practice for public entities and companies at the time, and this was likely a compliance that's prior to 2017. 00:14:50:04 - 00:15:18:22 Speaker 3 No one had complaints about the respondents when he worked with Joe had said at the U.S. district Attorney's Office or at the House Subcommittee for Indianapolis, which we may refer to sometimes as a complaint of staff campaign. Additionally, during our investigation, no one contacted us directly or through the City County's anonymous reporting system to report any allegations against responded providing nothing to all of us that receive this report. 00:15:18:22 - 00:15:33:15 Speaker 3 Yet the first known allegation against was involving a personal or sexual relationship with a coworker was raised on May 12, 2017. 00:15:33:17 - 00:15:38:17 Speaker 3 Do we have a response to that? May 12, 2017 Allegations. 00:15:38:17 - 00:15:41:09 Speaker 1 Point of order. Pardon me, Daniel. In point. 00:15:41:09 - 00:15:42:22 Speaker 3 Of order. First, we share a number. 00:15:42:22 - 00:15:43:16 Speaker 1 When not accepting. 00:15:43:16 - 00:16:22:00 Speaker 3 Public Converse. The City council never explained the complaint. It won, but to survive it was allegations provide support. It's like this at the Indiana Democratic beat. But she responded because the city county never employed complaint one. It has no real basis to file investigation. Her application second, if the complainant is not city county employee, his neighbor is not an employee. 00:16:22:02 - 00:16:57:19 Speaker 3 The city county does not have a legal obligation to address the complaints. That said, a 2070 17 investigation into complaints allegations did occur. The Hogsett campaign retains the staff to offer attorney material to conduct an investigation, and that was conducted. There was a 2017 investigation report regarding that investigation. The allegation was made that the attorney did not interview Complainant one. 00:16:57:21 - 00:17:36:23 Speaker 3 Investigation confirms that facts and found it appeared the investigation relied on complainant was verbal communications as well as her social media posts containing her allegations against the respondent. We also note that in this context, Complainant one publicly announced her intention not to move forward with a formal complaint against the respondent through the Indiana Democratic Party. Despite this fact, the Hogsett campaign initiated an investigation utilizing all information available from complainant one up until the 2017 report. 00:17:37:00 - 00:18:21:18 Speaker 3 The complainant to one also alleged that she did not know about the 2017 investigation. We found this was true. On that issue, you reach the following determinations. The decision not to notify complainant one interfere. The 2017 investigation or to provide its conclusion. Jones reasonably placed the existence of a 2017 investigation into question. We notes, though, that opining on the decision not to involve or inform completed one of the facts of the 2017 investigation and report falls outside the scope of general Resolution 41 and our investigation. 00:18:21:20 - 00:19:03:21 Speaker 3 However, we note the mayor did not act in the course in scope of his role as the mayor. Regarding Complainant one her allegations and the resulting 2017 investigation and report. Additionally, House did not respond to complainant one after engaging legal counsel, which reflects customary practice as a result of the 2017 investigation. We make the following findings complaint. It was 2017 allegations regarding respondent's conduct in 2014, regarding his conduct in 2014, when he was not a city county employee. 00:19:03:23 - 00:19:40:21 Speaker 3 Also, the city County had no legal obligation to issue respondents a directive directed based on conduct predating his employment. But its it May 2017 Directive See respondents constitute an appropriate preventative and proactive measure where sex directed works for respondents to not engage in relationships with his coworkers, and that was appropriate and warranted. The respondent personnel file did not reflect this directive to him and that was appropriate. 00:19:40:23 - 00:20:01:15 Speaker 3 As disgusting. Additionally, the city did not want to play the woman in your cup, says the respondent, and that was appropriate. Now we turn to investigate the allegations involving a 2020 investigation. 00:20:01:17 - 00:20:35:17 Speaker 3 In October 2020, the city county received a complaint from a city county employee about a consensual relationship between someone that he will identify as employee A and the respondents while at work, the deputy mayor reported the allegations to the H.R. director, who then began an investigation. Where how does that make the decision for the city county to retain attorney, civil to an investigation and make recommendations? 00:20:35:19 - 00:20:55:13 Speaker 3 A 2020 investigation did occur, and it concluded on October 2nd, 2020, with a report. The investigation found that both employee A and the respondent had violated the city county's non fraternization policy. 00:20:55:15 - 00:21:20:09 Speaker 3 As a result, their house told the respondent that he had to leave the city's employment based on that investigation disclosed to his new employer the reason for his departure. And he had to bring his work on projects to a close, conditioned on the fact that he had no interaction with the employee and not retaliated against anyone who may have been involved in the investigation. 00:21:20:11 - 00:21:55:17 Speaker 3 We provide a timeline of this. These days events, you will see that an investigation report was completed on November 2nd, 2020, and I just under 70 2020. The respondents submitted his resignation notice effective December 31st, 2020 complete. It was 2017 complaint served as the basis of the City County's 2020 decision to separate the risk from the stop. The respondent from his employment in late 2020. 00:21:55:19 - 00:22:38:23 Speaker 3 We address whether the law allowed the city to let the respondent finish his work projects before separating employment with the City Council on December 31st, 2020. And our determination is yes, but nothing in the law prohibited from allowing him to finish those projects before exiting his employment. We note that respondent worked for 68 days after he was given the directive as a result of the 2020 report and the specific projects that respondent worked for or unknown so many notes that they did serve in late 2020 during post-pandemic or during the pandemic. 00:22:39:00 - 00:23:02:15 Speaker 3 We noted these projects are unknown and that is significant because there were witnesses that perceive that respondent may have negotiated contracts for his personal benefit before his exit. That said, during our investigation, it was revealed that respondent had significant involvement in the city county economic development projects and likely was one of the most knowledgeable parties to those projects in the financing. 00:23:02:17 - 00:23:28:03 Speaker 3 It was revealed that respondent knew what economic development contracts related to financing contracts and then the active economic development projects in works based on this knowledge and the circumstances surrounding Respondent's departure. The perception of the potential for the respondent to act outside his legal obligations by using those relationships of key parties to secure legal work. Post employment at the city. 00:23:28:03 - 00:24:22:16 Speaker 3 County, whether through third parties or those involved in the project, such as developers and the perception that he used knowledge positions himself to secure legal work is reasonable. We confirmed bonding records and they reflect that. Respondent did appear before its board on October 18, 2021. This suggests a further factual inquiry, but we note that the scope of our investigation pursuant to general resolution does not include investigation into respondent's actions in the 68 day period regarding the City Funds Economic Development Project portfolio, or whether respondent complied with statutory regulations regarding his responsibilities post City County employment. 00:24:22:18 - 00:24:55:17 Speaker 3 We also were not in a position to investigate this further based on documentation. Therefore, we recommend that the city county consider investigating these two issues. We now turn to the 2023 investigation. This investigation involves allegations raised by completed two against the respondents when they were reported in 2023. We note that complainant works for the city council as opposed to complainant was one. 00:24:55:19 - 00:25:34:22 Speaker 3 Complainant two was a constituent services assistant in 2016 and 2019. Complainant two became a consistent services manager, but she left the city from Erie County Democratic Party. In 2021. She returned to the city party and until August 2022, she worked as the Chief Communications officer. The allegations made by Complainant two occurred when respondent worked as the Chief Deputy mayor, Chief of Staff. 00:25:34:24 - 00:25:35:15 Unknown As in this. 00:25:35:18 - 00:26:12:14 Speaker 3 Matter, no witness interview, including those close to the complainants name without complaint two and respondents being in a personal or sexual relationship while they were both employed by the city. County Jury Respondent disappointed with the City Council complainants who did not make a complaint against the respondents. We ask when to complete it, to first make a complaint against the respondent and investigate it that we do not have completed to meet with Miss Schaefer in disclosed years for a relationship with responded that ended in 2020. 00:26:12:16 - 00:26:49:14 Speaker 3 Respondent was not a city county employee at the time that she met with her, and it's important to note Complainant two made clear that that meeting and disclosure was not made as a report to the administration, but in a personal friendship, capacity and complainant to specifically state and confirm she did not want that shared complaint is to first reports that occurred September 20, 23 when she asked to meet with the mayor to talk about respondent's abusive behavior. 00:26:49:16 - 00:27:03:02 Speaker 3 Neither complainant two or respondent, worked for the city attorney at that time, the complainant met with the mayor and corporate counsel. She recorded her allegations against the respondents. 00:27:03:04 - 00:27:42:20 Speaker 3 She also made requests. She asked that the city county not use respondent to represent it as a lawyer. Complainant two also wanted to work with the city county on improving its anti-harassment portfolio unless the complaint to ask the Mayor has yet to find any association with respondent. We notes that we do not apply that complaint To delay in reporting was unreasonable for various reasons, including that this involves highly personal information involving her allegations and positions of the court. 00:27:42:22 - 00:28:24:14 Speaker 3 In response to this report. Set the state Attorney General to investigate complainants whose allegations for the city attorney and to provide recommendations on the investigation. The review complainants, whose complaint claims interviewed her if its determinations and make recommendations on October 30th, 2023. As a result of these three investigations, we provide our determinations. First of all, with respect to the 2078 complaints, the city did not have a legal obligation. 00:28:24:16 - 00:28:55:05 Speaker 3 She had completed one and responded because they were not city county employees, regardless, the city, county and the mayor. So they received me, the mayor impose a directive on the respondents to prohibit him from having any personal, intimate relationships with city county female employees. We find that this response was legally compliant with respect to the 2020 investigation. It was investigated and all involved were employees of the city. 00:28:55:05 - 00:29:29:16 Speaker 3 County. As a result of that investigation, the city county separated employment with the respondents and we found that this response was legally compliance with respect to the 2023 complaints. This also was investigated and it involved alleged conduct. Well, both employees were employed at the city company. As a result of those allegations. The city attorney's bond be terminated to serve as context accord with the respondents. 00:29:29:18 - 00:30:00:22 Speaker 3 Excuse me, 61 second. So this had a slider. 00:30:00:24 - 00:30:10:01 Unknown I know how much people. 00:30:10:03 - 00:30:12:20 Speaker 3 They keep their patience. One moment. 00:30:12:22 - 00:30:15:14 Speaker 1 Yeah. We were standing by. Daniele. 00:30:15:14 - 00:31:09:21 Speaker 3 Thank you. But right after that, she got into the investigation. Also alleges that the mayor implemented a general resolution in 2024, that the city attorney also expand the scope and reach of mandatory sexual harassment training to ensure that all employees were aware of available resources for reporting improper workshops, workplace relationships and sexual harassment, among other misconduct. And in November 24, the city county affiliates implemented the anonymous reporting software speak fully, which we find is an effective tool is a more. 00:31:09:23 - 00:31:10:06 Speaker 5 Pleasant. 00:31:10:07 - 00:31:42:15 Speaker 3 Inclusion. We find the city county's H.R. systems and policies worse officials at all relevant relevant times as they met the legal requirements and reflected similar practices and standards for that time. Nonetheless, our investigation identifies options for the committee's consideration, which are intended to support improvements of the city's anti-sexual harassment policies and procedures to more effectively handle alleged violations. 00:31:42:17 - 00:32:03:11 Speaker 3 The first is the automated appointment of a separate, I hope, Inspector general as needed, and this would be to investigate city County policies, violations filed by state or appointed officials as necessary in order to provide examples of other cities in point of order and their inspector general structures. 00:32:03:13 - 00:32:06:17 Speaker 1 Also, the president here this, I think. 00:32:06:17 - 00:32:09:05 Speaker 3 By statute in public stockings. 00:32:09:07 - 00:32:11:02 Speaker 1 As the please pause. 00:32:11:04 - 00:32:17:13 Speaker 3 The robust decrease it is centers office can be an opportunity. 00:32:17:15 - 00:32:20:13 Speaker 5 Here you said we would have these. 00:32:20:13 - 00:32:21:23 Speaker 4 Point of order. 00:32:22:00 - 00:32:23:16 Speaker 3 And. 00:32:23:18 - 00:32:24:00 Speaker 1 If. 00:32:24:00 - 00:32:24:17 Speaker 3 You. 00:32:24:19 - 00:32:32:22 Speaker 1 Continue to allow the colleagues and I have to ask you to step out I can't hear this. I want to be able to implement these recommendations. 00:32:32:24 - 00:32:34:21 Speaker 3 Really, you have to have the gavel. 00:32:34:21 - 00:32:38:08 Speaker 4 Survivors, point of order. This is one of the survivors. 00:32:38:10 - 00:32:42:08 Speaker 1 Elise, please step out or in the call, please. 00:32:42:10 - 00:32:45:07 Speaker 3 He also recommends a But. 00:32:45:09 - 00:32:56:01 Speaker 4 Miss Danielle, could you pause for a moment, please? Sorry to interrupt. 00:32:56:03 - 00:32:57:19 Unknown Chris, this is Lauren Roberts. 00:32:57:19 - 00:33:08:10 Speaker 1 I tried reaching you on your phone. I'm sure it's on silence. Madam Counsel, how sure we're going to take out the survivor? I want to hear the report. You're going to. 00:33:08:10 - 00:33:15:00 Speaker 5 Kick out the survivors trying to pick out to tell you that Carolyn and I, the survivor, not just survive. 00:33:15:00 - 00:33:16:18 Speaker 4 We're trying to get. 00:33:16:20 - 00:33:35:03 Speaker 1 Your your impeding the business of the committee and the members of the public to hear this report. Please allow us to hear the report. And I would love to allow you to talk in the future. Please let us hear this report tonight. Now, this is not this is disruptive of our public meeting. 00:33:35:05 - 00:33:37:06 Speaker 4 Madam Chair, speaking. 00:33:37:08 - 00:33:44:05 Speaker 1 Take 2 minutes to listen, please. We're going to have a recess right here. 00:33:44:07 - 00:34:01:20 Unknown It's still causing harm, not just recess. I would appreciate that. Very minimal impact from this scene. I had no problems. 00:34:01:21 - 00:34:08:18 Speaker 5 Talking to about supporting survivors. This place where it's your own power, I can't help it now when it actually comes. 00:34:08:18 - 00:34:11:03 Speaker 3 To helping us to please take my call. 00:34:11:05 - 00:34:37:04 Speaker 1 Our lawyer has not yet received a report online and gov. And we have two more slides, three more slides from the Fisher Phillips team. And seeing as how I've gaveled us back in, we will continue. I believe you are on the first conclusions page. Danielle is right here. 00:34:37:06 - 00:34:46:08 Speaker 3 In my life. Thank you from my life. So I was on the subject during the IRC conclusions page, but would you like me to repeat the first one? 00:34:46:12 - 00:34:59:18 Speaker 1 Yes please. Yes. I believe this first page is conclusions. Four things the Council should consider. And then the second stage is for the executive of France. Thank you. 00:34:59:20 - 00:35:33:00 Speaker 3 Thank you. Yes. So we find that city and state start systems and policies were sufficient at the head times as they met legal standards and reflected similar practice and standards for that time. Nonetheless Our investigation identifies options for the committee's consideration, which are intended to support improvements of the city's anti-sexual harassment policy and procedures, some more actively handling alleged violations. 00:35:33:02 - 00:36:05:04 Speaker 3 The first is that inter business appointments of a temporary ad hoc inspector general as needed and has decided this would be to investigate city council policy violations by elected or appointed as needed. We provided for examples of other cities and counties and the inspector general structure for consideration and review and analysis. The next option is to replace the current h.r. 00:36:05:04 - 00:36:44:10 Speaker 3 Division with an independent human resources board that shall be created with a human resources agency led by a human resources officer. And he knows that a similar model framework to consider is that of the current i.t. Board. Another option is to remove the current office of equal opportunity from the City Council control. It creates the Ohio as a separate independent office with jurisdiction increased to include any city county employee complaints and additional recommendations. 00:36:44:12 - 00:37:18:10 Speaker 3 We suggest that the City County Council consider requesting that the Executive branch inform us the following an update of all instances harassment, anti-discrimination, retaliation and nonprofit organization policies and associated reporting systems that would include adding websites, employee portals and physical workspaces for the anonymous reporting line. Also, consider updating all training models for leadership, supervisors, managers and employees to ensure that they fully support the city. 00:37:18:10 - 00:38:02:01 Speaker 3 County implementing, monitoring and ensuring compliance with its policies and reporting systems to the mayor to also consider tracking, training completed by elected or appointed officials and city county employees with mechanisms to ensure timely completion and ensure that those models for all incoming elected and appointed officials are completed within the first ten days. With that, we have now completed the second part of our scope of work in phase three as we have it up here before the Investment Committee investigative Committee, and provided an update on this report. 00:38:02:03 - 00:38:12:20 Speaker 3 We are here to continue to provide any additional support as needed by the City County Council, but that we complete our presentation and involvement. 00:38:12:24 - 00:38:53:21 Speaker 1 SESSIONS Thank you, Danielle. We have in our package councilors a hard copy of that presentation for you to review and then a hard copy of what is a 54 page report. And at this time I will open up the floor to comments or questions from councilors here. Councilor Nilsen. 00:38:53:23 - 00:39:18:14 Speaker 2 Thank you, Chairwoman. As just a point of information before I do have some comments, but I think at this point, can we can we get the report out, please? Can we click send. And so it's just publicly available at this point in time. Okay. Okay. Well, I would I would ask that whoever is sitting by. Yeah, great. Thank you. 00:39:18:16 - 00:40:00:12 Speaker 2 Yeah. So, um, yeah, I have a few comments. Um, I want to thank council staff and the Fisher Phillips team and my colleagues for their efforts, this investigation and to the survivors and the victims for your strength and fortitude. Um, I recognize this process has taken some time, but it is in line with the proposal that created this committee and mandated a truly independent and thorough investigation into these very serious allegations. 00:40:00:14 - 00:40:31:10 Speaker 2 I know we are all just getting this report still out to come through this. We have a lot to a lot to learn in the in the presentation, a number of questions that led us to creating this committee regarding these allegations when they occurred and how they were handled by the mayor and the administration have been addressed. I recommend that this report be reviewed by the applicable and appropriate administrative bodies. 00:40:31:12 - 00:41:09:07 Speaker 2 Lawn's Force meant for Thoroughness. Given the nature of the allegations and that these entities have their own purview. What is clear from a matter of policy and good management is that Mr. Cooke should have been fired well before he left the Enterprise. There is no avoiding this conclusion and not doing so was a clear lack of judgment. His behavior was inappropriate, an abuse of power jeopardizing the public's trust in institutions we should and must hold to the highest standard. 00:41:09:09 - 00:41:41:12 Speaker 2 As our formal investigation draws to a close, we have to focus on a set of reforms that demonstrate we have actually learned from this, acknowledge it is unacceptable, protects city county employees and ensures taxpayer dollars from being spent on lawsuits. In investigations like these. I will be focused in particular on a few of these, and I don't want to get into it, but I just want to emphasize the need for a true independent H.R. system and process. 00:41:41:14 - 00:42:03:14 Speaker 2 Second And I know that this was highlighted in the report, in the presentation, but in line with number one is the creation of an accountability structure. Should allegations be made against a county executive? This has been something I know we have talked a lot about in this committee before, and we need to consider pursuing legislative remedy so elected executives don't go unchecked. 00:42:03:16 - 00:42:36:02 Speaker 2 And third, and finally, and I know this was also highlighted, but I really just want to emphasize this now. We need to strengthen the city's non fraternization policy and its implementation to leave. No question that we agree with H.R. best practices that consensual rent and sexual relationships cannot exist between a supervisor and a subordinate full stop. The imbalance in power is too great when someone can control both the financial and care career success of another individual. 00:42:36:04 - 00:42:59:13 Speaker 2 We should use the full extent of the law to make it a clear firable offense to be in a consensual arrangement. Romantic relationship with a subordinate or supervisor without an extremely clear no tolerance policy. I worry history could repeat itself and at some point we can be right back here. However, this is the work ahead. And again, thank you to all those involved for your hard work, care and courage. 00:42:59:13 - 00:43:01:00 Speaker 2 Thank you. 00:43:01:02 - 00:43:08:01 Speaker 1 Thank you. Councilor Neilson, other comments questions. Councilor Bain. 00:43:08:03 - 00:43:31:05 Speaker 2 Thank you, Madam Chair. Danielle, throughout the course of your investigation, do you feel that the administration and their law firm, um, Viguerie or Transparent, and um, you received all the relevant information, all information that you requested. 00:43:31:07 - 00:43:49:07 Speaker 3 That we receive relevant information that they requested, and we know that every witness that we spoke with and worked with and their attorneys were supportive. And we do find that they were forthcoming. There's no way. 00:43:49:09 - 00:44:03:02 Speaker 2 Do you believe the respondent was asked to leave the administration at an appropriate time, or should he have been asked to leave at an earlier date? 00:44:03:04 - 00:44:44:11 Speaker 3 Our view is whether that response was legally compliant. As we noted, we decided that it was legal. The compliance and it is we are unable to obtain the projects that he was working on that were advised to us, were special and important. And again, just note the context of the timing of when that occurred was in late 2020, which, you know, we do know that the city county was involved in projects relating to the CARES Act. 00:44:44:13 - 00:44:49:14 Speaker 1 Thank you, Councilor Bain. Councilor McCormick. 00:44:49:16 - 00:45:21:15 Speaker 4 Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree with my colleague, Councilor Neilson. He had a lot of really good points. I want to confirm and just state again that those of us sitting up here and we just received this when we sat down, so we have not had time to through. So I want everyone to know that tonight it's getting this information we have now have our job is starting to look at this three through, digest what it says, and then make policy to ensure this doesn't happen again. 00:45:21:17 - 00:45:54:11 Speaker 4 So decisions cannot be made tonight because this body can't make a single decision. We would have to write Right. Right. New policy. And so we will we now have the charge to do that and we are ready to do it. And I think my colleagues and our staff and Mr. Phillips for the work that they've done and I look forward to ensuring protecting the safety of city county employees and holding folks accountable to your back. 00:45:54:11 - 00:45:56:01 Speaker 4 Thank you. 00:45:56:03 - 00:46:26:09 Speaker 1 Thank you, Madam Chair. Other comments, questions. I think you said it best that our work is just beginning. And as chair, I commit to that work moving forward. Yes, Councilmember. 00:46:26:11 - 00:46:41:14 Speaker 2 Thank you, Madam Chair. Danielle, I have a question for you regarding the contact attempts to the complainants that you said. I believe you said you contacted them and you never heard back from any of them. Is that correct? 00:46:41:16 - 00:47:09:09 Speaker 3 It is fair to ask is whether our contacts to the complainants resulted in us not coming back to collect it in case there was any, you know, Miss Miss, you know, something else was heard. Our statement was that we contacted the respondents. Who was the individual, who was the former chief of staff that was complained about by the the women who were identified as complainants. 00:47:09:11 - 00:47:29:08 Speaker 3 The respondents did not respond to us and we were not able to speak with them despite multiple contacts. We did speak with both complainants one and complainant two multiple times and worked with them and received information and documents from them. 00:47:29:10 - 00:47:52:19 Speaker 2 Thank you. And just out of curiosity, kind of what was the nature of those conversations and from those conversations, what actions were then taken to, you know, I mean, we got this whole report here, but obviously I haven't had time to look at it because I just got it about an hour ago. So where are we at? Where what happened once you spoke to the complainants? 00:47:52:21 - 00:48:32:24 Speaker 3 Sure. So just to be clear, we reached out to the complainants and they retained an attorney. We worked with that attorney and communicating, setting up the interviews at a time that was convenient to them. And in requesting documents we did meet with both of the complainants by a video interview and again, that was multiple times. And you know, based on their availability and interest and you know, the links, we were very respectful of their wishes and how to proceed with interviews. 00:48:33:05 - 00:48:55:12 Speaker 3 And again, we felt they were very cooperative and forthcoming. We did receive documents from them as well and a few follow ups. And we believe that we received all the information from them that we needed for our investigation. And I think that completes our thoughts on that. 00:48:55:14 - 00:49:28:13 Speaker 2 Thank you. I appreciate you elaborating upon that. And, you know, I will be completely honest and frank with you. And I've said it here, this my colleagues as well as that for almost half a million taxpayer dollars, I was really kind of disappointed you guys weren't able to be here in person tonight. I would think with that much money, we'd be able to figure out how to accommodate, to get you down here, to actually present this rather than have to go through the the Zoom call or teams call whatever it is and have this interference, this technological interference that we experienced here. 00:49:28:13 - 00:49:41:08 Speaker 2 So I'm hoping in the future, if this ever has to happens again, I would hope it doesn't. But, you know, I hope we find a partner that will actually show up in person. Thank you. 00:49:41:10 - 00:49:42:14 Speaker 1 Say. 00:49:42:16 - 00:49:48:01 Speaker 3 Trust in science personally, but we we do appreciate your comments. 00:49:48:03 - 00:49:56:14 Speaker 1 Yeah, that's on me. I could advocate it better. And thank you for your comments, Counselor. Mallory That's Counselor me. 00:49:56:16 - 00:50:20:02 Speaker 2 Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, just trying to process all this because, again, we've had an hour to look through this. And, you know, when I go through this, it talks about, you know, legal standards being met. It's like maybe maybe this is just dawning on me now that, you know, maybe there's different standards, other legal standards, and I guess there's ethical standards and I guess there's moral standards. 00:50:20:04 - 00:51:06:06 Speaker 2 I kind of your moral is one. I guess, you know, the law. You I guess use it a little differently right now. But I think legally I don't know how the city didn't fall short, even though this report says that they that they did. I think morally and ethically we fell way short. And, you know, when I look at this and I'm on page 23 of the report has said that the respondent's overall behaviors impacted the work environment of other personnel did not reflect this business or professional practices, nor do they instill a feeling of respect. 00:51:06:11 - 00:51:37:05 Speaker 2 And others. But yet I look at the back of the report and it says all the legal standards were met and I can't help but find I find that somewhat conflicting. And again, maybe it's just because, you know, I view ethical and legal moral standards all in one. But, you know, I don't know how beneficial this report will be. 00:51:37:05 - 00:51:57:05 Speaker 2 At the end of the day. There's certainly good things that are being recommended. And this council has to take those up. But, you know, as the chairwoman said, I fully agree that our work is just beginning. 00:51:57:07 - 00:52:25:08 Speaker 1 You, Councilor Bain, and I actually wrote in my in my notes the word ethics ethics code, the code of conduct. So I appreciate that comment. Daniel, when you refer to being legal, being lawful, you're referring, I assume, to both federal and Indiana state law. Is that correct? 00:52:25:10 - 00:53:01:18 Speaker 3 That's right. That's right. And again, you know, our investigation considers what was reported at the time what was known at each time that the investigations set place. And we do distinguish between workplace behavior. That is I mean, tiny, you know, nasty, but that does not fall under a legal based on the protected characteristic always. And we're not what we're saying is that the response when things were raised was legally sufficient. 00:53:01:20 - 00:53:11:09 Speaker 1 Which is more stringent in cases like this federal law or state law in terms of like days to. 00:53:11:09 - 00:53:13:00 Speaker 3 Report sick. 00:53:13:02 - 00:53:17:05 Speaker 1 Pretty. Give me. 00:53:17:07 - 00:53:19:19 Speaker 3 Apologize that didn't to. 00:53:19:21 - 00:53:22:15 Speaker 1 I know you're kind of like other. 00:53:22:17 - 00:53:28:19 Speaker 3 People that are consistent with respect to sexual harassment. 00:53:28:21 - 00:53:37:18 Speaker 1 Okay counselor Mary. 00:53:37:20 - 00:53:59:07 Speaker 2 Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to echo Councilor Brent's sentiments there. And, you know, as he was speaking, one of the things I thought of was you're absolutely right with, you know, ethical and moral and where the line needs to be drawn. And, you know, I can't help but think if this happened in the private sector, does it get kicked down the road for so long? 00:53:59:07 - 00:54:26:04 Speaker 2 Does it get ignored for so long, or do they actually take action and tell that person, you're out of here, go pack your stuff, You're not going to get another 68 days, you're done. Unfortunately, that was not what happened in this case. He was allowed to stay for 68 days and then find employment and then benefit from his previous work with the city in that employment. 00:54:26:06 - 00:54:48:10 Speaker 2 And that can't be tolerated in the city. And we can't tolerate that as a governing body. We have to set a standard and we have to show people that we are going to do better. And I'm hoping from this report, while I I'm not shocked by its findings, I wish I wish it was a little different, but law lawyers will always at this point and we can't change that. 00:54:48:12 - 00:55:09:15 Speaker 2 But what we can do is look at how we can reshape some of these policies and then look into the future to be able to protect these people from these sort of wrong behaviors of people in power and people that are overseeing them. It's this is my hope for we can now take this back and really make change. 00:55:09:15 - 00:55:31:19 Speaker 2 But to say I'm shocked of the findings of this this report, I'm not that shocked. You know, I am kind of I don't have really shocked by the sticker price that we paid for this report. You know, these are taxpayer dollars going into this that could have been used elsewhere had we not been dealing with someone that had been nefarious in their acts. 00:55:31:21 - 00:55:49:19 Speaker 2 And I would hope that, you know, we will move forward in the right direction. And for the survivors sake, I hope they get a copy of this and they have an opportunity to really digest this and review this with their appropriate context. Think about your peculiar marriage. 00:55:49:21 - 00:56:40:22 Speaker 1 Sorry. Okay, counselor, My other comments. Danielle Fisher Phillips team, I appreciate your hard work as well through this process. It's been it's been a long several months and similar to Counselor Nielsen, when I thank our staff counselor Pearce for for your time and attention as we worked through this period of time. It's not been an easy process at all, and I know the wait has been excruciating for those survivors. 00:56:40:24 - 00:57:19:11 Speaker 1 The real work begins now, though, and our commitment on this committee is to work to take into consideration these recommendations and findings, implement policy to create a safer harassment free work environment for current and future city employees. Our primary role is complete, but the secondary role begins. And with that, I move to adjourn with with summer study and work ahead of us.