When an apology doesn't cut it

We are not finished with Janet Barekgate.

None of her colleagues uttered a sound when Commissioner Barek read a prepared apology at the last board meeting for her racially insensitive remarks made at a staff briefing.

I kinda thought we were done with that. Commissioners didn’t pursue the issue, and the public seems ready to move on.

---

Commissioner Jeff Kinnard has other ideas.

Kinnard has on Tuesday’s board agenda a resolution “rejecting” her "inappropriate comments” and that they violated the board’s ordinance.

It’s the closest to a censure as the County Commission can get. The resolution accuses her of wrongdoing, convicts her of wrongdoing, and says the other commissioners do not condone her actions.

Actually, it’s worse for Barek than a censure. I’ll explain in a minute.

“This Resolution is necessary to require compliance with our Code and to demonstrate the County’s dedication to providing a workplace that is free from rude, offensive, intolerant, or otherwise inappropriate comments, actions, or materials,” the agenda memo reads.

Read the resolution here. I have a few thoughts:

— The code that Kinnard refers to is related to workplace harassment. Remember Barek's specific circumstances: Staff briefing for a commissioner prior to the board meeting. Agenda stuff. Don’t know who’s in the room, but at least the administrator, assistant administrator, county attorney, and tourism director. And Commissioner Barek, whose run-on commentary about 1960s affirmative action offended the tourism official, who is African-American.

Here’s the thing about harassment: It’s not whether you meant it, it’s how I received it. So, when Commissioner Barek says she meant no harm, and yet someone was harmed by her words, that sounds like textbook workplace harassment.

— However. There’s a right way to go about this, and a wrong way. Kinnard has chosen the wrong way. Here’s why:

Had this situation involved a regular county employee, and not a commissioner, there would have been an immediate investigation. From what’s been reported, the tourism director told the administrator that Barek’s comments were hurtful and made him uncomfortable. The administrator had him write it up in an email. OK, there’s the complaint.

The policy for employees: “All complaints will be investigated expeditiously.” Certainly makes sense, and it’s even one I suggested a few weeks back.

Why was this not investigated in a proper manner? I mean…it’s not rocket science. The human resource office does this all the time. Interview everyone who was in the room that day so we not only know what was said, but the proper context. Was anyone else in the room offended by Barek's remarks and didn't speak up? Did others try to move the conversation along? If so, how did they do that and what was the commissioner’s response?

The county’s own regulation spells out a simple process for protecting employees from harassment and ensuring those accused of harassment are judged fairly. Kinnard’s proposed resolution ignores that process and jumps right into guilt without details.

If we’re going to do this, at least conduct the investigation.

— Here’s where it gets really tricky. The resolution says Barek violated the workplace harassment policy. The policy states:

“Any such actions by county officers in violation of this section shall be malfeasance within the meaning of Article IV, Section 7(a) of the State Constitution.”

A commissioner is a county officer. This section of the Constitution allows the governor to suspend a county officer for malfeasance. 

See where this is headed? The County Commission passes a resolution saying Barek violated its workplace harassment policy, that makes her guilty of malfeasance, and thus open to removal from office by the governor. I'm not suggesting that's the game plan, though the commission could admonish Barek in a less intrusive manner.

Frankly, this has political stinky poo smeared all over it.

Debate all you want about whether Janet Barek deserves 50 lashes with a wet noodle or not, but the timing is off. We’re a month removed from the incident. The public has moved on to the next zoning debacle.

Plus, and I’ll go ahead and say it, many readers have noted that Chair Rebecca Bays and County Administrator Steve Howard skated unscathed in the 491 mess. To ignore that and then come down hard on Janet Barek over a comment in a staff meeting seems, um, disingenuous at best.

Had this come up two weeks ago, it would be commissioners protecting their employees. To wait a beat and bring it back, it’s just pure gotcha politics. 

That’s it for Thursday. Have a great one, friends.

​Join the discussion on our Facebook page.

Support the blog by subscribing to JWC Inner Circle for 99 cents/month.

Individual donations are appreciated through Venmo, PayPal, or Patreon.