The Rushville Truth

Could there be unbiased journalism?

In the past on this site, there has been a question of whether the media in a small town can be unbiased. This came into question specifically when reporting on first responders and those who they report to further up the food chain. Many claimed a look the other way attitude, while those who defended the claim always alleged this favoritism to be unfounded and exaggerated.

Let it be stated in advance that further education and training are a quality that we should all strive to achieve. The point is not decry a person for trying to better their life, but whether the checks and balances system can exist in this arrangement.

Let’s say for the sake of conversation we had a local media member who had been enrolled EMT training. Can a member of the media be unbiased when reporting about those who they aspire to work for and with? Can you feverishly investigate an institution that you might in the future make application to? Can you be subject in a situation like this? It is my modest opinion this type of situation has to lead a media that is by nature coy and timid in areas where confrontation on such topics exist.

1. So when is the next sitting for the Indiana Department of Homeland Security Emergency Service EMT and Paramedic State Exam Certification program?

2. Is this what they mean when they say ‘advocacy journalism?’

3. Does this type situation stifle creative investigative journalism?

4. Can you report during the day and ride during the night?

5. Can the general public connect the dots that lead from this story to those stories that were not covered or under covered by the media in the past?

6. When they say it starts at the top, where is the top?

In closing, best of luck on the exam and hopes for a bright and successful future!  Maybe the next generation of media will not aspire to become those they report about.

We could have licked this problem

I think with all the serious topics circulating, it is time for one slightly more abstract. I am a big pet lover (not in a biblical way or anything).

Two of the recent topics have dealt with serious issues that if we could have combined them, we might have been able to avert the tragedy.

The Fire Department had a need to buy some equipment, and the recently released animal shelter employee wanted to help animals and keep her job. I now introduce: Bark 10-4™ Campaign

From the Bark 10-4 website:

“Annually, an estimated half million pets are affected by fires in the United States and more than 40,000 pets die each year due to smoke inhalation. With the right equipment, police, fire and emergency medical service (EMS) rescuers can often save a pet's life. Losing a pet in a house fire can be a devastating experience for a family member. SurgiVet® Pet Oxygen Masks are effective with dogs, cats and other companion animals, but only if they are on hand at the scene of an emergency.

Smiths Medical, the US manufacturer of the SurgiVet® brand of animal health products, announced today that it has teamed up with Bark Buckle UP® to launch the “Bark 10-4™” campaign. During October, which is National Fire Safety Month, industry leaders and pet safety experts Bark Buckle UP®, and Pet Safety Lady™ Christina Selter are teaming up with Smiths Medical and fire departments nationwide to launch the “Bark 10-4™” campaign to raise awareness of the need for Pet Oxygen Masks.

Currently, most of the more than 30,000 fire departments and EMS offices nationwide have more than one truck, and funds to purchase Pet Oxygen Masks often fall short.

The “Bark 10-4™” Campaign was created with the goal of getting a Pet Oxygen Mask on board every fire truck in the country by encouraging the public to sponsor the purchase of Pet Oxygen Masks for their local fire departments. A $25 sponsorship ensures that one mask can be purchased for a fire department; a $65 sponsorship buys a mask set, which includes a small, medium and large mask.

Sponsorship can be completed at bark104.com or from a link at www.surgivet.com/pet-oxygen-masks/index.html The sponsor designates the specific fire department to receive the gift, which will be delivered with the shipping/handling costs paid by Smiths Medical.

“Vets have used oxygen masks designed especially for animals for years,” according to Regina McIntosh, Vice President of Marketing for Smiths Medical North America. “These masks have found their way into the hands of first responders primarily through word of mouth and the generosity of compassionate pet owners. This program will go a long way toward raising awareness about a product that can save a lot of pets’ lives.”

“The mask only works if it is on the truck,” states Jose M. Torres, Battalion Chief ‘A’ Platoon Santa Monica (California) Fire Department. “Together we can save pets’ lives.”

Presently in an animal rescue, fire fighters have to use a human mask on the animal being rescued. This program helps to put animal masks on all fire trucks. The masks even come in different sizes.

If the fire department would have focused on buying pet rescue masks, it might have distracted enough to have saved on a new fire truck. If the animal department employee would have focused on this effort, maybe that would have been an “effort to save” that was appreciated by the city fathers.

1. Would the local community support such a cause?

2. Would this type program be seen as “below” firefighting professionals?

3. Is this an example of doing it doggie that we can all legitimately get excited about?

4. Would this be where the term “dog is in heat” comes from?

5. Where is that dog living?

Hey Martha, the forum is back!

Well, it looks as though the general public will have the opportunity to share their thoughts on the local paper’s website again. The reason for the forums resurrection it not addressed in either of the Briefs.

As much as the forums were despised by those who became topics for conversation and by those “real” journalists, there appears to be a need. That need is -- they drive hits. So for all who thought these forums should be eradicated now find that the all mighty dollar prevailed. In the internet world, hits are gold.   

The paper has touted additional oversight when compared to the old forum. What that meant was never clearly explained. Maybe if they can find a journalist, they will ask and report on those outstanding, pertinent questions.

The publisher of the local paper is quoted in the print media as saying, “We’re confident visitors to our Web site will use the new forum for the constructive discussion of community issues and other topics of interest.” I guess the paper will define what “constructive discussion.” Do as I say, not as I do - Big Brother.

1. Do you think the timing of the removal of the other forums was coincidental?

2. Do you think a call was really made to shut the old forum down?

3. So is a forum with “additional oversight and moderation” the same as the comments?

4. Is the new oversight policed locally?

5. Does the other editor have to sign-off on comments, too?

6. Does the new format allow the Editor to “balance” public opinion?

7. If one blog site is bad, are two better?

8. Have you ever seen Topix?

9. Do we control events better when we control opinion?

Milroy EMS - Enough already

This topic has hung around for far too long, and for the record, everyone should know it is not by my choosing. This topic has played itself out. The decision has been made, and it is not going to change whether this magic meeting is tomorrow, the end of the year or next fall. Once the fox is in the hen house, it is impossible to undo the damage. The Milroy ATVFD, Milroy EMS and Anderson Township are waiting and wondering what they can do to influence this outcome.

So let’s recap this: The ATVFD wants the county to repose there Milroy EMS ambulance. The ATVFD would like to offer ambulance services if the ambulance is repossessed. The county is not sure it has jurisdiction to repossess the ambulance. At the end of the year, the current provider, who has now expanded their service area, is going to voluntarily relinquish a market.

So does delaying this decision change anything? Then why not just make it and have everyone settle into the new arrangement?

If I were to play The “Great Kreskin” here, I would say that this service area will be given directly to the RMH Ambulance Service. Or in best case scenario, it will be given to the volunteer community and that ATVFD will be granted a trial run at operating the ambulance service (under the watchful eye of RMH Ambulance Service). 

1. Who really is managing this decision?

2. Is Big Brother’s house in order?

3. Is there enough money in the in the county budget for another ambulance to stay housed in Milroy?

4. Will a permanent expansion into Anderson Township mean a new smorgasbord of EMT’s?

5. Will Milroy need a new “chase” vehicle?

6. Is the one on the south edge of town to be closer to Milroy?

Oh where, oh where, has my little animal controller gone...Oh where, or where, can she be?

Animal Control is short one employee after Tuesday’s Board of Works Meeting. Jamie Glandon, who became a local dichotomy, was terminated at Tuesday’s Board of Works meeting. Her relationship with current and the prior city administration was perplexing to say the least. Jamie will likely be remembered for the time she spoke up the most and for the time she never uttered a word. After being the vocal one in the Gabbie (the pup-sicle) incident, her voice was completely absent in the McLovin dog shooting. The Board of Works reported that she was suspended Friday for driving city vehicles on a suspended license. Jamie explained to the Board that she did not realize her license had been suspended for nonpayment of two traffic tickets. The City became aware of the incident after Jamie was involved in a traffic accident Tuesday evening.

Jamie, who has had more lives than the infamous dog Gabbie, spoke during the meeting stating that she was not aware of the suspension of her license until the accident and felt she was being discriminated against. She stated that she took Wednesday and Thursday off so she could get her license reinstated, but was called into the Mayor’s Office and was told she was suspended. She questioned if she could still volunteer at the shelter, if the website would continue and if the rescue program would continue. Instead of answering the questions directly, Attorney Ron Wilson stated that the Mayor would contact Don Jarman and Jamie could contact him for the answers to her questions.

It was questioned by people in attendance as to why Jamie did not receive her paycheck on Friday. The Mayor stated that she was told to turn in all of her City equipment and had not done so. She was told she will receive her check when all equipment is turned in and accounted for.

Jamie gained notoriety in Rushville for the dead then undead story of Gabbie, the frozen dog. She not only “saved” Gabbie, but she spearheaded protests by various animal rights groups over the incident. She hit the spotlight, or more correctly dodged the spotlight in the recent McLovin’ dog shooting when it was reported that she refused to go out on a call of McLovin’ running amok and instead, Chief Cameron was dispatched with fatal results for the dog.

Now for some questions:

1. Will those who fought so hard for a dog fight with the same energy for an animal control officer?

2. Where is Gabbie now?

3. In this administration, does suspended mean fired?

4. Have you checked the status of your driver’s license lately?

5. What did Jamie mean when she said she was being discriminated against?

6. And is this how they repaid you?

Don't Maul Main Street

Do you remember the battle cries of, “Don’t Maul Main Street?”

The campaign included yellow, red, black and white yard signs (left) and letters to the local paper. All of this started like a L.A. forest fire but has since dwindled to a point were there appears to be no smoldering embers.

Posted throughout town are the flyers for the giving notice to the “Rebuilding S.R. 3 At Rushville.”

The $6 million Major Moves project — reconstructing State Road 3 through Rushville (from the river bridge north to Wal-Mart) — is about to start.

How will you be affected?

Find out Tuesday evening, Sept. 29, when INDOT officials and Dunesis supervisors discuss construction schedules and construction plans.

• Look at plans
• Learn about what’s happening and where
• Ask questions — get answers

Again, that’s Tuesday, Sept. 29, 2009 from 6:30 – 8:30 p.m. at the Rushville High School Auditorium, 1201 Lions Path.

Questions

1. Are there those who still oppose the project?

2. Why again was there originally opposition to this project?

3. Is this project seen as adverse to progress?

4. Has the weather changed on this issue?

5. Was this fight for real or just for principal?

6. Will a project used to divide now be sold as progress by those in office?

The Lord helps those who help themselves

Rush County is known as a place where the community always has the amazing ability to rise to the occasion in the face of a tragedy. This viewed by most as a quality to be admired. There are instances where you give so much to others that you can sometimes forget about taking care of yourself. I think Rush County is to the point where it deserves and needs to take care of itself and its own.

I am sure this sounds selfish but it is not meant to. No one is more in favor of taking care of the world, but I think that we can neglect our own friends and neighbors.

This is why the thought of 400 teenagers and adult chaperones from Christian organization Group Work Camps is such a refreshing notion. These volunteers will visit Rush County from all over the United States.
 
While in town the volunteers will do a variety of home repairs for those in need of a helping hand. To be considered for these projects, a prospective a person in need will need to fill out an application by October 1.  The program is tailored to aid those most in need, whether that need be age, disability or income. I would all those who think they might qualify to make application.

What a great time to show off the community and for Rush County to roll out the red carpet for these magnificent volunteers.  I am sure those in charge will have a wealth of things to partake in while all are in town. Congratulations to all who put this together and to those local youth and adults who plan on participating. Great job!

So what slant should questions take?

1. Who thought of the idea of hosting the event?
2. Will the community celebrate the occasion?
3. What will our visitors remember the most about Rush county?
4. For one week can these people be the toast of the town?
5. How do we properly say thank you?

    

Will Milroy EMS be DOA ASAP?

I know this may seem like a drastic title to a story, but I think this might be considered tough love.

I can tell you that this possible end result is not the desire of the author, but unfortunately may be destiny.

The Rush County Commissioner’s decision was effective September 2, 2009 to replace the Milroy EMS with RMH as the dispatch for E911 calls for District 4. The reason for the decision was presented as poor response time and reduced number of trained personnel. This scenario will exist until the end of November or early December at the earliest. At this point in time, the commissioners are said to review the specifics of the arrangement.

The Milroy EMS president has stated that there are presently three EMT-B’s, one Advance EMT and a paramedic on-call 24-7. These individuals are working on a per-call basis now. The hope of the department is to add additional EMT-B’s to the roster by the end of the year.

So, until the end of the year, if you live in the Anderson Township district and call E911, you get response from Rush Memorial Ambulance Service. If the circumstances are not E911, you would have to cal (765) 629-2172 to get request their services.

A similar situation existed years ago in the city of Rushville. The EMT service that was not selected as the local provider was relegated to the role of back up was never able to maintain a long existence in the market. The Anderson Township market would appear to a smaller market to attempt to survive in.

Those are the facts, now here are the questions:

1. Will these improvements in their system be enough to reinstate the volunteer department?

2. If they are not the E911 responder how will the department proves its worth?

3. Are there industries standards that volunteer EMTs are measured against?

4. Can a volunteer department compete against a government backed and paid service?

5. If this situation continues to exist, how long will the county ambulance service continue without a push for an E911 ambulance housed in the district?

6. If there is ever a paid ambulance service in Anderson Township, what would be the cost to the county?

7. Would such a state of affairs be palatable to other volunteer serviced districts within the county?

8. When marketing does a government backed, paid EMT department offer advantages then those served by volunteer departments?

9. What is the definition of cannibal?

Nothing to do

Rushville has recently been labeled as a place where there is nothing to do, but it seems that has been changing recently.

This weekend seemed to be a huge exception to the rule. On Friday evening, fans of the local high school could follow the Lions on their journey to Shelbyville for a football game.

On Saturday, there was a smorgasbord of items a person could do. They could start out their morning by participating in the “A Walk for Alex,” or taking in the Farmer’s and Artisan’s Market. Additionally, watching the Cross Country invitational could have leisurely provided much entertainment.

If those items were not your cup of tea, you could have been visited the American Legion’s Family Day with their music and vendors. That event was scheduled to go well into the evening.

Another evening event was a benefit to support the food pantry. This featured local entertainers performing Broadway and various musical numbers.

I am sure I have not been able to include everything that was available this weekend, but I hope I hit the majority of featured items. My point being is that Rushville is developing things to do locally, and those programs that benefit are just and worthy causes. None of these are government programs…they are programs that were developed and produced by well-meaning groups with their own energies.

If you are looking for community assets, this might be the most valuable and most overlooked.

Questions:

1. How do continue to get people involved?

2. Did you have a favorite?

3. What type of event would you like to see more of?

4. Could you do more to become involved?

5. Who did you see at these events, or who didn’t you see?

Grate leadership?

With the flooding of RMH and local roads during the monsoon recently, one semi-executive decision got overlooked. Hodges Branch, which was responsible for some of the flooding near the hospital and adjacent basements, was threatening to create even worse flooding. Several local residents called the Mayor’s Office to voice their concerns that the flooding was being caused by the clogging of the storm structure where Hodges Branch goes beneath 9th Street and into the City’s storm sewer system. That structure consists, or should I say consisted, of metal grates and chain link to prevent debris and (more importantly) persons from being washed underground into the storm system. They said their calls were met with indifference.

At some point, it appeared that Deputy Mayor Billy Ray Goins made a semi-executive decision by directing City crews to remove the structure, thus relieving some of the flooding. Although the old system appeared to be a maintenance challenge, its record in service did prove that it served its most valued service: preventing kids who play in the creek from being swept underground. The old system has now been replaced by a series of systems that look like the combination from the grill of a ’94 Peterbuilt and a baseball backstop. I am not sure about the guidelines for storm structures, but I hope we based our design off of something more then gut feel.

It is ironic that at a recent City Council Meeting Deputy Mayor Goins expressed his concern with the safety of children playing in the creek. For everyone’s sake, I hope the new transformer fulfills its role as well as old faithful.

While flooding appears to have been reduced by the removal of the old mesh system, it does bring to light the concern of many in Rushville over the lack of maintenance to such structures. In this case, an occasional cleaning of leaves and debris from the grates would have greatly reduced the flooding and negated the need for removing the safeguards the structure provided. It also brings up the question, under what authority does a council president have giving direction to City employees?

Now for some questions:

1. What is the chain of command in such situations?

2. Will this new structure work? (And the grate, too?)

3. Can someone explain the backstop?

4. Who would be liable?

 

HR 101 - “By George”

In an effort to make this site one that is contributing in a positive way, I thought it would be a nice idea to include a sample Fraternization Policy. In the case that you don’t have one or would like to avoid paying a high faluting big city attourney to develop one, here is a sample of a typical policy.

Fraternization/Personal Relationships

A personal relationship between a supervisor and an employee can cause workplace conflicts, issues of real or perceived favoritism, claims of sexual harassment, and problems of employee morale. In addition, conflicts in a personal relationship may carry over and adversely affect work relationships. Accordingly, the Company has adopted the following personal relationship policy.

• “Personal Relationship” means a romantic or physical relationship, including dating, living together, or becoming engaged or married.

• For purposes of this policy, an employee is a “supervisor” of another if he or she:

(a.) assigns or directs the other’s work
(b.) is involved in decisions affecting the other’s employment, including decisions affecting evaluation, compensation, and promotion, or
(c.) is in the line of supervision who have those responsibilities. An employee in the position of Director or above may become involved in decisions affecting the employment of every employee below the Director level and is, for purposes of this policy, deemed to be a supervisor of each such employee.

• It is the Company’s policy not to employ or continue to employ two employees who are involved in a personal relationship and whose positions make one of those employees the supervisor of the other.

• To avoid the potential problems described above, the Company strongly discourages supervisors from entering into personal relationships with employees they supervise.

• If a supervisor is, or becomes, involved in a personal relationship with an employee whom he or she supervises, each person has the responsibility to report the relationship promptly to the Director.

• The company will evaluate whether it can, consistent with its business needs, make changes in the assignment of one or both of the employees involved in order complying with the policy stated above. If reassignment is not in the Company’s best interest, then the employment of one or both employees may be terminated.

In determining whether or not to terminate the employment of one or both employees, the Company, in its sole discretion, will consider the following factors:

(a.) staffing needs
(b.) recommendations of managers
(c.) short-term and long-term effect on the Company’s business
(d.) employee seniority, job knowledge and skills
(e.) difficulty in replacing the employees, and
(f.) views of employees involved.

 

Fraternization Policies: Inconsistency vs. Unlawfulness

The following article was set to the site and was felt by the sender to be timely.  All references to the original article are included.  I will limit all posts on this article by approval only so that all rules are strictly adhered to.  Please, no names. - RT

"Fraternization Policies: Inconsistency vs. Unlawfulness
By Zachary, Mary-Kathryn
Publication: Supervision
Date: Saturday, December 1 2007

More than at any other point in this country's history, employees find their friends, and romantic partners, at work. The greater number of women now in the work force and the long hours employees put in at their place of employment contribute to this trend. The interplay of work and social interaction can be positive and contribute to stronger teamwork, greater productivity, and higher morale. A number of employees find their life mates at work. However, the interplay of work and social interaction can also be negative. Every employee can probably recall or has heard of instances of workplace romances gone awry, allegations of sexual harassment, and situations suggesting favoritism toward a friend or romantic interest. This can actually result in weaker teamwork, less productivity, lower morale--and lawsuits.

In an attempt to minimize the possibility of the negative aspects of employee social interaction, employers have tried a variety of different approaches. Many have policies prohibiting sexual harassment and specifying inappropriate workplace conduct. A few have had dating employees sign contracts in which they indicate that their relationship is strictly voluntary. Some have anti-nepotism policies in which family members are prohibited from working in the same company or department or in a supervisor/subordinate relationship. And, some companies have fraternization policies that, to varying degrees, prohibit employees from dating or socializing with each other.

One of the difficulties with fraternization policies in particular is that they are hard for companies to enforce in an evenhanded manner. Despite company policies, employees will still date and spend time with each other outside of work. Sometimes the company will find out about it, but sometimes it will not. Given that a great deal of time, employees know about other employees' relationships even if upper management does not, there can be a perception of unfairness if some rule violators are punished and some are not, even though the company is pursuing the same course of action in all instances it is aware of.

Additionally, sometimes company management cares about a particular situation that it knows about, and sometimes it does not. Research studies have indicated that employees, including management, may view workplace relationships differently depending on the particular relationship. They are more prone to be supportive of couples who have found real love, and less supportive of those who appear to be engaged in an temporary affair or a mutual use situation. They are most likely to disapprove of couples who are in a supervisor/subordinate relationship when favoritism or sexual harassment may be involved, when the one individual appears to be taking advantage of the other, and when one or both members of the couple are married to other people. Additionally, employees care less about employees' social life when it does not impact the work environment and more when it does. Too much time visiting each others' offices and hanging around the water cooler can diminish productivity. Furthermore, even though employees may believe that what they do outside of work is their business, employers may legitimately disagree. For example, too much alcohol accompanying after work drinks can lead to allegations of sexual harassment.

When a fraternization policy is not consistently applied, an employee disciplined under the policy may feel wronged. And employees who believe themselves to be wronged have a tendency to bring lawsuits. Inconsistent application of a fraternization policy is not necessarily unlawful application. The particular circumstances involved are important. Despite that, such litigation brings with it costs--in money, time, and good will.

A recent case, Cleary v. CBRL, 101 FEP Cases 849 (M.D. Pa. 2007), provides an excellent example of some of the issues involved in a fraternization case. The lawsuit involved a restaurant manager who was terminated for violating the company fraternization policy and subsequently filed an employment discrimination suit. The restaurant manager had been a "rising star" within the company restaurant chain. He had begun work for the defendant company in 1996 and advanced quickly. The plaintiff had won praise at every restaurant he had been associated with and was on his way to being a district general manager. Before his transfer to what was to be his last post, the plaintiff had been awarded a general manager of the year award. The plaintiffs supervisor transferred him to the company's Fogelsville, Pennsylvania branch in 2002 to allow the plaintiff to gain experience in an assignment with more responsibility. The Fogelsville branch improved with his arrival and was awarded the chain's highest hospitality award.

It was the manager's relationships with employees at the Fogelsville branch that derailed his career. The manager on multiple occasions ran afoul of the company's personnel policies, particularly the company's fraternization policy. That policy in relevant part stated that the company "'restricts fraternization between employees to avoid either the practice or appearance of favoritism, sexual harassment or conflict of interest.... Inappropriate familiarity with subordinates is prohibited. Subordinates must not be addressed with familiar terms ... subordinates must not be subjected to sexually suggestive language or behavior.'"

The first complaint against the plaintiff arose in July 2002, when a female employee informed management that the plaintiff had made lewd comments to her and asked her to kiss him. An investigation was conducted by the plaintiffs supervisor, and the plaintiff admitted that he had engaged in an inappropriate conversation with the woman. The company then gave the plaintiff a final written notice and informed him that future inappropriate conduct would result in discipline up to and including termination. Three months later, two more female employees claimed that the plaintiff had touched them in an improper manner. The plaintiff did not admit to wrongdoing, and, after a company investigation, he was not disciplined. However, in June 2003, the plaintiff's supervisor reprimanded him for visiting a bar that was a regular hangout of employees and for allegedly buying alcohol for two employees who were there. The supervisor reminded him that the company's fraternization policy prohibited such conduct. No discipline was administered.

In March 2004, another employee claimed that the plaintiff had engaged in sexual harassment against her and cited a variety of behaviors on the part of the plaintiff that she objected to, including his request that she remove her clothes and his sending her an objectionable card at home. The company suspended the plaintiff without pay while it conducted an investigation. During the investigation, the plaintiff conceded that he had sent the card and discussed personal matters with the woman. The company then fired the plaintiff and replaced him with another man. The plaintiff ultimately brought suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and a state employment rights statute. In his suit, he sought reinstatement to a like position, front and back pay, compensatory damages, and costs and attorney's fees.

The essence of the plaintiff's complaint was that he was the victim of unlawful sex discrimination. Specifically, he maintained that his subordinates had fabricated claims against him and engaged in a conspiracy against him because he had been sent to Fogelsville to correct problems at that branch. The plaintiff stated that employees at Fogelsville had a reputation of being hostile to management and difficult to work with. According to him, the female staff had initiated sexually oriented conversations with him; yet, when he had complained to his supervisor, no action was taken. With respect to the last employee who had accused him of sexual harassment, the plaintiff stated that she should have been disciplined because she actually pursued him and called him after work. Furthermore, the plaintiff argued that dating between supervisors and subordinates was common at Fogelsville, and that male managers, but not female managers, were disciplined for dating subordinates, and that male managers who dated female subordinates were disciplined, but the female subordinates were not.

The case was before the court on the defendant's motion for summary judgment. In such situations, if there is no genuine issue of any material fact (one that might affect the outcome of the case), and the party asking for summary judgment is entitled to a ruling in their favor under relevant law, the court will grant the motion. During the process, the facts are viewed by the court in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, in this case the plaintiff. However, if no reasonable juror could rule in favor of the non-moving party, the judge will rule in favor of the moving party, in this case the company. That is what the court did in this case.

The lawsuit involved what is commonly referred to as a reverse discrimination case. Title VII was passed to provide a remedy for various groups that had traditionally been subjected to unfair treatment. With respect to sex, that meant women. However, because the wording of the statute prohibits discrimination "because of sex," the emphasis is on the rationale behind the questioned action, not the particular sex victimized. Therefore, if a man is unlawfully treated because of his sex, he can bring a case for sex discrimination, even though it is the "reverse" of what Congress originally had in mind.

In a reverse discrimination case, the plaintiff has to initially establish a prima facie case by coming forward with enough evidence to permit someone looking at the facts to decide that the plaintiff was treated less favorably than other employees because of sex. If the plaintiff does that, the defendant has to state a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its conduct. Finally, if the defendant has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions, the plaintiff has the opportunity to show that the defendant's reasoning is "pre-textual," that is, a reasonable person looking at the facts could disbelieve the employer's reasons, or could decide that the motivating factor behind the employer's actions was in actuality unlawful discrimination.

The court first concluded that the plaintiff had not made out a prima facie case that he was treated less favorably than other employees similarly situated. Although other employees had testified that male and female employees and managers violated the company's fraternization policy, and only men were disciplined, the court found much of the testimony to be hearsay without documentation, and determined that the plaintiff had not come forward with a similarly situated person to compare himself with. The plaintiff himself had provided testimony about other male managers who had violated the fraternization policy but who had not been disciplined. Therefore, not all male managers were disciplined. There was only one female employee that the plaintiff specifically pointed to as violating the fraternization policy. She had been investigated and cleared of the charges three years earlier, and her case had been handled by a different supervisor. Even if she had been found to have violated the policy, the court stated that the plaintiff had not shown that she was in the same situation that he was. The plaintiff had also not shown the context in which the other terminated male managers had been disciplined. As for the plaintiff himself, when he was fired he was on final written notice, had been warned about the policy, had previously acknowledged that he had violated the policy, and had previously been accused of sexual harassment. The plaintiff was, in a sense, a "habitual offender" who had escaped disciplinary action on several prior occasions. He had perhaps shown that the company was inconsistent in its enforcement of the fraternization policy; however, he had not shown that this inconsistency was based on sex

IN A NUTSHELL

(1) In an attempt to avoid problems, including legal problems, that result from workplace social relationships, companies may institute fraternization policies that prohibit employees from dating or socializing with each other, particularly in supervisor/subordinate situations.

(2) Fraternization policies can be difficult to evenhandedly enforce, because employees will successfully and unsuccessfully hide forbidden relationships, and employers may not object to all relationships equally.

(3) If an employee disciplined for violating a company fraternization policy believes that he or she has been unfairly treated, as might be the case if such a policy is inconsistently enforced, the employee may be apt to bring a discrimination lawsuit.

(4) A company will be liable for inconsistent application of a fraternization policy only if its conduct is motivated by unlawful discrimination, such as by treating similarly situated individuals different from each other based on a prohibited factor such as sex.

(5) Supervisors and other managerial employees should be careful to abide by their employer's fraternization policies and to make their best efforts to consistently and evenhandedly enforce the company's policies to avoid adverse employment actions and potential discrimination lawsuits."

***********************************************

RT Questions:

1. If you are in a position of supervision, does fraternization matter?

2. Is there a fraternization policy in place at your place of employment?

3. Do accusations of fraternization expose the employer future legal action?

4. Do fraternization policies exist to prevent inappropriate conduct or to prevent preferential treatment in the workplace?

5. Do fraternization policies only mitigate the employers/employees as well as safeguard families?

Success beyond perception or compression

When something goes wrong, the finger points away from oneself; when things go right, the fingers usually point toward one.

This is not a story of fingers pointing away from anyone, but of fingers pointing toward. This is a story highlighting our community. This site has posted many failures that have occurred in this community, but it is time that a success is recognized. Many people have been working behind the scenes to help a local industry leader make a larger impact in our community. Those who are involved should be applauded. The nay-sayers will trivialize their accomplishments, but this time, we should give those involved their just dues.

Although the company making the investment should be the one placed highest on the pedestal, we should not forget those at the local level who have been going to great lengths to make this a mutually beneficial effort. When the Fujitsu Ten plant closed, many thought that the light at the end of that tunnel was a train, and some organization talked positively, another local organization work to get a grasp of the issue.

This series of relationships has led to an existing industry concluding negations to purchase the former Fujitsu 10 facility using it to permanently house a portion of their operations currently spread throughout the community. These operations will go from a renter structure to an ownership arrangement. The ownership configuration lends itself well to a more permanent investment in the community. The close proximity of the two buildings will allow for the eventual development of the area into a campus system. In turn, this campus system will allow for the development connectivity both in transportation and technology. The campus vision would not immediately lead to a massive number of jobs, but the forward-thinking of the company would allow them to be more competitive in future venture that could have a greater impact in employment in the future.

Even though there are many safeguards that should have been adhered to, those involved have understandably excited, employees and negotiators alike. As you have probably noticed, I have not mentioned the company name so that I, too, can walk the fine line.

I am sure that many organizations will, due to small town politics, have to share the limelight, but I think that those who initiated the relationship and pulled the train forward should be recognized. As a result of their business retention program the chamber of commerce and its director should be given their just dos. The transportation and technology components will undoubtedly be coordinated by the city and county agencies as well as the fiber board, so assuming all goes well, good job. 

1. Is this an example of what positive relationships can lead to?

2. Shouldn’t everyone be happy, we will have another empty building?

3. With this success should the retention program be expanded?

4. What infrastructure improvements could be made to take advantage of this positive development?

Our own local Public Insurance Plan

The Rushville City Council recently had the opportunity to take part in something they have never before gotten the opportunity to take part in before ... but the questions will be "why now?"
 
To start, I'd like to shed some light on the actual responsibilities of a city council member:
 
The Council acts as the board of directors of the city, deals with policy and legislation matters only, and doesn't have any role in the 'administration' of city affairs. In terms of 'responsibilities,' then, stemming from the 'duties' role, the Council has the responsibility for adopting the Capital Improvement Budget (which describes all capital spending in the city each year), and the General Budget (which is the operating budget for the year).
The Council has an 'advise and consent' responsibility regarding the hiring and firing of department heads, but does not have performance review duties for these heads; the only (people reporting) to the Council are the City Administrator, the City Clerk and the City Attorney, and these are the only 'hire and fire' positions the Council owns.
"In terms of meetings, the Council sets their own schedules, rules, procedures, etc., subject to state law requiring open access and notice, so there is flexibility there. The Council also has 'hire and fire' responsibility for the Commissions, which are created by the Charter, and for all committees it feels it needs; our so-called 'task forces' are such 'committees' and operate under the rules the Council puts together.
All of this is the 'formability' of the job. In the real world, the Council's responsibility as what you'd expect: fiscal prudence, maintaining public access to city government, acting an 'ombudsman' for the people of this city, being prepared, reaching out to people and other communities.

Most of our elected council members have full time jobs on top of their regularly scheduled two meetings a month. Some of these members also serve on extra boards or committees who may require a special meeting or duty, but essentially, the job of a council member is part-time. That's not to say that their job in the public spotlight is "never-ending" with neighbors and constituents e-mailing, phoning or stopping them in a restaurant to talk about sewer increases and why the city won't fix their yard.
 
So, what benefit did the council get to hear about? In a recent council meeting the issue of health insurance coverage for the part-time council memberships became a topic of conversation, something never available to council members past. City employees and county-elected officials get the option of individual health insurance, but the current city council will get to ponder the matter at a future meeting.
 
So, will the city start offering health insurance to all part-time employees? As it stands, one council member is on the current plan and one member is a retired city employee so he should be covered too.  So who does that leave that would need to be covered?  In the future all council members could elect to take the coverage option and be on the plan.
 
What will this do to everyone's insurance rates? 

Will this offer be extended to the board of works and utility board?

Is a recession time benefit warranted?

What was the impetuous for the conversation on the benefits?

If all members of the board took a family option plan, what would the total cost to the city be?

Do part-time employees need this benefit increase?

Do the “deputy” positions rank getting a health insurance?

Milroy accident brings questions to light

On Sunday, Rush county was the unfortunate host to an accident that has become much too common. The accident involved a motor vehicle and an Amish buggy.  With the utmost respect and sympathy for all families involved in the accident, I will not try to report the details of the accident or those involved.  I feel comfortable that this piece of the story will be addressed in the local paper. 

This incident does allow the community to access many topics that have been touched upon in the paper and on this site.  If you listened to the communications between the responders, you are inclined to wonder if all the oft whispered concerns have been addressed to the satisfaction of the leader’s in-charge.

I will not approach this in a necessarily negative light (although I am sure some will claim so).  Here we go with the questions:

1. Is a buggy considered a vehicle?
2. Whatever happened to the buggy lanes?
3. How did Anderson Township’s much-maligned response team do?
4. If the experts think they did well responding to this accident, will they get more money as a reward?
5. What is the weight limit in an Air Evac helicopter?
6. If you are seriously injured and the local Air Evac helicopter is on another run, why do you have to wait for another Air Evac helicopter from another base instead of dispatching the Lifeline helicopter?
7. Is it protocol that the calls through our emergency response system exclusively use Air Evac no longer use Lifeline?

Duplicitous

I think the only thing that is nerve-racking about this site is that it tracks the promises and comments made, and then it watches for the corresponding action items that follow. It does play devil’s advocate on the press releases just to give examples of what might be asked if there was really any investigative journalism in existence. The concept seems pretty simple to me.

Sure, I understand that those in power are not used being questioned, and it annoys them. I am sure when they write a press release the last thing they want is a blog site dissecting their words and intentions. So what do they get? Mad…sorry.

If people stood up and said “no” to the “little white lies” for a couple of years, the problem eradicate itself. Once the community sets its new standards of behavior, the leaders would know what would and would not be tolerated, but that is going to take an exorcism of the present attitude.

Sometimes the angle, or desired results, is complicated and hard to follow. (Hint – most of the time they ultimately revert back to the almighty dollar.) Sometimes there are days, weeks, or months between the contradictions. Sometimes they happen in the same paper. Every once in a while they happen on the same page, but rarely do they happen in the same column. Here are two reader submitted morsels of knowledge and the comments associated to them made by the paper:

1. Do those trains of thoughts seem to be contradictory?
2. Is it okay to take away my freedom of speech?
3. Is it okay to take away a persons freedom of speech if they descent from what I am saying?
4. If this blog went away tomorrow, would the paper go back to the days went it won real awards, would the blade go back on the chopper, would the hospital be full, would the town have the Honda plant?
5. Historically, Rush County leaders have wanted to shirk their responsibility to make thing happen or to not make things happen. Are they really going to blame the present state of the community on this blog site?
6. I mean really… Are they serious?
 

Happy Birthday to You

This weekend was a special weekend for one Rushville legend. Saturday evening, a surprise birthday party and reception was held in honor of Marcia Blair. Marcia, you might know, is a retired Drama teacher from the local high school. Her husband, Les, is a retired from the local system from the English department. The reception was to honor Marcia on her 70th Birthday. The party was attended by friends and family in addition to many former students who where part of the Drama Department, the long-running Briar Patch and Slabtown.

As though the party was not enough, the weekend of activities were topped off by a surprise performance for the birthday girl on Sunday afternoon at the Laughlin Center. Many of the those former performers who had attended the Saturday evening event returned on Sunday to dust off the cobwebs on their thespian interests. They performed various skits in her honor.

The crowd on Sunday was treated with a three-act tribute performance that was both nostalgic and heartfelt. The efforts by those who care for this great community sage were appreciated by those who were able to witness the events. Marcia - thank you for all your efforts and dedication to this community; the tribute was much deserved.

Questions:

1. Was it truly a surprise?
2. Was that really Joe Hogsett?
3. Do you miss such efforts, like the Briar Patch?

No tough ones, again, thanks for the memories! 

Bring back the parks patrol!

I usually hate when people categorize "kids" as being blatantly disrespectful. They all get thrown into one lump sum and branded as "troublemakers" or "punks." That's not what I'm going to do in this story, so don't get me wrong. I'm going to place the responsibility the parents who force the adult population that encounters them to pass judgment.

I have a problem with what I lovingly call "the pit" in South Veteran's Memorial Park. At what I understand to be the encouragement of the present administration the local youths have been allowed to turn the garden into a dirty pipe with assorted internal hills and jumps. This appears to have been an olive branch gesture to appease some youths that were intimidating walkers on the trail. I assume that if they were to leave the walkers alone they got a bike park.  Why the reverse psychology that has allowed those who intimidate walkers on the trail to receive an official place to congregate in a city park and annihilate what I consider to be beautiful grounds puzzles me.

I understand that biking and skateboarding is a hobby, and I understand that the youth of our community are forced to be a little creative about how they spend their free time since there isn't much to do here. However, I find it sad that once given a little leeway, a mile gets taken in the course. For instance, I was taking a walk in the park the other night, and the kids are down in "the pit" doing their usual bike stunts, calling each other "m-er f-ers" in the presence of quite a few young kids, and oh, get this, using a shovel to dig a hole in the middle of the "pit" in order to make a dirt mound. I can’t imagine this what our city fathers had in mind when he allowed "the pit" to be used for this purpose.
 
And it's maddening as a parent when you pay taxes for the city parks, and you don't feel comfortable enough to take your children to the park because of instances like this, or perhaps, maybe like the one a few weeks ago when I was told by a teenager to "f-ck off" after I asked him to watch his mouth and stop throwing rocks in the presence of toddlers. I guess that's just out of line.

If you're a parent whose child congregates in this park, I ask you to teach your children just a bit of respect. Maybe if one or two listen, others will follow suit. In the meantime, I'm going to go to Wal-Mart and buy a swing set so I don't have to deal with the drama. Thus, I am officially throwing the taxes I pay toward the parks away.

Questions:

1. Who is liable if someone gets hurt on the dirt pipes?

2. Are there park safety standards, or can you build your own equipment?

3. What happened to the Parks Patrol?

4. Can we afford another “settle out of court”?

5. What happened to the oversight my tax dollars pay for?

Emergency Training Update

A little over a week ago, I wrote a blog on the concerns that increased railroad activity could affect response times, especially with the RFD’s only station on the south side of the tracks and the ambulance service located north of the tracks. Well, last Sunday I saw another incident that raises my level of concern even higher. As I was traveling north to my new favorite restaurant, I approached the same rail-crossing on Main Street that I discussed last week. A train was proceeding across at a low rate of speed. It became apparent the train was stopping. Sometimes this happens, and the train blocks the crossing for a few minutes as it switches cars at area businesses. It then became apparent that this would not be a stop that lasted a matter of seconds.

After about 10 minutes of waiting, I decided to seek an alternate crossing. I looked to the east and could tell the train stretched east toward Fort Wayne Road. So then I went to the west to test my luck. As I drove along 3rd Street, along with many other cars, I could see all visible crossing were blocked. When I finally made it to Spencer Street, there was unblocked and traffic, albeit heavy, was moving north and south across the tracks.  I was then delayed about 15-20 minutes by the time I got across. What would have happened if a fire run, traffic accident or medical run occurred? Taking into consideration the emergency worker motto of “time being critical,” it could easily have cost lives and loss of property. A friend “in the know” told me that it was about 10 minutes into the stoppage before 911 knew of the blockage and then several more minutes passed before they identified to accessible routes across the tracks.

How many times does t his need to happen? I think it is time for action. First, the City needs to begin discussions with CSX to find a solution to train stoppages. I am sure this could have been a rare incident, but I remember seeing trains stopped along this stretch of tracks before. The thought of it being more than an inconvenience though never crossed my mind until now.

Second, the City needs to work with the Hospital and area businesses to figure out placement of equipment to avoid this problem. One suggestion made by a reader was to locate an ambulance at the fire station and the reserve engine at the hospital. While I am not sure of the logistics, it is thinking outside the box, and we need more of that. I would hate for a tragedy to be the reason the “powers that be” decide to fix this situation.

Now for some questions:

1. Will the leaders of our community take action and work to stop this problem before a tragedy hits?

2. How long has this been a problem and why has no one thought to do something about it?

3. Did the city have a second station north of the tracks in the past?

4. Is 10 minutes a long enough delay for our leaders to address the problem?

5. And in an encore request, why did RFD and RTVFD split, and could this be the reason now to bring them back together?

6. Does it seem odd that the EMS issue in Milroy was quickly identified and addressed, and this situation doesn’t seem to warrant conversation?

Even the best of us can make mistakes, but…

Recently, the local paper published an article where they announced that a Carthage man had died from injuries received in a traffic accident. The only problem is – they received bad information. Hours later, they found they were incorrect, and the gentleman was, in fact, alive in an Indianapolis hospital.

An information source is only as good as its sources, and it is imperative, especially when dealing with issues such as these, that that information is correct. I can think of no worse error an information source can make than to falsely report a death. I am sure this caused great anguish and questions for the family and friends of the gentleman involved. I hope for the family of those involved in situations like this that better controls on reporting are put into place.

A retraction is a first step, but an apology might be more fitting. Mistakes happen, but mistakes like this should be avoided at all costs. At any rate, let’s move past this – after all we all make mistakes.

…and the questions are:

1. What is the current condition of the victim?

2. What is the long term prognosis?

3. Who reported the story?

4. What controls could help to avoid this type situation in the future?