Print This Post
Aug
15
UPDATE
Please read this before reading anything else.
I would also recommend this, this and this.
ORIGINAL POST
I really don’t know how else to title this post. There are a lot of things I could call it but we’ll just leave it at that.
I’m also posting it against the advice of my lawyer.
Here’s a chronology of events that led to others becoming aware that the Ohio Democratic Party’s choice to fill the job of Coordinator for Women’s Outreach had a curiosity in her background that needed vetting:
1. I received and read the ODP’s announcement of the creation of the job and the appointment to that job of Megan Pappada on Thursday, August 9.
2. Within the hour, I emailed my contact at OSU with whom I’m working on setting up a training for women who want to enter politics because I thought she should 1) know about the new ODP position and 2) she should include the new coordinator in communications as we set up the training.
3. Within that same timeframe, I googled Megan’s name. I googled regular, I “news” googled her and I “blog search” googled her.
The first returns in the main search engine included her letter in The Lantern, OSU’s student paper, and another person’s response to what Megan had written. You can see the Google “search” results here and from there, the written items by Megan and the other person. I read those items and my stomach fluttered and sank and question marks started popping up all over my peripheral vision.
4. There were no returns in the news search and the returns in the blog search included one written by Scott Piepho and this one on the Cleveland Hts. Democrats website.
5. I emailed Scott Piepho, Jeff Coryell (on behalf of the Cleveland Hts post), Todd Hoffman (ODP online communications director) and Randy Borntrager (ODP Communications Director) with the link. I did the citizen journalism thing I try to do: I said, great news re: the new position, but I found this link. I don’t know Megan, what do you think?
6. That was all within an hour or so on Thursday afternoon. I did not receive responses from Jeff or Scott but did receive one from the ODP thanking me for bringing it to their attention and that they would look into it. Late Friday morning, I spoke with Todd Hoffman and he informed me that Megan had resigned.
At that time, for several reasons, I chose not to write about how I’d found information that the ODP should have found first:
I had no time and anyone who reads this blog can see how scarce my postings have been over the last several days. My parents were visiting from CT, my oldest son had a fever and was vomiting (he has a double ear infection and pink eye) and I had Shabbat dinner to make and services that my husband was leading to attend. At that time, compared to the things I needed to tend to in my life, I saw no value in taking the time to write up the ODP, especially about a situation in which I didn’t know the person involved or what was said, firsthand or through reliable sources.
7. Then, this morning, I saw that Scott wrote about how the ODP should have caught this and handled it differently and this paragraph was pivotal in making me re-think what I had/hadn’t done:
I’m not just a volunteer citizen journalist, I’m a member of the Ohio Democratic Party and I’ll be damned if I’m going to let them act like the gang that couldn’t shoot straight then sweep it under the rug. If this is out, hopefully the people involved will exercise more due care next time.
Scott is absolutely right: It is because I’m not just a volunteer citizen journalist and I am a member of the Ohio Democratic Party that I cannot “let them act like the gang that couldn’t shoot straight and then sweep it under the rug.” With this oversight by the ODP’s hiring process coming out, as Scott wrote, “hopefully the people involved will exercise more due care next time.”
All I’ve ever known, from the moment I saw her column, when I was self-educating about the new Coordinator for Women’s Outreach, is that if I could find it, anyone could find. And should have found it.
That’s why I emailed others who either knew Megan and/or had hired her – to investigate. That investigation led to what Scott and several others describe on their blogs today: Megan’s termination from the coordinator job.
To sum up, just as with the Strickland-intern-data theft fiasco, this situation should have and could have been prevented. From now on, there simply is no excuse. Prospective employees need to realize this just as much as employers need to develop guidelines for what to do when they do find material like Megan’s column.
If I weren’t the one who found the column, I doubt I’d be writing a “pile-on the ODP” post. And I wasn’t sure up until I hit Save Now that I’d write this one. But, to me, little old independent me, it feels like what I should do.
I don’t know what more I can say.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 6:32 pm August 15th, 2007 in Politics
Comments
22 Responses to “[updated] WLST found, pointed out to ODP the column that they should have found in hiring process”
Leave a Reply
2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
by Tips and TricksNews Now
I’m glad the column was found now rather than later but I also think the ODP reacted harshly.
It really opens up an interesting issue, is there a “statute of limitations” to people’s words? Was she even at the point in life that she understood the consequences her words might have? Sure her column wasn’t the brightest move but is it even relevant to her beliefs today? If we stop giving people room to change their beliefs we’d all end up too scared to express ourselves for the fear that we might not feel the same way in 10 or 20 years.
I believe that people should be held accountable for their actions but I also believe that people make mistakes. She should been given a chance to make things right before she was asked to resign (I assume under threat of being fired).
No question, David – these points you raise are critical. Employers – no matter who they are – have to have guidelines that they follow every single time. It can’t be ad hoc. They must do the research the same way for everyone who applies as they reach certain stages of acceptance, and they must be thorough. As Scott says, we need to hope that they’ve learned – both the ODP and the applicants.
I’m less certain about how to weigh what is found. I think that’s got to be on a case by case basis to some extent. And is it relevant to the job to be performed? To the employer itself?
A lot of variables.
Shalom Jill,
I just read the Lantern column.
I’m still pondering, but I’m leaning toward over-reaction on the part of the Ohio Democratic Party.
Not because I agree with Megan’s position, but rather because she was an ignorant college freshman when she wrote it.
Further thought (and reading) may make me lean the other way, but for now, I think she should have gotten a pass if this was the only data in evidence.
B’shalom,
Jeff
we’d all end up too scared to express ourselves for the fear that we might not feel the same way in 10 or 20 years
I wouldn’t call myself “scared,” but I do know that posting my opinions under my own name in the age of Google would be (for me) just plain dumb.
I don’t think I’ve said anything particularly inflammatory in the past. However, who knows what might be considered inflammatory ten years hence? Would some future employment decision-maker think my opinions–almost certainly irrelevant to any job and unlikely to be expressed by me in the workplace–are beyond the pale and a good excuse to eliminate me from consideration? (I’m not independently wealthy, so I can’t pretend employment is unimportant.)
Anyone writing a letter to a newspaper editor, posting on MySpace, speaking at a community meeting, writing/commenting on a blog, etc., etc., should bear in mind: Assume anything you publicly say can be easily found and will be available for use against you.
Jill,
As a result of Google, you found, as of last Thursday, just two links to what would probably be considered derogatory information about an individual. With each blog post about the results of your and/or the ODP’s actions that includes that individual’s name, the more “radioactive” that person becomes in terms of what will turn up in future Google searches. (I believe there are already at least four blogs that mention the person by name.)
I know nothing about how this individual currently feels about her college freshman letter. However, I am inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt–people grow. I also wonder if it would be compassionate for bloggers to reduce her “Google radioactivity” by replacing each occurrence of her surname by the abbreviation “P.” or inserting a space between the “P” and the rest of the surname? (Call me naive if you must.)
Jeff – I am not making a judgement on whether the ODP should have terminated her or not. I just can’t speculate – I don’t have enough facts. But the column is rather out of the ordinary for the kinds of things people formally affiliated with a party structure usually say. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be employed by the party – maybe it would be a better place if more folks who sound different WERE employed by the formal structures.
That said, yeah – they may have. I just don’t know. I do know that they didn’t do an even reasonable job of vetting. I Google pretty much everyone whom I’ve never heard of before with whom I cross paths. Since I wanted to contact this woman for the purposes of The White House Project, I of course googled her.
You know me.
Anon The First: I hear what you’re saying but I believe it is a far more honest thing to do to actually only say what you would say to people in person. That goes for comments, LTRs blog posts – whatever. Why else say it? If you’re ashamed, embarrassed or otherwise restrained from saying something, then there’s something not kosher to begin with. That’s my take.
Anon The Second: That’s a very insightful and kindhearted comment. However, I don’t know that I feel compelled to go back and change every reference to her. She was okay with her name being on that Lantern letter which is available, true? Granted she is 25 now, but is it really on us to erase the mention? I don’t know – she should be working on that, both in deed and in word, don’t you think?
But agreed – what you suggest would be one way to go. It doesn’t feel right to me though in my post.
Anon The First: I hear what you’re saying but I believe it is a far more honest thing to do to actually only say what you would say to people in person. That goes for comments, LTRs blog posts – whatever. Why else say it? If you’re ashamed, embarrassed or otherwise restrained from saying something, then there’s something not kosher to begin with. That’s my take.
In a work environment, I think it’s bad form to talk politics. It’s not relevant to the work–unless one is an opinion columnist–and can lead to discord or discrimination. This blog is a non-work environment, so I feel I can make comments (which might be of value or interest) that are of a political nature.
If I put a name on my posts (a name that will have no meaning to readers), it will add little to the understanding of those posts. However, in the event that my name is Googled by co-workers or potential employers, the wall of separation between work and politics that I wish to maintain will be breached.
Consequently, I see my choice as posting anonymously or not at all. If readers wish to discount or disregard my comments because they’re posted without a name, that’s fine.
Well, let me say this about that: if people work in environments that are contrary to or in conflict with other areas of their life, well – that’s a stressor, isn’t it? I have never really been in such a position and I have to think hard but I can’t imagine ever placing myself at such odds. I would look for other outlets or understand that such a venue is off-limits.
I mean, I allow anonymous comments here for this reason – because there can be value, merit, intrigue etc. in what folks who don’t name themselves say.
But, in general, it’s not my preferred way for people to interact. I let people fudge that, but I have a bias against anonymity.
Jeff, I am wondering, when you say:
“Not because I agree with Megan’s position, but rather because she was an ignorant college freshman when she wrote it.”
do you mean
A) her position taken in the article was ignorant -or
B) a college freshman is 18 and ignorant in general of what is going on
or C) both
I’ve been thinking about this a lot, and wondering whether there is anything in my past, when I was an “ignorant college freshman” that I would now be ashamed of. Maybe, but I can’t remember anything. I am proud of one thing about myself. I am true to myself and consistent. When I was 16, I won a contest with a speech about world peace, and the focus was racial and religious equality. That was in 1962. When I got a little older, I worked in the civil rights movement, then the feminist movement, and the anti-war movement. Call me a rose-colored glasses ’60’s person, but I have been consistent. Yes, people can change, but I am comfortable with those who truly believe and always have.
This reminds me of the argument going on in Ohio 2d about Steve Black, who was a Republican until he was a Democrat. Who gave money to Greg Hartmann in the 2006 election, but who now wants to be our representative as a Democrat. Yes, people can change. Just ask Mitt Romney.
What I don’t understand is why you felt compelled to “out” her. Why not reach out to her first and ask her about the letter and learn for yourself if in fact she had grown and changed perspective?
Muffett – yes, I know I’ve had the exact same thoughts as you.
Rich – you ask a reasonable question. The post above outlines how my thoughts unfolded and the actions I took.
It’s not exactly outing her. It is showing what a poor job the ODP did of hiring someone without doing any checking at all. I wouldn’t hire a legal assistant these days without doing a google check. This was a high profile position, reaching out to others. I am sure she could have done a good job. Her baggage, however, just might have prevented her from doing a great job. Think about how much time she would have had to spend ’splainin’ all this, rather than doing what she was hired to do.
The whole incident is sad. Apparently this young woman held some rather reprehensible views as an 18 year old freshman, yet during college she grew intellectually and abandoned those ideas. Isn’t that what makes a great university?
I’m just thankful that the current ODP leadership was not around in the 1930s, for they certainly would have thrown Justice Hugo Black under the bus for his youthful racist views and never allowed him the chance to grow and mature into becoming one of the most forceful public advocates for equal rights that this country has ever known.
Shalom Ben,
I would say C., Both.
But allow me to elaborate. I make a habit of giving thanks every morning for my ignorance because that means I get to learn something new every day.
Stupidity is forever, but Ignorance is curable through learning.
We talked at some length about this at the Blogger MeetUp last night and part of the consensus was that at 18 we all had held beliefs and said things we now, in hindsight, consider to be ignorant.
Other commenters here have suggested that if we cannot grow in our views and sincerely correct what we said on the record in the past then most of us aren’t ever going to say anything.
That’s not flip flopping as some might assert. It’s being thoughtful .
B’shalom,
Jeff
Hi Jill –
I posted about the OSU freshman who grew up to be a Demo party official in Ohio but I did not use her name. I learned about all the hoo-haa after reading Pho, which made me want to weigh in. I never used her name, though I did link to her column, which was preserved in the online version of The Lantern. I also linked to Pho.
Today I am wondering if there could have been a way to do this without mentioning this young lady’s name at all? I certainly tried to avoid it — and probably didn’t succeed completely. Today I keep thinking, agonizing really, that this soul has been tarred forever over some unfortunate commentary that was written in her teenage years. Now I wish I had never heard or wrote about this young person. I wish there was a way to take it all back. I really winced when I saw the OPENERS item — not because it was incorrect but because it now has the imprimatur of being BIG NEWS.
The more I reflect, the more I think about this matter, the deeper issue seems to me to be one of maturity — that her Lantern column was regrettably sophomoric. I can understand the ODP’s discomfort with having this young lady on staff — there are people who would be offended within the party, and there are others outside the party who would use the info as a bludgeon had it fallen into their hands. (I’m thinking the Townhall.com crowd and their wannabes.)
But surely there must be some means available to extricate oneself from comments or commentary that one no longer agrees with, or regrets making. There has to be something between losing a job or committing hara kiri. People do grow and do change. Wasn’t Hillary Clinton at one time a more zealous supporter of the Iraq War than now? Wasn’t she once a conservative Republican who supported Barry Goldwater?
I understand and accept the concept of evolution. And, over time, it seems crystal clear this young lady evolved. But it now feels like she has been burned at the stake. And I think I was in the mob crying witch.
Bill, I understand how you feel. I know how I feel similarly. But I know I wasn’t crying “witch” – I know I was crying, “What the hell did I just find and what explains it.”
Part of what needs to be understood here is my earnestness in the activities around getting women into the political pipeline. Those closest to me are aware of it and I think people who read this blog regularly know it too.
So, my first thoughts were, Goddamnit – what is this – here I was on cloud nine that there’s this new PAID position! And this woman with this great pedigree!
And then – I do everyday normal normal normal backgrounding – a simple google search.
And I read that column.
And I followed up what I read by contacting people I knew knew the person involved and said, hey – you know her – what’s this about.
Please notice – not one single solitary time did I ever make a judgment about whether I expected it to be what she thinks now or doesn’t think now. And I won’t speculate – because I don’t know – beyond what she has now written for herself. And no one else knew except for whomever she’s told.
The ODP should have found that column and handled it. How they’ve now handled it can be judged by all of us.
The author of the column is accepting responsibility for being the author of that column.
She is not now nor was she at the time she wrote the column a minor, to the best of my knowledge so the idea of not using her name didn’t occur to me – but remember, I wrote this post after Scott wrote his and had named her.
I’ve written before about how I have never found value in calling someone a flip-flopper – as others have noted, isn’t that what we hope for when people think and re-think issues- that they may change their mind? Flip-flopping as a negative is a total red herring – a Frank Luntzism. And I’ve always said that. You must look behind the change to judge what it is, or isn’t.
It is a situation that did not have to occur. But there’s every indication that this young woman has every intention of learning as much if not more from this incident as the rest of us who’ve given it this attention.
Sadly, the ability of the ODP to learn and grow remains to be seen.
I feel sorry for the young lady, but I think this incident has been good to get bloggers from the left and right to ask questions about how to handle these situations.
I’ve tried to make a point to Tim Russo and to many others. Should one’s life be defined by one incident like this? I don’t think so.
Even worse, what shows up on Google, to many, is the definition of your life. I’m as guilty as others of this attitude, if you don’t have a web page, a blog, or a good web identity its like you don’t exist.
As to using or not using someone’s name, I think it is case by case. I wrote extensively about a young man from Chicago that used to work for Ted Strickland. I elected not to use his name at his request, and at the request of his wife and attorney. I thought he deserved a second chance and that his name didn’t add anything to the story.
At the same time, average folks can quickly get drug into these web issues that they are ill prepared to handle. Anyone can write anything about any person on the web, whether its true or not. It is very expensive, and time consuming to correct the errors.
Thanks for the comments, Scott. I’m sure that what you’ve written here resonates with a lot of readers.