NPR has placed its senior vice president for news, Michael Oreskes, on leave after fielding accusations that he sexually harassed two women seeking career opportunities nearly two decades ago, when he worked at The New York Times.

The allegations from the two women were first reported by The Washington Post on Tuesday afternoon. They included similar accounts of unwanted and unexpected kisses during business meetings.

Meanwhile, a current NPR employee is going public with her account of filing a formal complaint with the network’s human resources division in October 2015. Rebecca Hersher says she considers the incident less severe but nevertheless felt it crossed a line and made her uncomfortable. At the time a 26-year-old assistant producer on Weekend All Things Considered, she said Oreskes hijacked a career counseling session into a three-hour-long dinner that delved into deeply personal territory.

Oreskes did not respond to multiple efforts to reach him for comment. NPR executives say that they cannot address individual personnel matters but that they take concerns of sexual harassment or other inappropriate workplace behavior seriously.

According to The Washington Post, there were two separate complaints about Oreskes from his tenure as Washington bureau chief at The New York Times nearly 20 years ago. Both women tell similar stories: After meeting Oreskes and discussing their job prospects, they said he unexpectedly kissed them on the lips and stuck his tongue in their mouths. The Post did not disclose their names, stating they spoke on condition of anonymity because they did not want to damage future employment prospects. The women also shared their allegations with NPR management in mid-October.

After joining NPR in the spring of 2015, Oreskes encouraged staffers to reach out to him to discuss their careers during his visit to NPR West in Culver City, Calif. At the time Hersher had been working a series of temporary assignments for NPR, and she took him up on his offer during a subsequent visit to Washington. An afternoon meeting was pushed off into evening and an invitation to dinner at a seafood restaurant near Union Station.

Hersher, now a reporter and producer on NPR’s science desk, says she wanted to tell him about her belief that she would need to leave NPR to transform from a producer to a reporter. Her dinner with Oreskes became increasingly uncomfortable as the conversation veered into personal matters involving relationships and sex. At one point, she says, he referred to a former flame as his first “sex girlfriend.”

Hersher says the conversation made her uncomfortable.

“From my point of view, every little thing that he or I said pointed to the relative difference in power,” she said. “Like he’s the one with the power. He’s the one who gets to decide what we talk about — and I am trying to keep up.”

Hersher said he gave her what seemed like a nonromantic hug at the train station afterward, and that he did not otherwise touch her or suggest any physical involvement.

Still, Hersher said Tuesday, the entire evening felt as though it devalued her as a professional. She suddenly questioned why a senior executive would care about her career.

“I went to the train station, and I called my best friend; I cried on the phone to her,” Hersher says. “I went home and then I cried to my boyfriend. It undercut my confidence in a way that was surprising to me.”

Hersher reported the incident to NPR’s human resources division. The network formally rebuked Oreskes and informed other top network executives. Hersher said she felt satisfied with the company’s response and that she experienced no retribution.

Two colleagues at NPR confirmed that Hersher told them of the incident at the time. I did considerable reporting on the episode in spring 2016. At that time, Hersher was not willing to go on the record for a news story, and I was unable to confirm a pattern of behavior by Oreskes. The incident did not involve anything physical, and there was no force, retribution or request for a romantic involvement, and Hersher said she believed the network had held Oreskes appropriately accountable.

At the time, this reporter and editors of that story — who did not include Oreskes or anyone who reported directly to him — concluded that the incident on its own did not rise to the level of national news.

The new allegations concerning Oreskes’ tenure at The Times changed the equation.

In a note to staff on Tuesday, NPR CEO Jarl Mohn encouraged employees to come forward if they have been harassed.

“We take these kinds of allegations very seriously,” Mohn wrote. “If a concern is raised, we review the matter promptly. We take all appropriate steps to assure a safe, comfortable, and productive work environment for everyone at NPR. … This is our NPR. And I will stand up for it, and every one of you.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Updated at 2:10 a.m. ET

A retired senior military officer has been appointed to oversee the rebuilding of Puerto Rico’s devastated power grid in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria, as some three-quarters of the island’s residents remain without electricity.

In a written statement on Wednesday, the federal board that oversees Puerto Rico’s troubled finances announced its “intent to appoint” retired Air Force Colonel Noel Zamot “as chief transformation officer” of PREPA, the island’s power utility.

“I am fully committed to bringing the resources necessary to restore electricity to the people of Puerto Rico as quickly as possible, and to re-activate the economy and bring normalcy to the island,” Zamot said in a statement.

But Reuters reports, quoting a source familiar with [Puerto Rican] Gov. Ricardo Rosselló’s thinking, as saying that the territory’s government is not happy about Zamot’s appointment.

And in a public statement, Rosselló appeared to chafe at the board’s move, saying it had overstepped its authority in making the appointment.

The governor said management of island agencies “rests exclusively on democratically elected officials.”

“Puerto Rico will be zealous in defending the people from any action that seeks to undermine this process,” Rosselló said in a Spanish-language statement.

Zamot’s appointment would come amid concern over a $300 million contract issued by the island’s power utility, PREPA, to Whitefish Energy Holdings to lead the restoration effort. Whitefish Energy — a tiny firm with few resources and little experience — is based in Whitefish, Mont., the hometown of Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke.

On Wednesday, Rosselló tweeted out a letter he wrote asking for an audit into how the company won its contract.

Addressed to the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general’s office, Rosselló wrote: “I request that your office complete its review of the Whitefish Contract so that a final determination can be made as to the Whitefish Contract and address any other issues regarding the same by Monday, October 30, 2017.”

The controversy over Whitefish Energy continues to boil, with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday praising Zamot’s appointment, but expressing suspicion over the Whitefish contract.

“We are deeply concerned both about why and how a small, inexperienced firm was tasked with the massive job of rebuilding Puerto Rico’s devastated electrical grid, and why (Puerto Rico’s power company) failed to activate the mutual aid network, which effectively came to the aid of Texas and Florida after the devastation of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma,” the California Democrat said in a statement.

The company — which had only two full-time employees as recently as last month — engaged in a heated back-and-forth on Wednesday with San Juan’s outspoken Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz via Twitter. Cruz called for more transparency over the company’s contract and Whitefish Energy, in turn, issued an implied threat to pull its workforce.

In a tweet since deleted, Whitefish fired back: “We’ve got 44 linemen rebuilding power lines in your city & 40 more men just arrived. Do you want us to send them back or keep working?”

Later, the company issued an apology, saying the comments “did not represent who we are and how important this work is to help Puerto Rico’s recovery.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

The Senate has voted to get rid of a banking rule that allows consumers to bring class-action lawsuits against banks and credit card companies to resolve financial disputes.

With Vice President Mike Pence casting the tie-breaking vote, the roll-back of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule banning restrictive mandatory arbitration clauses found in the fine print of credit card and checking account agreements passed 51-50, with Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John Kennedy of Louisiana voting against repeal.

The Republican-controlled House had already voted to rescind the rule and President Trump is expected to quickly sign the measure, which also bars similar rules in the future.

The CFPB rule, released in July, was aimed at giving consumers more power. Prior to the rule, the CFPB said companies could “sidestep the court system” by “forcing consumers to give up or go it alone.”

This allowed companies to “avoid big refunds, and continue harmful practices,” the CFPB wrote in July in announcing the changes.

CFPB said it was redressing a situation in which consumers were forced “to give up or go it alone – usually over small amounts,” while companies were able to “sidestep the court system, avoid big refunds, and continue harmful practices.”

In a statement released shortly after the vote, CFPB Director Richard Cordray said it represented “a giant setback for every consumer in this country. Wall Street won and ordinary people lost.”

In July, The Washington Post wrote that the rule “came about because of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation, which the Trump administration and Republicans have been trying to dismantle. The legislation required the CFPB to study the use of arbitration agreements and report back to Congress. The rule is a result of that report.”

The move is part of a larger push by Republicans to roll back regulations that they believe hurt the free market.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said President Trump supported the move because: “The rule would harm our community banks and credit unions by opening the door to frivolous lawsuits by special interest trial lawyers,” she said.

Democrats, however, argue that such rules give consumers more power to stop abusive practices, citing “the sales practices at Wells Fargo and the security breach at credit company Equifax as examples of misdeeds protected through forced arbitration,” The Associated Press writes.

“So who does forced arbitration help? Wall Street banks and other huge corporations that never pay the price for cheating working people,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio.

As Chris Arnold, of NPR’s Planet Money team, wrote last year, “in recent years, and especially after a Supreme Court decision in 2011, mandatory arbitration clauses have become widespread across all kinds of industries. So consumers in many instances have signed away their right to seek restitution through a class action.”

The financial industry, however, says the rule would encourage lawyers to “unfairly shake down companies to line their own pockets … [and] raise legal costs for companies, which in turn would increase prices for consumers,” Chris reported.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Bill O’Reilly wants you to know it’s all lies, driven by ideology, personal animus and professional jealousy.

Since The New York Times reported this weekend that he had agreed to a $32 million settlement to silence a longtime colleague’s accusations of sexual harassment back in January, O’Reilly has been brawling to defend his already deeply tarnished reputation.

O’Reilly’s former bosses at Fox News and parent company 21st Century — and especially for the Murdoch family that controls both — are fighting to contain fallout on multiple fronts. The Murdochs signed O’Reilly to a contract extension a month after their star host agreed to the secret payout — and despite knowing of at least four earlier instances in which he settled with women over sexual harassment dating back to 2004.

“Nobody pays $32 million to anybody for false accusations,” former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson told HLN.

“It’s shocking and it’s disturbing,” former Fox News host Megyn Kelly said on her new NBC Today show program.

All three Murdochs — Rupert and his sons Lachlan and James — have made pledges to reform the culture of Fox News. The late Roger Ailes, the propulsive force behind Fox News, was bought out as chairman last year after Carlson, Kelly and others accused him of sexual harassment. A host of network executives were forced out over the ensuing year for their ties to Ailes and perceptions they had enabled abusive behavior. The Murdochs paid O’Reilly $20 million to leave in the spring after several previously unknown settlements with women came to light. The network also forced out host Eric Bolling.

And yet Kelly devoted the opening minutes of her Monday morning show to an extended argument that Fox had not done enough.

On her show, Kelly just about set out a roadmap for prosecutors, arguing Fox had betrayed a pattern of hiding allegations through payments and threats, and retribution against those women who spoke up. “This has to stop,” Kelly said on NBC. “The abuse of women, the shaming them, the threatening, the retaliation, the silencing of them after the fact.”

O’Reilly’s spokesman, Mark Fabiani, sent a statement to NPR calling the Times‘ reporting a “diatribe … designed to embarrass Bill O’Reilly and to keep him from competing in the marketplace.” The statement also repeated O’Reilly’s frequent claim that no co-worker has ever filed a complaint against him with the network’s human resources or legal divisions. O’Reilly also released handwritten thank-you notes from Carlson and Kelly, and claimed he had helped them throughout their careers.

“Any fair-minded person can start to formulate a picture here,” O’Reilly said on former Fox News host Glenn Beck’s radio show Monday. “All I can hope for is that the American people will see that this is an attack on me for political purposes. It has done enormous damage to me and my family.”

Carlson and Kelly have both questioned the sincerity of the network’s past human resources and legal officials. Kelly also pointed to Fox’s chief publicity executive, Irena Briganti, as a corporate enforcer. (21st Century Fox issued a brief statement backing Briganti, saying she was a valued colleague who had the company’s full support.)

In a draft of a lawsuit, former Fox News legal analyst Lis Wiehl alleged O’Reilly had sexually harassed her over an extended period, sent her gay pornography, and that they had a “nonconsensual sexual relationship.” That troubling phrase was not further defined. O’Reilly agreed within weeks to the $32 million settlement, the Times reported. Wiehl signed an affidavit attesting she had no complaints against either O’Reilly or Fox News.

Officials for 21st Century Fox released a statement hailing the changes at Fox News and saying it was not aware of the amount of money involved in the settlement. The Murdochs were aware, however, of the nature of Wiehl’s allegations when they re-signed O’Reilly to a new multi-year contract with a raise. The company said any network would have done the same given O’Reilly’s position. (He was the top rated figure in cable news for years before his departure.)

“I’ve never heard of two employees reaching their own agreement and then the employer turning a blind eye to how much it was settled for,” said employment lawyer Douglas Wigdor, who is representing 22 people suing Fox News for a variety of charges. He won a confidential settlement from O’Reilly last year for Fox News commentator Juliet Huddy after she alleged the host had sexually harassed her.

As the Times also reported, the general counsel for parent company 21st Century Fox, Gerson Zweifach, warned his colleagues that he might have to disclose the settlement between O’Reilly and Wiehl. He wrote in an email that federal prosecutors would view that development as relevant to their investigation. Prosecutors have asked questions about activities of the network’s former president, chief attorney, financial officer, and the current public relations chief, according to two people knowledgeable about the process. It appears intent on probing the extent of actions taken by Fox officials toward women who say Ailes sexually harassed them.

In addition, 21st Century Fox is fighting in the U.K. for regulatory approval of the takeover of the more than 60 percent of the European satellite television company Sky that it does not already control. The value of the deal stands currently at more than $15 billion. But the British culture minister has delayed and expanded the review process, due to the sexual abuse scandal, the network’s handling of the Seth Rich story, and incidents of illegality and bribery at the Murdochs’ newspapers in that country.

Regulators are now assessing more broadly the family’s leadership. The Murdochs rewarded O’Reilly with a new contract and a raise after learning of the Wiehl settlement. That suggests the Murdochs were willing to give O’Reilly a sixth chance on sexual harassment, just six months after ousting their chairman for the same transgression.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

AFL-CIO members, meeting in St. Louis, voted Sunday night to give Richard Trumka another term as president. He has been in the position since 2009.

Trumka ran unopposed as did Secretary-Treasurer Liz Shuler and Executive Vice President Tefere Gebre.

Bloomberg News reports Trumka has another four years to try to reverse the fortunes of the embattled labor movement.

“While Trumka’s re-election proved easy, it takes place at time U.S. unionization is at record lows and the Supreme Court is considering a case that could shrink the membership even further by banning mandatory public-sector union fees.

“Trumka has pursued a restructuring of the AFL-CIO this year, dismissing dozens of staff and dissolving departments in a move he said would tighten the group’s focus on mounting campaigns, passing legislation and stimulating growth.”

The re-election was held at the start of the AFL-CIO’s four-day, quadrennial convention.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Following the election, crafting a “Workers’ Bill of Rights” will be a primary focus of the event, Mr. Trumka said. “The aim is to give politicians a clear view on union priorities, including the need for better wages and rethought trade agreements. It would establish a litmus test to determine if the AFL-CIO will support candidates in the 2018 and 2020 elections, regardless of party.

“People that support that Workers’ Bill of Rights will get our support,” Mr. Trumka told reporters Sunday. “Those that don’t—we’re sorry. We’re going to use our resources and our power to help people get elected that support the needs of workers.”

Looking ahead to the 2018 mid-term elections, NPR National Political Correspondent Don Gonyea reported that Trumka said unions have learned lessons from the 2016 election.

“Labor endorsed Democrat Hillary Clinton. According to exit polls, she carried union households, but by just 9 percentage points. Compare that with President Barack Obama’s 18-point margin among labor voters four years earlier. The shift certainly helped Donald Trump secure victory in closely contested battleground states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

“Turning that around in the next year’s midterm elections will require aggressive outreach to union voters. Personal contact is always the key, according to Trumka, but he also acknowledged his organization didn’t make the case well enough — or often enough — last year.

“As for the appeal of Trump among the rank-and-file membership, Trumka said, “My members, just like most Americans, are angry that the system isn’t working for them. That it keeps moving them further and further behind,” adding, “while the country is the richest country on the face of the earth.”

“He said they were willing to take a risk on Trump because he promised to shake up the system.

Every two years the AFL-CIO mounts an expensive get-out-the-vote and informational effort on behalf of the candidates it endorses.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)