DeWine created no record of conversation of confidential source
COLUMBUS –On Wednesday, the Sandusky Register reported that Mike DeWine personally interfered with an internal sexual harassment probe by demanding the name of a confidential source. DeWine’s office claimed he had asked for the name of the confidential informant to “speak” to the source.
An attorney who specialized in sexual harassment cases criticized DeWine’s actions:
Robert A. Klingler, a Cincinnati lawyer whose firm specializes in sexual-harassment issues, said involvement by a top official or company president in a sexual-harassment case creates an appearance of impropriety. Klingler, who is not involved in the attorney general matter, said DeWine’s involvement, however well intended, might be seen as trying to “shape” the testimony of a potential witness.
It also could have a “chilling effect on future informants who would think twice about coming forward on a confidential basis.” [Source: Columbus Dispatch (8/8/14), “DeWine’s role in office sexual-harassment probe is questioned.”]
In response to DeWine’s explanation of his interference in an internal sexual harassment probe, Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern said:
“There is only one reason an attorney like Mike DeWine would demand the name of a confidential informant and then fail to make any record of what he did with that information. DeWine was more concerned with protecting his friend than the young intern that was harassed in his office.