Premium Members  | Lottery News and Stories
Lottery should operate with total transparency
Friday, June 02, 2006 posted 11:55 AM EDT
On Jan. 5, 2006, the Tennessee Lottery fired Steve Adams from his job as chief administrative officer, citing sexual harassment.
On May 30, the lottery released the files that formed the basis for Adams' firing.
The delay of almost five months between the firing and the release of the allegations hurt everyone involved. Adams wasn't
able to respond to the allegations, which he has since denied, because he didn't know what they were. The people making the
charges — who weren't identified this week and would not have been identified in January — were left wondering how their
remarks were characterized in the official report.
The public was denied information about the abrupt firing of an individual who has served in state government for 32 years,
including 17 years as state treasurer.
But the entity hurt the most was the lottery itself; after this incident, the public has reason to question the lottery officials'
commitment to openness.
Immediately after Adams was fired, lottery officials refused to release the allegations against him, claiming that the investigative
records were protected by attorney-client privilege. NashvillePost.com sued, citing the open records law. Chancellor Carol
McCoy rejected the lottery's argument in January, saying Adams wasn't given due process rights and that the documents weren't
protected by attorney-client privilege. In March, McCoy denied the lottery's motion to reconsider her ruling. Late last month,
the lottery board decided not to appeal the case.
The lawsuit, the trip to court and the delay all would have been avoided — as would the expense the lottery incurred defending
its actions — if the lottery had only respected its duty to operate in a transparent fashion.
Sexual harassment is a serious issue that deserves to be treated seriously. But when allegations of harassment are kept private,
the accused has no reasonable way to respond, and the public has no reasonable way to judge whether the charges are legitimate
and the punishment is appropriate.
Now that the allegations against Adams have been made public, his case begins.
|
| |
