KJS DC 3.26

This week, the US House voted 357-65 to block disclosure of sexual harassment records. Both parties. Protecting a system where:

– $18+ million in taxpayer-funded settlements paid to silence victims (pre-2018)
– Zero transparency on which members were involved
– Secret investigations by Ethics Committee
– Accused members vote on their own disclosure

Those are actual Facts

Compare this to basic corporate ESG standards:
– Transparency: Any Fortune 500 company would be flagged for lack of disclosure  
– Accountability: Self-policing with zero consequences  
– Victim Protection: NDAs and hush money masquerading as “confidentiality”  
– Prevention: No deterrent = ongoing culture of impunity

Unofficial Governance Assessment: U.S. Congress Sexual Harassment Policy
>> If Congress were a publicly traded company, it would be un-investable based on governance alone. 
– Current system: confidential investigations, secret settlements, protected perpetrators

Protecting Predators…Keep seeing this pattern. Same elite protection racket. Powerful write the rules, control the narrative, and face zero consequences. Ancient male-dominated policies protect the club at the expense of victims. Systemic suppression disguised as “due process.”

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna called it correctly: “There is even a slush fund they use to pay people off with your tax dollars.”

Nancy Mace also said it plainly: “Both parties colluded (today) to protect predators.”

Is this a good time to talk about the “G” in ESG?

As ESG professionals: How would you rate an organization that:
– Uses customer funds to settle executive misconduct claims secretly?
– Refuses transparency on settlements?
– Allows accused leadership to vote on disclosure policies?

…You’d divest. Yet this is how the U.S. government operates. If your company operated this way, regulators would investigate and the board would be replaced. Congress just voted 357-65 to keep it buried.

US Congress vs, Basic Governance Benchmarks/ESG Standards

Transparency: F

• Zero public disclosure of settlements pre-2018
• Active suppression of transparency efforts
• Bipartisan collusion to maintain secrecy

Accountability: F

• No consequences for misconduct if paid from slush fund
• Ethics Committee investigations kept confidential
• Accused members vote on their own disclosure

Victim Protection: D

• NDAs silence victims
• No structural support for reporting
• “Victim protection” used as excuse to protect perpetrators

Due Process: D-

• Secret tribunals
• No public record
• Self-policing by colleagues with vested interest in cover-up

Prevention: F

• No deterrent when settlements are secret and paid by taxpayers
• Culture of impunity remains intact

Overall ESG Governance Grade: F

.