published Wednesday, October 5th, 2011

The Resignation

Related story: Paul Page resigns from City of Chattanooga post amid allegations of harassment

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

26
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
Salsa said...

He needs to go down the hall to the mayor's office and start sanitizing there. The stink starts at the top.

October 5, 2011 at 12:05 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Yawn...........

October 5, 2011 at 7:01 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

LOL! Thank you, Clay! It bothers me a great deal that this man was allowed to keep his position for so long in the Littlefield administration. Would have been nice if the Mayor had fired him instead of issuing a statement that Page is expected to resign. That sounded like he was hoping the issue would die down and they could ignore it (which is what they had done since 2006).

October 5, 2011 at 7:10 a.m.
mystyre said...

what is it with chattanooga and corrupt politcians? it seems every person we elect seems to have some dirt on them (which normal, we're all human). however, these elected officials seem to not care about any sense of general decency or proper decorum. then, we get mad when a theif puts his hand in the cooke jar or a pervert gets a hand up dress. oh, the taxpayers...

October 5, 2011 at 8:09 a.m.
GBO81 said...

Clay, this is one of the few times I can agree with you. Thank goodness this deviant is out of office. He should have never been hired in the first place since he had been fired from so many other government jobs. Oh, it's interesting to note that Ron Littlefield sure didn't condemn any of Mr. Page's actions leading to his resignation. Wow. Stay classy, Ron...stay classy.

October 5, 2011 at 8:59 a.m.
patriot1 said...

This could have been the editorial office at the TFP zs well.

October 5, 2011 at 9:04 a.m.
XGSBoss said...

BRP, yeah, I'm with you. Sexual harrasment is so 5 minutes ago. I mean, sure they are your daughters, mothers, wives, but they ARE just WOMEN after all.

October 5, 2011 at 9:06 a.m.

Maybe he thought he was former President Clinton?

October 5, 2011 at 9:42 a.m.
mtngrl said...

Blondie, do you understand the difference between harassment and willing participant?

October 5, 2011 at 10:39 a.m.

Mtngrl, do you understand the difference between Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones?

October 5, 2011 at 10:46 a.m.
mtngrl said...

yes, one tried to profit later

October 5, 2011 at 11:14 a.m.

Mtngrl, do you understand the concept of a man in a position of power taking advantage of a subordinate female? Willing or not, he took advantage of his position. I find you feminists to be gigantic hypocrites. You let him skate because he's a Democrat. He showed zero respect for two other females in the process, you know, his wife and daughter? Right under their noses too.

October 5, 2011 at 12:27 p.m.

Until you feminists condem Bill Clinton for using his position of power to take advantage of a female subordinate, the same as you would condem a CEO in a company for doing the same, then you have no credibility. You're just loudmouths with a double standard.

October 5, 2011 at 12:31 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

BlondeButNotDumb said: "Until you feminists condem Bill Clinton for using his position of power to take advantage of a female subordinate, the same as you would condem a CEO in a company for doing the same, then you have no credibility. You're just loudmouths with a double standard."

And Newt Gingrich? From what I've read, Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton were both busy men during the same time period. The only difference was Newt was publicly condemning Clinton for his adultery while busily committing adultery himself.

The bottom line is the women involved in the Clinton and Gingrich matter did not file a harassment complaint with the EEOC, which is what occurred in the matter involving Chattanooga's Director of General Services. If the had filed a harassment complaint, there would have been a hearing, and the EEOC would have issued a decision.

October 5, 2011 at 1:45 p.m.
mtngrl said...

My positions have nothing to do with politics in this matter. From all accounts Paula went to his hotel room willingly, and when exiting the room she stated that she "would not mind being Clinton's girlfriend". Clinton may have been a cad and a terrible husband - but that is between him and his family.

mountainlaurel is correct, regardless of political party the main issue with these women are whether or not they were willing participants. Many CEOs have flings with their secretaries with no suit filed other than a divorce suite from their wife, why do you say we condemn them?

From what I have seen, none of Paul Page's complainants were willing participants. Clinton's women acted more like groupies.

October 5, 2011 at 1:59 p.m.

Gingrich is pig as well, in my opinion. It doesn't matter if someone is a willing participant or not. The fact is it's about men in positions of power taking advantage of women. Whether they sweet talked them into it or were more vulgar about it, it doesn't matter to me, it's all the same.

Feminists are still trying to make Clinton look good. Bringing up Gingrich doesn't make Clinton look any better. The whole "willing participant" thing, doesn't take away from what it is, which is men using their position to take advantage of women.

October 5, 2011 at 3:20 p.m.
mtngrl said...

Being a "willing participant" does mean it is not sexual harassment.

Check for yourself: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm

Here is the text from the above, I added emphasis where relevant

*"Sexual Harassment:

It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general. Both victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex. Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted). The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer."*

October 5, 2011 at 4:36 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

BlondButNotDumb said: “Feminists are still trying to make Clinton look good. Bringing up Gingrich doesn't make Clinton look any better. The whole "willing participant" thing, doesn't take away from what it is, which is men using their position to take advantage of women.”

I fully agree that Gingrich and Clinton conducted themselves in a sleazy manner, BBND. As for the women involved, however, I believe they must share some of the responsibility. It wasn’t like it was a one-time isolated event. In both cases, the women involved were adults and they willingly participated in the relationship.

As to your reference to feminists, what do you mean? I looked up the word “feminist” in the dictionary and it defines the word simply as someone who believes in women’s rights. What’s so wrong about this, BBND? Surely, you’re not suggesting that women in this country do not have rights or should not have rights?

October 5, 2011 at 4:44 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

MtnGrl said: Being a "willing participant" does mean it is not sexual harassment."

Thanks for looking this up, MtnGrl. Indeed, it should settle the matter.

October 5, 2011 at 4:46 p.m.

Mountainlaurel,

Stop dreaming... No scientific or intellectual proof ever settles the matter for these dumb idiots....

October 5, 2011 at 5:04 p.m.
ginagirl43 said...

What a disgusting pig.

October 5, 2011 at 5:14 p.m.
dude_abides said...

blondebutnotblond said that she voted for Obama (and now wishes she hadn't) when she first posted here. Her comments now are clearly those of a person who has had problems with all things left for a long time. This makes her a liar. You folks are throwing truth by the bucketful at someone who has already proven the truth means nothing to her. Beware, be very ware.

October 5, 2011 at 7:21 p.m.
adolphochs said...

The shocking part of this story is that Page wasn't reassigned by Littlefield to Parks and Recreation - the official dumping ground for incompetents, theives, problem employees, etc. The position that Page had was created by Littlefield.

October 5, 2011 at 7:34 p.m.
fairmon said...

A replacement is not needed. It is time to restructure and reduce the size of city government. The council, by not replacing him, may have enough to buy the Blue Rhino a mate for another $32,500. I would like to see the cost/benefit analysis that was done on the Rhino purchase. Remember the stewardship of tax dollars when next we vote. Littlefield is gone and I assume his son is not running.

October 5, 2011 at 8:25 p.m.
fairmon said...

bbnd...

I hate to admit it but mntl is correct in saying that it is not labeled sexual harassment unless there is a valid complaint to an appropriate party. The complaint does not have to be filed with the EEOC, it can be brought to one of the managers trained to handle such complaints and if not satisfactorily resolved an even stronger EEOC complaint can be filed. We don't have access to the documentation of the complaint or response. It would be interesting to know what the exact EEOC response was, they can vary. I wonder if the Mayor or anyone else had been informed by any of the aggrieved employees and failed to investigate and take the appropriate action? I am guessing the resignation is so we can pay his pension and health care for life.

Clinton is a low life, an embarrassment to the office of POTUS and his family. He used his position to take advantage of Lewinsky's ignorance. However, I would prefer him as president over the idiot we have now.

October 5, 2011 at 8:53 p.m.

Clinton is a low life, an embarrassment to the office of POTUS and his family. He used his position to take advantage of Lewinsky's ignorance. However, I would prefer him as president over the idiot we have now.(mrHarp)

O know! dont evr say dat mrHarp man. da Clitons are vury danjurus, dey jes smyle an smyle lotts! An lye an lye. as fur idjuts up ther i thunk da bigist won is thos dat cawl us idjuts. dey beleef evrthin mrO and demons sez! dey ax missBlondi wut ees femenist? why id hev to sez yous ees Femenazsi mittngurl an mittnlurel, hows dat fur trooth miss?

dos demons furget mrClitons gurls an ladees hoo wur pursicootid fur tellin on wee willie wonkurs i sez dats fur reel sexooal hahrasmint al ritey an dos clitons ar shor wurs dan ole mrPaul dats fur shor now!

October 9, 2011 at 1:11 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.