There are two important cases from the #metoo movement hitting the Washington State legislature.

The first is regarding Rep. Matt Manweller.  Manweller, a Republican House member from Central Washington, has been dogged by assertions by some that he may have acted inappropriately towards students in his class, or other young women that were under his protection or authority.

For example, Manweller’s first wife suggested that he sought to “groom” her and position her as a “trophy” wife.  In a more recent investigation by Manweller’s employer, Central Washington University detailed a series of questionable actions.  Those include statements from one student that Manweller said:

You don’t want to write the paper and I don’t want to read it…

At another point, the CWU report says Manweller suggests to the same student that they can go to a hotel to “discuss it orally.”

Manweller has denied or argued against many of these allegations.

The Morning Wire: Keeping you informed on politics, policies, and personalities of Washington State.

As a result of the evidence in this investigation, the House Republican leadership moved to impress upon Manweller that he should give up his seat.  They stripped him of his committee posts, and met to actively discuss removing him from his position.  A vote of 2/3rd of the House can remove any member, and it’s assumed that with Democratic support, Republican leadership could convince enough members to force Manweller to leave the chamber. As a result, Manweller agreed to relinquish his seat whether he is re-elected or not.

The second example of the #metoo movement creating a consequence for the legislature is the example of Sen. Joe Fain.  A recent accuser, Candace Faber, claims that Joe Fain raped her in Washington DC in 2007, and that she was motivated to come forward now in 2018 as a result of Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony regarding Brett Kavanaugh.

Her story was covered by a few outlets when it first broke last month.

There are important parallels between the two events – that of Manweller and of Fain – with differences worth discussing.

What did an investigation find?

CWU’s investigation found enough evidence to catalyze support for taking action among the House Republican leadership.  Once the process had run its course, after CWU took action to remove Manweller from his teaching position, and after a full hearing of the evidence was available, House Republican leadership impressed upon Manweller that he should give up his seat.

In many ways, this was exactly how the process should work: independent investigation, compelling evidence, and a response from the members of a legislative body that largely govern themselves.

In the case of Joe Fain, he – like Manweller – has called for an independent investigation.  In the case of Joe Fain, there is no obvious body charged with independent investigative authority that can review this matter.  There isn’t a CWU equivalent in this case, or employer that otherwise had liability for Fain’s action’s under state or federal labor law.  Moreover, the accuser, Ms. Faber, is not willing to file charges in Washington DC against Mr. Fain.  So, not even the police are able to investigate this.

In a KING 5 story on this, Faber says she isn’t interested in pressing charges.

I would be much more interested in some kind of path forward that leads to healing for me and for him and for anyone else that’s been touched by this eiusse, because we can’t jail them all.

Faber has laid out the issue in a recent post speaking directly to Fain and highlighting the challenge of a lack of investigative authority.

You have called for an investigation, but no such process exists.

‪You said you “absolutely deny” what I am “accusing you of.” However, you have not been clear about what, exactly, you deny.

Without an investigation, can the Senate Republican Caucus take action comparable to that which the House Republicans took regarding Manweller?

Politically, it would probably be difficult for the Senate Republican Caucus to bring similar pressure on Fain that the House Republicans brought on Manweller absent a comparable investigation.

However, with the lack of a comparable independent investigative authority, and the relative importance that such an investigation plays in supporting any caucus activity, it leaves the Senate Republican Caucus itself – or some other legislative body or authority – as the remaining authority that can investigate this accusation.

In other words, the House Republicans have forced an outcome – Manweller stepping down – that will hold regardless of the will of the voters.  But they got there because the investigative process had played out.

In the Senate, the investigation is also critical for any possible action.  The lack of disciplinary action because of the lack of a complete investigative process is not exculpatory.

So, the lesson from the Manweller precedent in the House is that Senate Republicans should push for an investigation of their member, Sen. Joe Fain.  The will of the Democrats doesn’t matter in this case.  It takes 2/3rds of the vote to remove a member of the Senate.  If the Republicans believe Fain should be removed, then the evidence that is compelling to Republicans is likely to be compelling to Democrats, too.  So, including Democrats in any investigation is unnecessary.

Put differently, what happened with Matt Manweller created a reasonable precedent that the Senate should consider following regarding Joe Fain.  Doing so would protect the integrity of the chamber, and ensure that members are vetted – even if by their peers – when significant allegations of misconduct arise.

Your support matters.

Public service journalism is important today as ever. If you get something from our coverage, please consider making a donation to support our work. Thanks for reading our stuff.