Randall T. Shepard: DCS official’s resignation reveals much

The story of Todd Meyer’s departure from the Indiana Department of Child Services tells us much about the department, employment litigation and the newspaper business.

Recall that in mid-July, Meyer resigned his post as associate director of the DCS. Neither he nor the agency offered any explanation (except that he would pursue “other opportunities”).

That was the state of public knowledge until a few weeks ago when The Indianapolis Star posted a lengthy investigative piece. It recounted Meyer’s approach to a student intern. His messages to her were appalling, like “you smell very nice” and a suggestion that he wanted to “hang out.”

When the intern reported these experiences in July, the department’s personnel office showed zero hesitation in investigating the agency’s second in command. Concluding the intern’s report was valid, agency officials confronted Meyer the very next day, and he resigned.

Meyer’s approach had been strange before he even met the student. He had recruited her through the internet. The obvious: You don’t recruit interns by hunting for them on LinkedIn. You post an opening with the schools and state personnel; you look over resumes and do interviews.

I propose we be grateful there are people in state government like those in DCS who took quick action. And Gov. Eric Holcomb spoke for us all when he told The Star he was “disgusted by what I read.”

Most people applauded the way in which our government handled this disaster, but a few have questioned why there was no explanation of the details back in July. Why shouldn’t the public and future employers have been told particulars?

There are at least two reasons for restraint at such moments, depending on the details of a given situation.

One reason has to do with victims. They have a lot at stake. Victims may well legitimately want vindication or at least an acknowledgement. Others may wish simply to be extricated from the morass and do not wish to risk expanding the circle of knowledge beyond family or close friends. We need to care about their situations.

Second, there’s important law affecting whether government or private employers make announcements about details. An employer that announces reasons for termination or separation can be very much subject to liability for the impact of those statements on the terminee. The prevailing rule in Indiana and elsewhere is that an employer who goes beyond the minimum can be required to compensate the former employee. The most severe version of this occurs in Minnesota, where even an employer who says nothing may be held liable for forcing the former employee to tell on himself. It’s called “compelled self-publication defamation.” Indiana has been having none of that. Still, potential litigation prompts many employers to say nothing.

In short, there are reasons why we don’t often get details.

On quite a different front, The Star’s handling of the news poses intriguing questions about the state of modern newspapers.

When I first read the internet posting, among my thoughts was that I knew already what the next morning’s front page would look like when the delivery service dropped the paper at my door.

But not so, of course. Several days went by during which the paper added to its electronic posting. Over these days, televisions stations reported on the events, largely using the material from The Star’s posted article.

It wasn’t until the following Sunday that Todd Meyer appeared at all in print. To be sure, the tale was on the right side of page one above the fold. It was the original posting, plus material from those weekday electronic additions. I know there’s a strategy there, but in the shifting world of newspaper journalism, it’s not yet clear.•

__________

Shepard, formerly Indiana chief justice, now serves as senior judge and teaches law. Send comments to ibjedit@ibj.com.

Click here for more Forefront columns.