"My experience is so polar opposite what I read in the press or see on the news that I wanted to say something. It blows my mind that these allegations even get brought up."
Former employee of OnTrack and Rita Sullivan
Some unhappy people are suing OnTrack and Rita Sullivan. They talk to the media and tell their story. Rita Sullivan cannot respond.
Her former employees are speaking up on her behalf.
For 39 years Dr. Rita Sullivan was Executive Director of a nonprofit alcohol and drug rehabilitation program, OnTrack. It won awards. Dr. Sullivan won awards. It was a state and national leader in best practices. Then things went all to hell.
An employee of OnTrack threatened a lawsuit naming OnTrack and Rita Sullivan. OnTrack put Sullivan on paid administrative leave while they sorted through the complaint. The complaint got big media coverage. OnTrack said nothing and told Sullivan not to respond. The result was a snowball of unanswered charges in the media.
The news stories created a false picture of both OnTrack and Dr. Sullivan, according to multiple former employees, people now in different jobs and free to speak freely.
Some common themes were present in every employee's comments. Dr. Sullivan was a great boss. She was professional. She was highly competent. She was passionate about service to clients. She was available to assist counselors and others when they needed clinical advice. They were dismayed that Dr. Sullivan was described in such a one sided way and that, instead, her decades of work should be celebrated.
A partial sampling of the employees, ones willing to have their names used, include these.
Rob Roy, a Drug and Alcohol Counselor. He said, "In my observation in six years working with Rita I spent hundreds of hours in group and individual setting with her. My experience is that she was professional and respectful--always."
Charlie McNew said "I think she's getting a raw deal in the media because her side of this isn't getting out. She was a great boss." McNew said worked with her for thirty years. "I've seen her work closely with staff people. She was helpful and professional."
Travis Cavalli, a drug and alcohol counselor and for three years the head of the Dads Program. "Rita was supportive, encouraging, helpful, and utterly passionate about OnTrack and the clients we serve." What about the claims that Sullivan frightened someone by yelling? "I've seen Rita raise her voice when people were messing up and doing things out of line. It was just a normal response by a supervisor who cared about the work." He said he thought her story wasn't getting out. "She's getting slammed in the media, but she isn't able to defend herself. I thought she was a great boss and leader."
Why did OnTrack and Dr. Sullivan stay mum?
I have no insight into the internal decision-making process at OnTrack beyond my own experience with lawyers. I am guessing their legal counsel gave the stern admonition that no one should say anything to the media while a lawsuit was working through the system--which may take years. I suspect Dr. Sullivan got the same advice. Don't talk to the media. Make your case in the courtroom, where the facts and law are on your side. They warn media reports might complicate things and give complainants something new to complain about.
What might well be sound practice for a party to a lawsuit is a disaster in public and media relations.
The media covered the OnTrack litigants because that side was easily available to communicate with them in the form of their lawsuit, thereby giving the media lots of material. It is a cynical but effective strategy for a complainant, if they have media that cooperates, because the unanswered bad publicity for OnTrack and Dr. Sullivan is an incentive for someone to settle with some money. Even with OnTrack and Dr. Sullivan gagged, could the media have heard from and published other voices, people in a position to give "the rest of the story?"
They could have--but did not.
I made a couple of phone calls, then received an avalanche of names from people happy to talk in praise of Rita Sullivan. Easy. It wasn't "investigative" anything. I just picked up a phone and asked.
The unbalanced coverage of Dr. Sullivan finally got to be too much for some OnTrack employees, so they spoke up.
Her former employees are speaking up on her behalf.
 |
| Dr. Rita Sullivan |
For 39 years Dr. Rita Sullivan was Executive Director of a nonprofit alcohol and drug rehabilitation program, OnTrack. It won awards. Dr. Sullivan won awards. It was a state and national leader in best practices. Then things went all to hell.
An employee of OnTrack threatened a lawsuit naming OnTrack and Rita Sullivan. OnTrack put Sullivan on paid administrative leave while they sorted through the complaint. The complaint got big media coverage. OnTrack said nothing and told Sullivan not to respond. The result was a snowball of unanswered charges in the media.
The news stories created a false picture of both OnTrack and Dr. Sullivan, according to multiple former employees, people now in different jobs and free to speak freely.
Some common themes were present in every employee's comments. Dr. Sullivan was a great boss. She was professional. She was highly competent. She was passionate about service to clients. She was available to assist counselors and others when they needed clinical advice. They were dismayed that Dr. Sullivan was described in such a one sided way and that, instead, her decades of work should be celebrated.
A partial sampling of the employees, ones willing to have their names used, include these.
Rob Roy, a Drug and Alcohol Counselor. He said, "In my observation in six years working with Rita I spent hundreds of hours in group and individual setting with her. My experience is that she was professional and respectful--always."
Charlie McNew said "I think she's getting a raw deal in the media because her side of this isn't getting out. She was a great boss." McNew said worked with her for thirty years. "I've seen her work closely with staff people. She was helpful and professional."
Travis Cavalli, a drug and alcohol counselor and for three years the head of the Dads Program. "Rita was supportive, encouraging, helpful, and utterly passionate about OnTrack and the clients we serve." What about the claims that Sullivan frightened someone by yelling? "I've seen Rita raise her voice when people were messing up and doing things out of line. It was just a normal response by a supervisor who cared about the work." He said he thought her story wasn't getting out. "She's getting slammed in the media, but she isn't able to defend herself. I thought she was a great boss and leader."
Dan Horton is an architect who has worked with OnTrack and Dr. Sullivan for some 25 years. "She's a thorough professional," he said. Horton said she had a reputation for employing some hard to employ people and giving them second chances. "She was trying to help them out. In my opinion, the lawsuits are all about people trying to take advantage of the damage the un-balanced media coverage created."
Why did OnTrack and Dr. Sullivan stay mum?
I have no insight into the internal decision-making process at OnTrack beyond my own experience with lawyers. I am guessing their legal counsel gave the stern admonition that no one should say anything to the media while a lawsuit was working through the system--which may take years. I suspect Dr. Sullivan got the same advice. Don't talk to the media. Make your case in the courtroom, where the facts and law are on your side. They warn media reports might complicate things and give complainants something new to complain about.
What might well be sound practice for a party to a lawsuit is a disaster in public and media relations.
The media covered the OnTrack litigants because that side was easily available to communicate with them in the form of their lawsuit, thereby giving the media lots of material. It is a cynical but effective strategy for a complainant, if they have media that cooperates, because the unanswered bad publicity for OnTrack and Dr. Sullivan is an incentive for someone to settle with some money. Even with OnTrack and Dr. Sullivan gagged, could the media have heard from and published other voices, people in a position to give "the rest of the story?"
They could have--but did not.
I made a couple of phone calls, then received an avalanche of names from people happy to talk in praise of Rita Sullivan. Easy. It wasn't "investigative" anything. I just picked up a phone and asked.
The unbalanced coverage of Dr. Sullivan finally got to be too much for some OnTrack employees, so they spoke up.
9 comments:
I'm not sure that this story even deserves coverage, when and until there is a resolution. In all likelihood this will be settled and sealed in the end.
In this media saturated age news organizations have a responsibility about how and when they chose their stories. This case is low hanging fruit, providing provocative controversy, while I'm certain stories that require some serious investigation are going uncovered.
I, too, am disappointed that our local news outlets were unable or uninterested in finding these sources, former colleagues of Dr. Sullivan, and presenting their stories to their readers and listeners. I encourage more of our local news people to get off their asses and be proactive. If they need some advise or encouragement, they can read Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist Seymour Hirsch’s memoir, “Reporter,” to see how its done. I’ll happily buy a copy for any underpaid local journalist.
My career included selling insurance to organizations of all shapes and sizes, protecting them from lawsuits brought by employees alleging age, gender and other discrimination, sexual harassment, hostile work environments, you name it.
It provided an interesting peek-hole into the sordid underbelly of the American workplace. There’s a good reason why we have laws protecting workers from employers; a lot of bosses are jerks and a lot of companies have abusive policies.
I’ve seen corporate CEO’s firing employees for ending romantic affairs; sons of powerful clients get promoted over more qualified women; supervisors inappropriately touching themselves and others in the workplace. I’ve personally had a supervisor early in my career tell me that I acted “too Jewish” in the workplace (whatever that meant). And when workers complain they often find themselves on the street with a bad reputation as a trouble maker.
But guess what, lots of employees are jerks too – they may be difficult to deal with, violent, bring inappropriate behavior to the workplace, or may be sweet as pumpkin pie but simply incompetent to do the job. And believe it or not, there are people who become professional litigants – going from job to job provoking employers to take action against them and then suing them for an alleged wrongful employment action. It’s rare, but every Insurance Company Offerring Employment Practices Liability coverage knows who they are.
Just like most things, there are always two sides to every story.. And just like most things, ones tribe helps determine which side of the story one wants to believe. The country club set, the small business owners, they like to focus on how over-reaching regulation makes it too difficult for them to remove troublesome or incompetent employees. And how our legal system makes it too easy for unscrupulous litigants and plaintiff attorneys to blackmail employers into settlements. Progressives and union members focus on abusive and discriminatory employers oppressing the weak and powerless.
The OnTrack story is interesting in that it puts members of the progressive tribe in a bind. Here the alleged wrongful actor is an esteemed non-profit org, dedicated to healing and serving those in need. Lots of cognitive dissonance for progressives who often jump to the conclusion that the weaker party, in this case the employee, is always in the right, and the stronger party, the employer, is always in the wrong.
For me, the lesson from this sad series of events is that I need to control my tribal instincts, and withhold judgment. One doesn’t know all the facts, and in the OnTrack case, the defendants are at a disadvantage in having not been able to get their side out.
It’s easy for anyone to go to the EEOC with a complaint, or hire a lawyer to file a lawsuit or start a “me-too” rumor on social media. Everyone of us is vulnerable to discrimination and harassment of some sort . And every one of us is also vulnerable to false accusation. In America we get to face our accusers and we are innocent until proven guilty. That protects us all.
I have always thought that Rita was a great leader and has the history of standing for the mission and heart of On Tract. That can be difficult in a county where conservative powers are not on board. I am still in agreement with Peter's analysis and hope that On Track and Rita are honored for their work rather than the unfounded attack mode that is still present with some folks.
Rita Sullivan is a Community Hero
I worked with, for and near Rita Sullivan for 30 years. If you want to see a trailblazing woman hero, it's Rita. The tragedy of this conflict between her and OnTrack is the demonstration of how little it takes to cast a hero aside. Was Rita tried in court and found in the wrong? No, there has been no trial. Was Rita found to have used her power and position to aggrandize herself or her friends? No, there is no dispute about her unwavering dedication and selflessly giving 100% of herself to the cause of public health. Instead, she is accused of verbal abusive of some employees, and not always having the resources to immediately maintain the non-profit's facilities and residences. Were these employees minorities or disadvantaged groups? Nope, if Rita raises her voice to an employee, a vendor or a contractor, it is never based on race, religion, disability, gender, national origin or sexual preference. It is always based on performance, timely work product, dedication to organizational mission, or loyalty to clients and patients.
Rita's work life at OnTrack was one of struggling to chase too few dollars to serve an exploding population of victims, addicts and their suffering children in the opioid surge sweeping the country. Few of us can even imagine the high pressure, frustration and heartbreak of trying to save as many victims as she could. You know what the biggest problem in keeping a happy staff at OnTrack has been and always will be? Low pay and giant work loads for the case-handlers and caretakers. Places like OnTrack will always be stressful pressure cookers, overcrowded and underfunded, even triage operations in who can be saved. Working there has never been easy, and pleasant tones with sweet words aren't universally expected. Yes, clients and patients should never be ordered around with a coarse voice, and Rita has never been accused of doing that. But staff members who can't handle pressure and barked orders when the organizational realities are closing in from time to time, well frankly, they shouldn't be working at OnTrack.
Employees have a well articulated set of rights in the workplace that must be honored. Freedom from racial or sexual harassment, protection of wage and hour laws, and immunity for reporting violation of safety or regulations, these must be respected. But as to generic "harassment" or raised voices of a supervisor, the law is clear that an employee has no legal claim over that unless it is pervasive and severe. No board of directors for a non-profit should ever put the interests of complaining employees above the needs of the community's most vulnerable members who need treatment, counseling and housing to overcome life threatening addictions.
The sad truth about OnTrack is that no one could have protected its clients and patients as well as Dr. Rita Sullivan. OnTrack might indeed achieve a more touchy-feelie workplace without Rita, but it will have been at the expense of public health and our community.
Art, are you really expecting local reporters to match the thoroughness of Sy Hirsch? Let's be honest, local reporters are lazy, many are stringers working in a dinosaur industry, and "if it bleeds, it leads." The more salacious the story, the more papers sold. Peter, it is convenient to blame unnamed "lawyers." The fact is that non-profit directors stepped in and likely called the shots regarding any media response. A more thorough investigation would have explored the media decisions by those directors, rather than just taking a side.
Peter-
Thanks for this post. I, too, have known Rita for many years now and have tremendous respect for her and for all she has accomplished. It is great to see former employees speaking out on her behalf.
Greetings, "Anonymous". Thanks for the comment. A couple of board members did interim duty for many months, and she wasn't replaced with a permanent director for a long time. The OnTrack board, interim leadership, and lawyers have all been silent. If you, "Mr./Ms. Anonymous," have inside information with them and care to share it, that would be a great service.
I have long been an admirer of Rita's work for 40 years. I a make no secret of my gratitude to the work she has done in this community. I think she has gotten unbalanced coverage in the the media with unanswered accusations.
I tried to explain the unbalanced coverage in a way that was kind to the newspaper, because I generally feel sorry for them, and they are hypersensitive to criticism of their work. We need a good newspaper, and I would like them to be one. I attributed their coverage to something I know to be true, that one side could talk and the other side did not. Some people attribute bad motives, i.e. bias or carelessness to the media. I don't. I attribute it to the structure of news gathering. They report what people will say on the record. As did I. Many people had personal opinions on the presumed motives and character of the OnTrack critics, but said they needed me not to write about it, for fear of some legal or job trouble. The OnTrack critics are safe from lawsuit by what they write in a lawsuit complaint, and by turning the legal document over to the Tribune the Tribune is safe in quoting it. It is a clever, legally safe way to say nasty things about someone and have them published. There is no such safe harbor for the rebuttal of those comments. The media played into their hands, but I blamed the process, not the character or work ethic of the media.
I honestly expected more criticism of Rita than I got. There are reasons for there to be disgruntled employees, i.e. hard work, bad conditions, low pay. Her program has been chronically "resource constrained" and the work her employees do is hard, frustrating, and often unpleasant. The employees work with people in crisis, catching them at the lowest point in their lives. It might possibly be fulfilling work, but it isn't a "great job," with good pay and benefits and pleasant daily interactions with clients. (I will write on that subject later this morning in the Friday blog post.)
If the OnTrack people want to explain their decision-making process they only need to make one phone call to the newspaper. The other media will then follow that lead. They haven't, and Sullivan cannot. My blog writes about messaging and media. My goal was to see if there were people willing to "testify" to Rita's professionalism and manner as a boss. There were lots and lots of them. So that's what I published. As I wrote in this post, the media could have taken the view that they needed to balance the picture in some way with a workaround like the one I used, but they have their own priorities. I have mine: I wanted Rita Sullivan defended, and her point of view put out there.
Peter Sage
I worked with Rita for only a year. But in that year, she taught me a lot. Ontrack was Rita's baby.she was very engaged in what she created. There was only one thing she was more passionate about, the client. She once told me "the client always comes first". And i believe that was her lifes mission. To help the struggling addict. She kept many families together through the mom and dad programs. Clients come to her in their active addiction, some court order, some just desperate seeking help. Many have lost their homes, kids, their freedom. Rita and her staff help put the broken back together. If Rita was raising her voice, there was good reason. She worked long and hard to help others.
Love ya Rita
Post a Comment