Sex scandals,
without more, don't interest me much. Unfortunately, in the case of Rep. Mark Foley's sex scandal there is "more" -- the failure of the House Republican leadership to follow up on reports of questionable conduct.
In the employment context, when management obtains credible information that an employee is engaging in improper sex-related conduct towards another employee, management has an obligation to investigate and to take appropriate remedial action. If management doesn't, then the employer is liable if it turns out that the employee did, in fact, engage in sexual harassment.
Speaker Hastert was not Foley's supervisor. Foley "worked" for the people in his district, not the Republican leadership. Nonetheless, I believe that Hastert had a moral obligation to take action in the face of reports that Foley may have been making inappropriate comments to underage employees of Congress. Actually, it's clear to me that any member of Congress has such an obligation -- who else but a member's colleagues has the power to protect teen-age kids from a predatory Representative? However, as the leader of the House, Hastert had a stronger obligation.
Even on Hastert's account (which I take to be true unless proven otherwise), he did not meet that obligation. A report that a member of the House was writing "overly friendly" emails (a characterization that raises more questions than it answers) to a page should have prompted Hastert to seek details. He should not have accepted on faith, or on the vague assurances of others, that Foley had not crossed the line.
However, I do not agree with the Washington Times that Hastert should resign for his error of omission. Assuming that Hastert is guilty of failing to ask the right (or apparently any probing) questions when told of overly friendly emails, I don't see this as a "firing" offense. But if it turns out that Hastert had more damning information and failed to act, I would view the matter differently since (a) his obligation to act would have been stronger and (b) his claim that he lacked such information would be false.
