The Bodnar Problem

More questions than answers

A lot of good friends of mine have been angry at me lately, because I have chosen to speak my mind about the candidacy of Seth Bodnar for the Montana senate race. I have learned not to take these things personally, and I value the rights of everyone to express their reasons for disagreeing with me, especially when it comes to the choices we make about political candidates. There are many factors that go into these decisions, none of which should be personal. But the more I learn about this particular candidate, the more troubling it becomes.

It started with my visit to a friend’s house who was hosting a meet and greet for Bodnar, not long after he declared his candidacy. I knew very little about him except what you could see on his resume, and of course he looks pretty damn good on paper. Rhodes scholar. West Point graduate. Former GE executive, and former president of the University of Montana. He’s kind of tailor made for politics.

So I went to this gathering with very few preconceived ideas, except for the fact that I didn’t understand why he was running as an independent. And I was completely underwhelmed. I have interviewed a lot of people in my years as a writer and radio/podcast host, and I think I’ve gotten pretty good at reading people. My immediate take on this guy was that he’s a little too smooth. He came across as someone who is good at figuring out what the listener wants to hear. That’s what I saw that night as he gave a milquetoast speech that listed off a predictable list of priorities, the same political speech I’ve heard a hundred times in recent years. There was no fire, no passion. I wasn’t moved or inspired at all.

When it came to the question and answer phase, it was more of the same. Safe, mushy answers to safe, mushy questions. There was also the small issue, and this is my own personal bias, but I have never understood putting so much effort into maintaining a three-day beard. Why?

I happened to know one of his handlers, and I gave him my card and told him I’d love to interview Bodnar for my podcast. He seemed eager to arrange something, but I never heard from him.

It was just a couple of weeks later that I met Alani Bankhead, and my experience with her couldn’t have been more different. She was warm, genuine, articulate and made it very clear that she was not afraid to answer any question, or address any issue. I invited her to do an interview, and it was just a matter of days before she was sitting in my kitchen, answering every hard question I put her way, including the matter of her short time in Montana, her lack of experience in politics, and her lack of name recognition. A few weeks later, when questions arose about dark money and some of the ads that were coming out about her, she was eager to set up another interview, and answered all the questions I had with direct, coherent responses. You can listen to that interview here.

Meanwhile, I decided to do a deep dive into Bodnar’s history, especially his time as president of the university. During his tenure there, a lawsuit was filed by eighteen plaintiffs, citing serious allegations of a good ol’ boy network at the university that established very different standards of treatment and payment for women. There were also charges of Bodnar himself treating the only female vice president at the university pretty horrifically. Leaving her out of board meetings. Keeping her pay the lowest of all vice presidents. Telling her she was too heavy to ever be the face of the university. The pressure eventually led this woman to leave her job.

Bodnar has apparently assumed that nobody will bother to read the court records, because he has claimed that the lawsuit involved events that happened before he took the job, and he has also claimed that he was not responsible for any of the behavior cited in the complaints. But I read the case. Neither of these claims is true. There were some events that happened before he arrived, but most of the material covered in the suit happened on his watch. You can read the case yourself here if you’re so inclined.

If this was the only claimant, it might be plausible that this was a simple matter of a disgruntled employee exaggerating a few incidents. Or a personality conflict. But the simple fact of the matter is that there are eighteen plaintiffs, and if you take the time to read the document, they all tell a similar story, about being treated dismissively, or often completely ignored. One woman, who was the head of a very prestigious department in the university, started asking for some specific changes in her department, and couldn’t get any satisfactory responses. When she persisted, she was moved from her long-time office to a much smaller one. When she complained about the conditions in the new office, the complaint was ignored until it was determined that there was a serious enough asbestos presence that the building had to be closed.

There were also other stories aside from the eighteen in the lawsuit, including one professor who taught at the university for decades, and started having issues with one of the administrators in her department. She tried to file a complaint about this man, who was a good friend of the dean, but was told several times that there was nothing that could be done. She eventually learned that there were several other women who were having similar issues with this man, and finally, they banded together, two-thirds of the women in the department, and tried to file a complaint. Even then, they were told that nothing could be done. It wasn’t until the dean quit and was replaced that the man was finally forced from his position.

The lawsuit was eventually settled, and for those who just assume that these women were in it for the money, after the usual lawyers’ fees and court costs, each plaintiff received a whopping $1800. Some of these women were let go, with the university citing budget concerns or reorganization. One of the most vital and long-standing positions at the university was eliminated, leaving one of the plaintiffs without a job after years of dedicated service.

Many of these women are still struggling with the fear of retaliation from the university, especially in the form of the narrative that is being put forth on social media. The approach is predictable, and it brings me to my main concern about the man at the center of all this. Some people might not remember, but there was a time when a leader of any big organization, whether it was government, or business, or universities, knew that they were responsible for anything that happened while they were in charge. ‘The buck stops here’ used to have meaning. But the narrative that is being presented about this case is heavily tilted toward giving Bodnar a free pass, and he has embraced that narrative with both arms. And he has also been happy to lean in on the ofrepeated insinuations that these women were just disgruntled or looking for a big payoff. Most of the plaintiffs had been at the university for a long time. They didn’t just suddenly decide they were unhappy. And they certainly knew that taking part in this lawsuit could possibly cost them their jobs. But they were willing to risk it because, as one plaintiff told me, they weren’t in it for the money. They were way more concerned about making sure the university made some changes. And that was part of the reason they settled, because one aspect of the settlement included the provision that the university “increase capacity and processes for addressing employee concerns and conflicts, including creation of a single point of contact for employment concerns relating to gender and requiring Human Resources and Title IX to respond based on the nature of the concern.”

But the narrative put forth by Bodnar’s supporters continue to suggest that, despite the large number of plaintiffs in this case, they all happened to become disgruntled at the same time. The notion that there was a systemic problem, and that Bodnar was responsible for addressing it, is consistently dismissed. It’s classic gaslighting behavior. Blaming the previous administration and discrediting the victims. Perhaps this sounds familiar?

My final concern about this whole situation lies with the fact that you’d think someone who has been through litigation of this kind would be determined to go out of his way to make sure there is no hint of similar behavior in his approach to his campaign. But no. Bodnar kicked off his campaign by running early ads showing how he and the Republican candidate, Kurt Alme, were running even in the polls. The ads made no mention of the third candidate, who of course happens to be a woman. And a minority. The man seems to have learned nothing from this experience, which is not a quality we want in a member of the Senate.

In the end, I think the clear problem with Bodnar’s candidacy is that it presents a no win situation for both him and for Bankhead as long as he stays in the race. He may believe that he can pressure Bankhead into dropping out, but even if that happened, and there’s absolutely no indication that she would ever do that, the Democratic committee would be obligated to fill her spot with another candidate. So Bodnar, who definitely leans left, and is supported by mostly Democratic leaders in Montana, would split the vote with Bankhead, handing the election to Alme.

So it makes much more sense, considering that there do seem to be some people who are convinced that Bodnar has something to offer, that he be the one to drop out, and endorse Bankhead, who has definitely built some momentum since entering the race as a complete unknown. Alani has a lot more charisma and fight, and more than anything, transparency, than Bodnar. And she’s also showing a lot more courage in terms of taking on the challenges head on.