By Ossie Bladine • Editor • 

Haugeberg responds to complaint

Only online subscribers may access this article.

One-day subscriptions available for just $3. Click here for one-day access.

For all other subscription offers, click here.

Already a subscriber, please .



Good grief.




Regrets often come after being caught...


David Haugeberg is an outstanding individual. He deeply cares and actively serves our community. He is part of the generation that may not be aware of the "new rules" that make a congratulatory hug inappropriate. I am appalled that this kind man, not a predator, would be swept up in the bigger issue that is happening at Linfield.


I agree Raven- It’s a sad day when an unsigned letter is used as a smear for the benefit of one side of the Linfield argument. The description of his actions as “ sexual misconduct “ are ridiculous and clearly being used only for the shock value in the media.

Don Dix

I've known Dave for 50+ years and have never seen an inkling of him being inappropriate towards anyone -- confrontation? yes (he is a lawyer). I have seen him wink at me and others many times when he is making a point -- BFD.

Raven is correct to point to the 'new rules' of today's society -- unlike the 'drama queens' that take offense to every little thing, we Baby Boomers have always been 'huggers' -- it's what we do.


"Haugeberg said he believes Linfield needs to take immediate action regarding an alleged culture and history of improperly handling sex abuse and misconduct reports at Linfield."

So Dave. You're a trustee. And an attorney.

What's your plan?

So far it would appear the plan is to address the allegations by silencing them, rather than to address the "culture and history" behind those allegations.


“subjective adjective”
"wildly inappropriate" (??)

Sexual harassment is a serious offense but I am unable to understand how it applies in this context. I am acquainted with Mr. Haugeberg too and echo the comments of Raven, tagup, and Don Dix. With all due respect to the young woman who has reported this incident, it comes across as overly-sensitive misinterpretation. I sincerely hope this will not tarnish the reputations of either party.


So is this the big moment we were waiting for in the Linfield scandal story? Was the president and board protecting Haugeberg? Was Pollack-Pelzner fired in an attempt to protect this trustee?


An elderly man in a position of power at a country club dinner where the wine is flowing commenting on the attractiveness of college girls and then giving one of them "a congratulatory hug" that she felt was inappropriately long and tight and then winking at her is NOT okay behavior. There is no excuse for it.
Just because the other posters on here (who are trying to be dismissive of this young woman) have known someone for 50+ years doesn't make it okay.
The reason women don't come forward more often is that they know they are going to get faced with the above comments that basically amount to "oh come on sweetie, he's a great guy. You're just over reacting."


Joel- to be fair, the anonymous author of the letter did not identify which trustees were drinking or how much. Her letter did not mention that the hug was “ inappropriately long“, and the “ wink” is disputed.
Your justification for the writer to remain anonymous may be true in some cases, but it also blocks any independent investigation from determining the accuracy and therefore the credibility of the claims.


Fair enough, Tag. I must have misread something that I saw previously. I thought I had read that the hug was too tight and too long. I also didn't realize that the complainant was anonymous. I thought she had at least identified herself to the title IX person at Linfield. I stand corrected on all that.
All I'm really trying to say is that I feel like the whole thing is just wrong. I really don't understand why President Davis and Mr Bacca didn't just sit down with DPP and hear him out and get these Board of Trustee's some training on how to behave properly around women.
Another thing, and I rarely agree on things around here but I genuinely appreciate how you (as well as a couple of other posters here) always tend to disagree and debate in a respectful and civil manner. That's quite rare these days and it's much appreciated.


Ossie, Looks like there is a typo in the second paragraph. It should be Daniel instead of David.

Don Dix

Joel -- An unsigned, anonymous complaint sent to a faculty member (I assume that's the 'colleague'). Without knowledge of all the details, those of us who know Dave would be shocked if these allegations are true -- that's all -- no dismissive attitude towards anyone found 'above'.




For future reference, hug your wife or your own children or your dog. For all others, a simple congratulatory handshake is dignified and restrained.


Hibb there's nothing to be a "caught" that's what is ridiculous.
Yet another example of Pollack-Pelzner trying to stir up discord. Mr. Haugeberg and the majority of us all are still adapting to the new liberal woke set of unreasonable expectations. If you're offended because someone used a wrong pronoun - get over it. I don't think it's unreasonable to "remember exactly" what was said to file a claim of inappropriate behavior let alone signing your name. I also think because the accusation was anonymous shows it was totally without merit. You can't keep yelling accusations without evidence or witnesses and expect support. Why are we even rehashing this? It's such a waste of LInfield's time. Claims that are made without evidence can and should certainly be dismissed without evidence. We need to stand up against them to PROTECT ACTUAL VICTIMS.


It seems to me that being free of non-consensual hugs from strangers is neither a new nor unreasonable expectation.

It most certainly pales by comparison to the felony sexual assault charge one trustee is facing, or to student-on-student cases that victims feel have been swept under the rug. But I do think it's worth acknowledging and correcting in the process of trying to sort all this out.

The anger expressed toward the student comes part and parcel with such claims, and that's why victims are so reluctant to out themselves. They aren't interested in subjecing themselves to torrents of invective from yet more strangers. Who would be?

I'm with Lulu. Save the hugs for your wife, your kids and the family dog. Why risk making a wrong read and thereby giving offense?



Steve, most people certainly understand the reluctance of a victim to come forward, but there also needs to be a measure of fairness that allows the accused to defend themselves against baseless claims.
Given the highly polarized and emotional atmosphere surrounding the Linfield issues, it seems prudent to be skeptical of any accusations (on either side) that cannot be investigated and verified.


Understood. But in this case, Dave confirmed every element of the student's account except the wink, which he said he could not recall. So there doesn't seem to be any doubt about the interaction.
I think Dave has done as much for any community over the last 20 years as just about anyone. However, it doesn't give him a pass from the 21st century.
It's just a live and learn moment. Just a footnote.
But hardly fodder for castigating a young student who didn't appreciate the unwanted hug, either. Not to me, anyway.
And you'll notice Dave did not indulge in any of that. He was very forthright about the enounter. I don't think his high standing in the community has been impaired at all.



I agree completely with your analysis....but I can’t shake the feeling that this may have been intended as a cup gas on the Linfield dumpster fire....

Web Design and Web Development by Buildable