Multiple Signatures on an Ethics Complaint
Who should be allowed to file an ethics complaint? Certainly any
citizen of the jurisdiction. But what about multiple citizens of the
jurisdiction? Should an ethics commission exclude a complaint from
them?<br>
<br>
This is what happened recently in Brookfield, CT, according to <a href="http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Ethics-investigation-into-Brookf…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the <i>News-Times</i></a>. A petition signed by a few hundred
people in town was sent to the city's ethics board, but the
ethics board rejected it, insisting that complaints have to be filed
on an official form signed by a particular individual. This makes no
sense. A complaint signed by multiple individuals is a good way to
protect individuals from retaliation and, therefore, make it more
likely that ethics complaints will be filed. And a complaint signed
by multiple individuals should be given more, rather than less
respect. It shows that the community is very concerned about the
matter.<br>
<br>
As for filing a complaint on a particular form, this is also
unnecessary. It's fine to say what information must be included on a
complaint, but there should be no unnecessary hindrance to filing a
complaint. In fact, an informal tip should be enough to make an
ethics commission do a preliminary investigation, when the
allegation and the respondent are within its jurisdiction. But this requires that the EC have the power to initiate an investigation without a complaint, a best practice that most jurisdictions don't even consider.<br>
<br>
<b>Too Broad a Jurisdiction</b><br>
Another problem is that too much is within the Brookfield ethics board's
jurisdiction, as I explained in <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/680" target="”_blank”">a 2009 blog post</a>.
The result is that the ethics board has been inundated with
complaints which, unlike most ECs, it cannot simply dismiss for lack
of jurisdiction. Since the November election, complaints have been
filed against three officials. One of them resigned from the board
of education after a finding of probable cause, not for mishandling a conflict of interest, but for
saying something extremely stupid and insensitive on his Facebook
page. The complaints against the others were dismissed and the
matters kept confidential (pursuant to a state law).<br>
<br>
The result is that the ethics board looks like it's protecting both
the former first selectman (effectively the mayor) and the new first
selectman.<br>
<br>
The ethics board's recent experience should lead it to accept complaints from multiple individuals, and recommend that it be permitted to initiate investigations and that its jurisdiction be reduced. It shouldn't be dealing with
Facebook posts, misdemeanor charges (the issue with the new first
selectman), or the theft of campaign signs (the issue with the
former first selectman). It should settle for being a conflicts of interest board, not an inappropriate personal conduct board.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---