You are here
Anonymous Complaints
Thursday, March 12th, 2009
Robert Wechsler
Anonymous complaints are both important and problematic. Without
anonymous tips and hotlines, our justice system would not work nearly
as well as it does. With ethics programs, officials involved in
unethical conduct often have great power in the community, and the
people who know what they are doing are often the very people most
vulnerable to their retribution.
And yet there is an air of cowardice around anonymous complaints, possibly even moreso now that people make anonymous attacks on public figures all over the Internet.
An anonymous complaint against a former mayor turned developer and alleged lobbyist has created a stir in San Jose, according to an article in yesterday's Mercury-News.
Members of the Elections Commission, which handles San Jose's ethics and lobbyist complaints, as well as campaign finance, were "irritated" by the anonymity of the complaint. The commission chair is quoted as saying, "I'm a little bit irked that the commission is not aware of who this person is. We have a resolution that most of the time works, except now. There appears to be a hole big enough to drive a truck through."
Part of the problem was that the complaint was also anonymously distributed to journalists and the former mayor's neighbors, so that it went public before a probable cause determination was made. This certainly added to the feeling of cowardice on the complainant's part.
But the complaint is not the work of a crank. It's detailed in its allegations and its tying of allegations to specific legal provisions. The complainant is also represented by counsel, who clearly played a part in the drafting. The complainant was wrong to distribute the complaint, but the complaint itself is certainly not a very good argument for restrictions on anonymity.
In fact, it's surprising that, with the detail of the complaint, the commission's lawyers are still trying to determine, three months later, whether it's worthy of taking action on. There's a clear definition of what an In-House Lobbyist is, and it should not be hard to determine if the respondents meet the definition and, if they do, whether they have properly filed as lobbyists, etc. It would seem that anonymity, which the commission plans to discuss again at its meeting next month, is a minor issue compared to deciding whether to move ahead with this complaint.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
And yet there is an air of cowardice around anonymous complaints, possibly even moreso now that people make anonymous attacks on public figures all over the Internet.
An anonymous complaint against a former mayor turned developer and alleged lobbyist has created a stir in San Jose, according to an article in yesterday's Mercury-News.
Members of the Elections Commission, which handles San Jose's ethics and lobbyist complaints, as well as campaign finance, were "irritated" by the anonymity of the complaint. The commission chair is quoted as saying, "I'm a little bit irked that the commission is not aware of who this person is. We have a resolution that most of the time works, except now. There appears to be a hole big enough to drive a truck through."
Part of the problem was that the complaint was also anonymously distributed to journalists and the former mayor's neighbors, so that it went public before a probable cause determination was made. This certainly added to the feeling of cowardice on the complainant's part.
But the complaint is not the work of a crank. It's detailed in its allegations and its tying of allegations to specific legal provisions. The complainant is also represented by counsel, who clearly played a part in the drafting. The complainant was wrong to distribute the complaint, but the complaint itself is certainly not a very good argument for restrictions on anonymity.
In fact, it's surprising that, with the detail of the complaint, the commission's lawyers are still trying to determine, three months later, whether it's worthy of taking action on. There's a clear definition of what an In-House Lobbyist is, and it should not be hard to determine if the respondents meet the definition and, if they do, whether they have properly filed as lobbyists, etc. It would seem that anonymity, which the commission plans to discuss again at its meeting next month, is a minor issue compared to deciding whether to move ahead with this complaint.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
