Anonymous Complaints
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
An anonymous complaint against a former mayor turned developer and
alleged lobbyist has created a stir in San Jose, according to <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_11892166?nclick_check=1" target="”_blank”">an
article in yesterday's </a><span><a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_11892166?nclick_check=1" target="”_blank”">Mercury-News</a>.</span><br>
<br>
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, "<span id="mn_Global"><span id="mn_Article">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."<br>
<br>
Part of the problem was that the complaint </span></span><span id="mn_Global"><span id="mn_Article">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.<br>
<br>
But <a href="http://www.sanjoserevealed.com/files/McEneryLobbyingComplaint.pdf" target="”_blank”">the
complaint</a> 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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>