You are here
"Frivolity" in Kenosha, WI
Tuesday, November 12th, 2013
Robert Wechsler
"Frivolous" is a word that, I believe, has no place in a government ethics
program. A look at an attempt to add it to Kenosha's ethics program
shows how, well, frivolous the word is.
According to an article in this Sunday's Kenosha (WI) News, a proposed ethics code amendment before the Kenosha council would make it so that a person who files an ethics complaint that "is dismissed in total" by the city’s ethics board would be responsible for paying the legal and administrative fees of the board and of the respondent.
One alderman who supports the amendment is quoted as saying, “What we want to do is amend this to deter frivolous complaints but at the same time not deter individuals with legitimate issues with a particular individual.”
This is impossible. The possibility of having to pay many thousands of dollars for doing the public service of alerting an ethics program to possible ethical misconduct will deter anyone but a multimillionaire from doing so. It's not as if the complainant even has a role in what happens after the complaint is filed. There are so many reasons a complaint may be dismissed, and who knows what influence an official may have on an ethics board. Who's going to take the chance?
An opponent of the amendment is quoted as saying, “We owe more to the people that elected us than to threaten them with fines if they think something we’re doing is wrong. This is terrible.” He's right.
What is this all about? The article's last sentence makes the picture a bit more clear:
"Frivolous" is what many respondents (and many who fear becoming a respondent) call any complaint filed against them. "Frivolous" isn't something that you know when you see it. It's a name you call what you see when you don't like it. It has no place in a government ethics program.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
According to an article in this Sunday's Kenosha (WI) News, a proposed ethics code amendment before the Kenosha council would make it so that a person who files an ethics complaint that "is dismissed in total" by the city’s ethics board would be responsible for paying the legal and administrative fees of the board and of the respondent.
One alderman who supports the amendment is quoted as saying, “What we want to do is amend this to deter frivolous complaints but at the same time not deter individuals with legitimate issues with a particular individual.”
This is impossible. The possibility of having to pay many thousands of dollars for doing the public service of alerting an ethics program to possible ethical misconduct will deter anyone but a multimillionaire from doing so. It's not as if the complainant even has a role in what happens after the complaint is filed. There are so many reasons a complaint may be dismissed, and who knows what influence an official may have on an ethics board. Who's going to take the chance?
An opponent of the amendment is quoted as saying, “We owe more to the people that elected us than to threaten them with fines if they think something we’re doing is wrong. This is terrible.” He's right.
What is this all about? The article's last sentence makes the picture a bit more clear:
Aldermen G. John Ruffolo, Steve Bostrom, Patrick Juliana and Scott Gordon abstained because they are involved in various ethics complaints.
"Frivolous" is what many respondents (and many who fear becoming a respondent) call any complaint filed against them. "Frivolous" isn't something that you know when you see it. It's a name you call what you see when you don't like it. It has no place in a government ethics program.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
