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?

This is what happened recently in Brookfield, CT, according to an article in the News-Times. 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.

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.

Too Broad a Jurisdiction
Another problem is that too much is within the Brookfield ethics board's jurisdiction, as I explained in a 2009 blog post. 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).

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.

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.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---