The question arises again in the light of efforts to block a survey of state employees, link. Among other things, the survey would have allowed state government employees, nearly 20K of them, to point to waste of time and resources in their agencies.
The survey was quashed by Governor Bill Richardson on the flimsiest of excuses;
"Richardson's office said that's because the survey's format is flawed -- it guarantees anonymity to respondents without any way of ensuring the intended recipient is actually the one responding."That is of course, nonsense.
If corruption, incompetence, or a practice that enables them, is exposed, what difference does it make who pointed to it?
Any allegation stands independent of the person who makes it. It is about the message, not about the messenger. Any right to confront one's accuser comes later in the process.
In a culture of fear of retribution and retaliation, anonymity is absolutely critical. Any attempt to identify those who lodge complaints is a thinly veiled effort to keep complaints from being made. Whether or not the complaint even comes from a state employee is of no import. The allegation is either credible or it is not; it merits further investigation or it does not.
This appears to be nothing more than damage control in one of the most corrupt administrations in modern times.
So why is Lt Gov Diane Denish not hopping mad?
Is she afraid she might get burned by the whole truth?
DA Susana Martinez' silence on the issue is troubling.
Is she afraid of the precedent; allowing state workers to
expose corruption and incompetence without fear of
retribution and retaliation?
Denish's silence is a chink in her armor; in her facade of
cracking down on corruption and incompetence.
That Martinez has not stuck her spear into that chink is confounding.
photo Mark Bralley
No comments:
Post a Comment