Cavanagh has cause to pursue his accuser
Fayette County Commissioner Sean Cavanagh was cleared of wrongdoing by the state Ethics Commission of an allegation that he was shaking down county employees for campaign contributions. It was a serious allegation; had it been proven true Cavanagh’s political career would be over. Justifiably he was concerned about the probe, and he was not just annoyed but alarmed that he was not able to face his accuser. Cavanagh said he resented that the complaint was filed anonymously, which gives the public the impression that anyone can make such serious charges without benefit of stepping forward and identifying himself. If that were so, then we would stand alongside Cavanagh and cry out for reform of the Ethics Act.
But that isn’t how it works. In order for the commission to consider an allegation a complaint must be sworn and signed by the complainant. Without that, the commission refuses to investigate and undoubtedly the accused isn’t even aware that a charge was made.
The Ethics Act does though allow the commission to keep the identity of the complainant confidential unless there is a wrongful use of the act. This clause provides protection for government employees who fear loss of their jobs or retaliation should word leak that they complained about a political boss. It’s not a perfect system, but some confidentiality must be extended to whistleblowers.
Had the commission determined there was justification to proceed against Cavanagh then he would have been given his day in court, so to speak, in which all the facts would have been aired. He would not have been charged, tried and convicted of an ethics violation by a secret court based on secret information.
The unsubstantiated allegation against Cavanagh never would have been made public if Cavanagh himself hadn’t brought it to the public’s attention. In order to protect elected officials from harm to their reputations without due process, the Ethics Act forbids the commission or any of the parties from talking about the complaint until an investigation is completed.
Apparently in Cavanagh’s case, someone tipped off a reporter that a complaint was filed, which caused Cavanagh during a commissioners’ meeting to make it public. He strongly believes the complaint was an underhanded, dirty political trick initiated by his foes. If that is so, Cavanagh does have recourse. The Ethics Act provides for investigations of those who file frivolous or politically-motivated complaints. He should ask the commission to pursue this.