A Charles Sturt University ethics expert says making public the name of someone who has allegedly breached a council code of conduct could irreparably damage their reputation .
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Dr Edward Spence agreed with the majority decision of Dubbo City Council that people were innocent until proven guilty, and that it was “quite dangerous” to expose a defendant to the public.
Dr Spence said that publicising the complainant and defendant may claw back the number of code of conduct complaints in Dubbo, but it would come at too great a price to the defendant.
Dubbo councillor Peter Bartley put forward a motion at this week’s council meeting to amend council’s code of conduct to increase “transparency”.
The motion would have allowed the general manager to make public the names of both parties when a complaint was received.
The amendment may decrease frivolous or vexatious complaints, Cr Bartley said.
General manager Mark Riley has already stated he handled 16 complaints in the first six months of 2010, 12 in the first quarter and four in the second quarter.
Cr Ben Shields is known to have faced the code of conduct review committee, but Mr Riley reported that no action would be taken on any of the four complaints from the April quarter.
To Dr Spence, who has lectured on media ethics at the Bathurst campus since 1998, this year’s incidence of complaints was not enough reason to adopt the motion.
The principle of innocent until proven guilty was important because people may make claims that turn out to be false, he said.
If it was reported in the media, the community gained the idea that it was true, and made of the story what they liked, he said.
“It is quite dangerous to do that,” he said.
“(The spread of) potentially untrue information can be damaging, apart from undue stress and a feeling of injustice, because a person’s reputation can be damaged and damaged irreparably.
“It’s important not to create an impression of guilt on information that is not verified.”
Councillors voted 4-7 against Cr Bartley’s motion this week, and Dr Spence would also have voted against it.
“There might be gain (in publicising the parties) but it is well and truly exceeded by the harm the (defendant’s) reputation would suffer as a result of false information,” he said.
Only after a claim was shown to be genuine should the people involved be named, he said.
