Imagine a court case in which an unnamed defendent is accused by the state of serious crimes but is found not guilty by a judge. The state then insists on keeping the name of the vindicated hidden for his own good. Sounds hard to believe, but the Legislature is considering a bill that would enable the state to do just that in its employee disciplinary actions, a decision that would have the effect — alley oop — of protecting the state itself.

Though it will seem an arcane point to many people, LD 1913 would keep secret the names of state, county or municipal employees in the event they are found not guilty in discipline cases. The state, generously, is willing to let the public know when employees are found guilty of something.

This selective release of information poorly serves employees, as the case that initiated this legislation ably demonstrates. Wrendy Hayne was a patient at the Augusta Mental Health Institute in 1996 when she was murdered there by another patient. Mental Health Commissioner Melodie Peet looked into the tragedy and ended up removing or transferring several officials at AMHI. Two lower AMHI employees were disciplined.

The disciplinary actions against those two eventually were overturned because it turned out they were being blamed for the errors of their superiors. The Kennebec Journal wanted an account of that decision but its reporter found he could not get the names of the cleared employees. The newspaper sued and won, and, on appeal, Maine’s Supreme Court supported that decision, 4-3. The court’s majority concluded, “The public’s interest in an instance of improper discipline is not less apparent than its interest in an instance of properly imposed discipline. In the latter case, the final decision reflects on the action of the employee. In the former case, in addition to vindicating the employee, it may also reflect on the action of the supervisor.”

Understanding these final two points is essential to seeing why LD 1913 is a bad idea. Vindicated employees whose names are made public do not risk their reputations, as the bill’s supporters assert; they are more likely to be honored. More to the point, the person who really gets to hide when employees’ names are kept secret is the supervisor who tried to pass the blame to a subordinate. Why do these supervisors deserve special treatment?

Without names to attach to stories, press accounts of disciplinary actions are likely to be sketchy or nonexistent, denying the public an opportunity to see whether the government it pays for is working and who, wrongly, is being blamed when it doesn’t. This level of secrecy doesn’t help anyone who deserves it.