Poison Pen or Positive Protest? Dealing With Anonymous ...

Poison Pen or Positive Protest? Dealing With Anonymous Allegations at Work

Paul Burns & Sue Crofton

Little has been written about anonymous allegations made against employees. At times such complaints serve justice and the interests of an organisation but they can also be malicious or ill founded. This article looks at the variety within anonymous allegations, the multiple problems that they create, better ways of responding to them, and some steps that may reduce the risk of receiving the most problematic complaints. Details in some of the examples given have been altered to protect sources.

We believe that only a tiny proportion of anonymous allegations in the workplace make the news. One of the better-known stories comes from Canada. In the late 1990s poison pen letters plagued a prestigious, medical research unit. The targets were Dr Nancy Olivieri and her findings, which were unfavourable to the interests of a drug company funding research at the unit. Olivieri’s colleague, Dr Gideon Koren, denied that he was the author until confronted with DNA evidence taken from envelopes he had licked.i Sometimes people do not recognise anonymous allegations. In June a Panorama programme on NHS targets used actors to conceal the identities of some hospital employees. Not everyone we have spoken with identified the use of actors as a form of anonymous allegation. Perhaps the occasional failure to recognise anonymous allegations is linked to the secrecy that usually surrounds them. As with other kinds of unfavourable publicity, most people prefer to keep quiet about anonymous allegations. Organisations fear that airing complaints, even ludicrous ones, will mar their standing. The legal issues raised by anonymous allegations are not always straightforward. As you will see below the variety of factors that might be involved is large. Nigel Baker provides a two-page introduction to dealing with information from people who do not wish to be identified. We recommend this as a starting pointii. Some situations will warrant seeking advice from solicitors or employment law experts. Varieties of Anonymous Allegations If you are going to give guidance on handling anonymous complaints or want to be better prepared for them, be aware that there is a wide range of possibilities. If you are writing policies for anonymous complaints you might like to consider adding a section on dealing with anonymous correspondence that is simply abusive and contains no suggestion of misconduct. However, in this article we focus on allegations of individual misbehaviour or organisational failure.

Poison Pen or Positive Protest?

© Paul Burns & Sue Crofton 2003 of 15

There is no research on the extent to which anonymous complaints are made by or about employees. In our experience, most anonymous allegations are made by letter, usually typed and posted. There are also handwritten messages, tapes, phone calls or information delivered via third parties. As well as journalists, intermediaries range from clerics to union officials. Counsellors might report allegations either at the request of a client or as part of the feedback from an employee assistance programme. While complainants often imply or claim that they are well informed, they do not always identify how they have obtained their information. It may be unclear whether they are employees, former employees, customers or non-customers. Even if they do claim a certain status, this may be dishonest. One complainant who had claimed to be a long serving manager was later identified as a former temporary receptionist who had less than three weeks’ experience in the firm. Workplace anonymous allegations are typically made to managers about one or more employees. However, the allegations are also sent to unions, directors, councillors, MPs, other officials and journalists. In the age of photocopying and ready access to printers, multiple addressees are common. This is sometimes immediately obvious but it may take weeks or years for the extent of mailing to emerge. The allegations might be made without identifying individuals, though we think this is less frequent. Both the poison pen author and genuinely aggrieved individual usually prefer to have targets. Very rarely someone might believe they have caught the scent of a scandal and pass on their suspicions without names. Letters sent within one organisation may be identical or vary. For example, information that the author expects a particular recipient not to believe might be sent only to others. Or a poison pen writer could vary letters, adding a paragraph commenting on an assumed or known sensitive area for each recipient. In such a case, someone receiving venom targeted at a personal vulnerability might choose not to tell anyone else about the letter. Some complainants warn that they will make their allegations known to others unless certain steps are taken. The actions and deadlines might be specified, hinted at or non-specific. There may be threats, implied or detailed, against people or property. People making allegations may try to exploit known sensitivities by complaining about a form of behaviour that has already led to bad publicity for an individual manager or unit. For example, a business that was awaiting an Employment Tribunal for discrimination, received letters alleging the same form of discrimination at another location. It was the uncertain outcome of the pending



case rather than the “evidence” in the anonymous letter that persuaded the company to conduct a very thorough investigation. We informally asked seasoned HR managers about anonymous allegations at work. About 30% of those asked had come across them. Unsigned accusations seem to be slightly more common in the public sector. We gather that, as with signed complaints, anonymous charges are more likely to be made in times of organisational stress. At such times HR and other managers may be more likely to see complaints, open or anonymous, as ways of discharging anger and tension. Anonymous allegations may also be linked to bullying, to other situations where employees feel there is a climate of fear, where they believe that management is failing to respond appropriately to known issues, or they feel that management is incompetent.

The Challenge of Anonymous Allegations Telling tales at work is common. Many managers listen to grumbling and often respond with, “I can’t do anything until you put it in writing.” A signed statement launches the grievance or disciplinary procedure and HR professionals know how to proceed and advise. Much of that experience is also relevant in dealing with anonymous allegations.

Some organisations already provide written guidance on aspects of anonymous allegations. For example, the NHS Information Authority has a Complaints Policyiii with an Appendix on anonymous complaints. Yet many of the HR professionals we spoke with said they had come across nothing documented specifically to help managers dealing with anonymous allegations. This is a shame as clear and detailed policies reduce the strain, speed up responses and avoid unhelpful reactions. The Character Problem One of the first challenges is to establish the motive for the complaint. Consider these outlines of what led to anonymous allegations. Kelvin becomes flustered and clumsy when made more self-conscious and this

has been used for over a year to bully him. He expresses his rage through an anonymous letter to the Managing Director about pilfering. There is some basis for the allegations but Kelvin implies that there is a much greater problem in his area than is the case.

Ali is witnessing poor practice in the workplace but fears that reporting it through the usual channels might make for personal difficulties. Ali sends an anonymous letter to the local MP describing the failings and how they have developed.



Jill discovers an organised gang that includes members of her team stealing from customers and the employer. The estate she lives on is also home to some of the gang. As Jill believes that violence is likely to happen to anyone seen to be exposing the gang, she asks a community worker to make known to a senior manager a broad outline of the problem.

Lee has been harassed because of sexual orientation. Both local

management and union representatives when informed by Lee failed to respond appropriately. Lee has given up and is seeking another job. A colleague, without consulting Lee, sends details of what has happened to company and union head offices. This colleague is closet gay and the letter is motivated by guilt for not having stood by Lee and fear of being harassed if exposed.

Colin sometimes has difficulties distinguishing between life and fiction. He

begins to believe that there is a criminal plot at work. His anonymous letter to the Chief Executive in parts suggests that Colin is an unstable conspiracy theorist but named individuals are accused of serious offences in some detail.

Last year Chris lost out at interview for promotion to a fellow supervisor and

now reports to the new appointee. Chris discovers that the new manager has covered up serious mistakes with implications for health and safety. Not wanting to be accused of being motivated by spite, Chris sends the evidence to a local paper.

These vignettes show some of the circumstances that might precede an anonymous allegation. Unfortunately with many anonymous letters it is difficult to establish the motives and character of the complainants. To what extent might they be disturbed, prejudiced or mistaken? Journalists and other intermediaries, if involved, may be willing to comment on what they see as a complainant’s motivation. However for those handling an allegation there is often little to decide with confidence whether: A genuine fear prevents the use of other channels This is simply a poison pen letter The complainant is trustworthy Perceptions are likely to be accurate Allegations are based on hearsay or exaggerated rumours When more than one complainant is behind an allegation there may be different sets of motives. A strong personality might manipulate others to get them involved, perhaps using emotional pressure or selective information. Multiple authors may account for why a letter seems to be written in different styles or discrepancies between a series of letters. Alternatively, a single author might claim dishonestly to be writing on behalf of several people or send allegations that appear to come from different people.



When an allegation is made openly there are opportunities to clarify what is being alleged and, possibly, who is behind it. The person investigating can arrive at specifics through talking with the complainant before beginning a wider enquiry. An anonymous allegation might come as a letter full of ambiguities caused by insufficient detail, poor wording or illegibility. This prompts yet more questions. To what extent is lack of clarity deliberate? Did the author use uncertainty to make it harder for the employer to ignore the letter? Is it a case of presenting a small amount of dirt to look like a substantial pile of muck? Impact on the Workplace Once people are aware of allegations involving them or close colleagues the emotional temperature rises, often with implications for productivity, sickness and team cohesion. If people are guilty they will be angry at their “betrayal” and nervous about the consequences. The innocent who are accused have been insulted and dread that mud will stick. If charges have some factual basis but are exaggerated, those so accused may alternate between the reactions of the guilty and the innocent. Workmates not directly implicated may resent the allegations, whether true or not, for rocking the boat. Or they might feel outrage at the accusations, resent being suspected of informing, or worry that they will also be accused. Fear of informers and more accusations to come sap trust. Often managers are criticised, publicly or in corners, for not responding appropriately. After someone has been accused it is common to come across claims of bosses being too harsh or not doing enough. Teams might split over whether management has been heavy-handed or not taken enough action. Other teams take sides based on who is suspected of making the allegation or whether an allegation needed to be made anonymously. These splits might involve whispering or slanging matches. Actual or perceived behaviour within the workplace might lead to formal grievances such as complaints of bullying. Teams may splinter along underlying fault lines, such as racial intolerance, especially if allegations relate to such issues. Management responses to allegations are easily misunderstood. Clear messages are needed about actions linked to the complaint, such as suspension, training, transfer or change of duties. Without robust communications such things can easily be interpreted as proof of guilt or managers not caring. Properly conducted investigations help to reduce the emotional temperature. When well communicated, even the announcement of an investigation assists employees to feel something is being done and that they are being listened to.



However, the major role in limiting unhelpful emotionality is for managers to give visible and proactive support over time. Avoiding Anonymous Allegations No number of reasonable measures will stop an unreasonable person bent on making an anonymous allegation. However, there are steps both to reduce the chances of sending and, if they are sent, increasing the chances of getting more useful information. Channelling Complaints The first line of defence is to have a Whistle Blowing Policyiv and other publicity that informs employees of ways of raising concerns. Advertise contact details for both in-house or outside resources. For example, for sexual discrimination list the contact details of a manager with special responsibility and the EOC. Employee counselling services might help in three ways. An employee assistance programme can provide feedback on the types of issues raised and alert an organisation to problem areas. Secondly, a counsellor may help a potential anonymous complainant to find more open and constructive ways of lodging a concern. And thirdly, a counsellor may help the aggrieved person to realise that there is not enough evidence to justify an investigation. Employee counsellors need to know how to help a client with a serious concern about wrongdoing. This includes understanding how imprecise information hinders an employer’s response to an anonymous allegation. Counsellors and Employee Assistance providers should have copies of whistle blowing policies. They will hesitate to ask for them once a client raises an issues, for fear of compromising confidentiality. Employee and union representatives, if trusted by the aggrieved person, might do similar work to an employee counsellor with regard to potential anonymous complaints. However, a representative may not be as discreet as a counsellor and may have a wider agenda. Complaints are most likely in times of tension, such as unwelcome organisational change or where there is bullying. Measures that reduce stress and lend support to individuals and teams will reduce both open and anonymous complaints. Publicise Standards There are laws against malicious communicationsv. Make known that you will involve the police if malice is suspected and that there serious implications for people who send ill-founded allegations.



Define conditions for anonymous allegations. Make known that information provided by an unnamed source will only be responded to if certain criteria are met. For example, something like the following could be inserted into policies such as Diversity, Harassment, Code of Conduct or Confidential Reporting Code.

Complaints that are not made openly are far more difficult to respond to. We have to consider the possibility that anonymous complaints are made maliciously, either to hurt a particular individual or to tie up resources in unnecessary investigations.

An anonymous allegation will only be acted on after the following have been assessed. The seriousness of the matter reported. The extent to which allegations are specific (e.g. it is clear what is being

alleged, dates, times, locations, consequences of wrongdoing, names of witnesses).

The extent to which allegations are based on reliable information, not simply on hearsay.

Reasons to believe that there is justification for the matter being reported anonymously and not through channels that allow for easier scrutiny

Whether the language used is abusive or otherwise suggests a poison-pen letter

If we have no way of contacting the person making the allegation, all of the necessary information for a decision to take further must be clearly available.

Those who make anonymous allegations should be aware that:

If deemed appropriate, the matter may be handed over to the police or

other authorities for their views or with a request to investigate the allegations.

People accused or implicated in alleged wrongdoing will be provided with copies of allegations.

We will view very seriously any false, carelessly prepared or malicious allegations received. Inaccurate or negligent accusations by an employee are considered a matter of gross misconduct.

We are obliged to support employees named in anonymous allegations until such time as there may be sufficient evidence to justify action against them.

A complaint that is found to have used a misleading sender name or address is very likely to be dismissed as malicious.

None of the above stops someone from sending an anonymous allegation. Rather, it makes clear that not giving a name does not exempt the sender from



other responsibilities. Making known criteria like these also will help others to understand why some allegations are not followed up. Responding to an Allegation Organisations that have thought through anonymous allegations in advance and have documents that clarify expectations and procedures will, all other things being equal, cope significantly better. One area that will benefit from an agreed procedure is how to respond to those who face allegations. Managers who make known that their actions follow recommended steps are less likely to face gripes and grievances about unfair or inappropriate behaviour. Receipt of Allegation When an anonymous allegation is received there is no way of knowing whether others will follow. While the first communication may appear to be completely genuine and reasonable, perhaps the author will later display a malicious side. For this reason, treat every anonymous communication as a potential source of evidence. Keep any envelope or wrapping accompanying an allegation in a safe place and handle as little as possible. Minimise the handling of any item that might have fingerprints or DNA and keep wrapped in plastic after making copies that can be handled. If an item is delivered by hand, as soon as possible try to identify and record arrival details, including who has handled the item. If you suspect there may have been multiple addressees, check as soon as possible. If recipients are reluctant to hand over potential evidence, they may be prepared to do so if they are told they can keep a photocopy of the original. If sent by email, as well as keeping on it on a PC, copy the header details and the message on to paper and store in a safe place. If the complaint is made through a third party who has spoken with the complainant, seek an opinion on the motivation and judgment of the informant, preferably in writing. Ask if it is possible for written questions to be put to the complainant to clarify details. Consult with those responsible for Public Relations about anything revealed through the media or where there are threats to go public. Journalists may have unpublished information, perhaps held back for legal reasons. They may be prepared to share this if asked. TV and radio producers may be prepared to provide a tape or transcript for a fee.



Other Initial Actions If there are not already timescales for dealing with allegations, define these now and note the rationale for this. Some allegations will concern the welfare of employees or customers. Special attention and urgency must be given to allegations conveying that people continue to suffer because of the actions of an employee or contractor. The senior managers who ultimately would have to carry the can for an organisation’s handling of the allegations deserve to be advised of them as well as receiving updates on actions and any barriers to progress. If there is no designated person to receive copies of all anonymous complaints, copy to the senior managers responsible for the staff or units implicated in the allegations. This will help to ensure that if there is more than one complaint the information is collated. If no further action is taken, record the reasons for this in writing along with notes of who has had sight of the allegation and who made the decision not to proceed. Who To Involve Consult your solicitors or the police if crimes, including poison pen letters, are suspected. If named individuals are accused of wrongdoing or clearly implicated, these people have a right to know about the allegations. People named may express some of their anger at being accused by complaining about not being informed earlier. The accused will want to have a copy of anything written as soon as possible. Ideally this will be handed over by a senior person who stays to discuss and lend appropriate support. Do not fax allegations unless special precautions are taken to ensure only the intended person sees it. Embarrassing emails sometime go viral and the risk of this increases exponentially with additional addressees. Before suing email, consider the trustworthiness of people and the potential of the allegations for inappropriate forwarding. When allegations are made against several people, sending the complete document to all those named may appear to some as tantamount to publishing a libel. Consider either blanking out certain names and identifying features or sending only parts of an anonymous letter. If this is done an accompanying memo must make clear why the information is incomplete. You might ask people for permission to show their details to the others or arrange a meeting of those



named to make clear your organisation encourages them to share information and support. Only consider not sharing information with someone accused if so advised by the police or your solicitor. There may be factors that suggest other anonymous allegations have been sent. If so, make enquiries to other possible recipients. This is especially important if there is no reliable, designated collation point within the organisation for all anonymous allegations. Emotional Support Give thought to how to provide emotional support to those who have been accused and others who work with them. E.g., how will an employee feel suspecting betrayal by one or more of the team? Even if employee counselling is already in place or offered, managers need to be visible and making it easier for people to share feelings. Avoid those named or implicated having to tell others at work about the allegations. This should be carried out by a more senior person both to show that the management team are involved and to support someone who may well be innocent. An agitated environment fast-breeds rumours. One danger of relying on a verbal briefing is that the allegations become exaggerated. Consider providing a written summary of the allegations that does not mention the accused. Issue such a summary “In Strictest Confidence”, making clear the distribution and why it is important not to spread the allegations further. If the allegations are imprecise or otherwise lacking, make this known. State that any enquiries are standard procedure and do not indicate acceptance of the allegations. Investigations Most organisations of any size have experience of probing unsatisfactory conduct and grievances. Those who deal with such issues have transferable skills for anonymous complaints. One difference is that anonymous allegations can be far more time-consuming because allegations are imprecise. In one of our investigations prompted by a somewhat rambling letter were ten serious allegations against a middle manager. It was necessary to include questions relating to each allegation in the interview schedule. For thoroughness, the employer wanted each person under this manager to be interviewed, which meant that twenty-one sets of answers had to be collated.



It may be difficult to exclude people from interviews if you cannot state publicly the reasons for some being questioned and others exempted. If witnesses or people involved are not named in the complaint, there may be no choice but to schedule interviews for a whole team or everyone working in a particular location. Consistency and collation is made easier by using a single investigator but this may need to be weighed against the need for a quicker response. A skilled leader or consultant is needed if more than one interviewer is to be employed. Investigations are more productive when those being questioned have reason to believe that the interviewer will be fair and honest. This could be based on a reputation for similar work within the organisation or external credentials. Where unions have support, consulting about plans for the investigation is advisable. A large enough organisation may be able to bring from another area someone who will be seen as independent. A smaller entity may find it harder to provide a suitable staff member. Whoever is appointed, often at least one person will be very dissatisfied with the end result and may purport that the investigation was biased or incompetent. The investigator has to be able to live with criticism and strong feelings. The investigator needs skills or assistance in designing questionnaires, analysing data and understanding organisational issues and politics, including employee relations. During the interviews the investigator has to build and maintain rapport while probing sensitive matters and making notes. Getting Organised Treat the investigation like a project. Specify the scope of the investigation, the desired output and the deadlines. Define the Client and consider having a more accessible Client’s Representative. An investigator may need to talk at intervals to a senior person about what is coming up and, perhaps, the need to alter the brief. At least those to be interviewed need a memo from the Client covering:

Why there is a need for an investigation That those accused have received copies of any written allegations Who has been appointed and why (e.g. independence, experience) Terms of reference (e.g. who will be interviewed, in confidence, to establish

if any truth in allegations, summarise views of employees, make recommendations, timescale)

Who the report will go to Not for publication to preserve confidentiality Venue for interviews How you will be allocated a time for interview Whether an interviewee may choose to be accompanied



Large investigations need support to arrange interviewing rooms, interview schedules and facilities. A secure yet relaxed interview room makes for more productive meetings. Potentially sensitive material must be kept secure, even during a break. People say far more when they are convinced they cannot be overheard and records are securely kept. In our experience, taping interviewees limits what is said. Ideally the interview room is near to but distinct from the workplace. For example, it is better not to have the interviewee noticing fellow workers outside the room. One way to start building rapport with interviewees is to offer tea or coffee. It is far better if this can be provided without leaving the interview room. Interviewing Ensure all relevant areas are covered through either an ordered list of topics or, better still, a starter question for each topic. Numbering makes it easier both for note taking and crosschecking answers. Expect to expand the list of topics as a result of information that comes up, hopefully in one of the earlier interviews. Schedule two interviews for those against whom allegations have been made. One interview before other parties are questioned and one after the information from other parties has been collated. Some scope for additional interviews is often useful, e.g. when you find you need to include an extra interviewee or re-interview. It is often helps to explain to interviewees what is understood by hearsay and how the investigation only deals with what was witnessed or is known directly. In some settings saying this and not letting people proceed with gossip will save much time. One exception might be to ask, “Who do you think is involved in the anonymous allegations?” This question sometimes identifies individuals at risk because they are suspected. If names are given, follow up with, “Do you have any evidence to support your suspicions?” When no evidence is provided, stress the very limited use that can be made of unsupported suspicions. Early on in the interview ask how the allegations have impacted on the interviewee. This could serve at least three purposes. Firstly, it shows sympathetic interest and therefore adds to rapport. Secondly, it may yield useful information about organisational stresses that need to be reported. And thirdly, this response may prompt the sharing of feelings about allegations and complainants. Interviewees typically resent the fact that the allegation was made anonymously and if this data is collated and fed back it may deter further anonymous allegations.



When asking about those who have been accused of wrongdoing, first invite information about their strengths. If Sam is accused of being a bad manager, begin with what have been Sam’s good points as manager? If Pip is accused of discriminating against older people, ask are there any counter-examples. This approach to questioning conveys the interviewer’s desire to be fair. It may also help to establish to what extent an interviewee is biased. Someone recalling both negative and positive details about a colleague may deserve more credence than a person who describes a complete saint or sinner. Catch-all questions towards the end of the interview are important both for obtaining additional information and leaving people with an impression of thoroughness. E.g.

Is there anything we have talked about that you want to go back to? Is there anything else you think might be relevant that you haven’t had the

chance to speak about? What lesson do you hope the organisation will learn from the experience of

having to deal with these allegations? Confidentiality Our approach is to discuss this early on in the interview. We say something like:

I will be making notes for my use only. Nothing that goes into the report will identify an individual unless I have your specific and unambiguous permission to do so. If there is anything you do want attributed to you, please let me know. Similarly, when interviewing others, I won’t identify you as a source unless I have your explicit authorisation. It is not appropriate for me to answer any questions about how the investigation is progressing. My role is to report to “the client”. I have an obligation to report crime involving a threat to the well being of an individual or significant financial loss. The confidentiality guarantee does not extend to such matters. You are welcome to seek clarification at any stage about what confidentiality will cover.

The third paragraph emphasises the limits of confidentiality and is also a time saver. While many interviewees understandably want to know more, their managers should decide what information is released and when. However, notes might be made of areas of interest or uncertainty and suggestions fed back, even before the completed report.



The Future In 2002 three US organisations jointly published a handbook called “The Art of Anonymous Activism; Serving the Public while Surviving Public Service”, to help “employees confronting difficult ethical issues.”vi Looking at their websites we think that, if the UK follows the US trend, we will see more exposures, often motivated by social concern, that seek to embarrass enterprises and government undertakings. We foresee greater and more sophisticated use of the media to publicise anonymous allegations. If people uneasy with what their organisation is doing follow the sort of advice that is in the handbook they will weigh up carefully the choices between signing their complaints and remaining anonymous. Protestors following handbook type recommendations will be more effective in their campaigning and, if they choose anonymity, harder to identify. The handbook and US organisations do not encourage petty or spiteful allegations. They are encouraging ethical stands not unethical action. However, a growth in high publicity exposures may spur on less principled anonymous allegations. Conclusion Anonymous allegations come in many forms. While relatively infrequent in most organisations they are often very disruptive and stressful, especially when they come as the result of current organisational tensions. A particular problem is uncertainty about motives and accuracy. The chances of receiving anonymous allegations can be reduced through improving or adding to communication channels for grievances and concerns. More useful information is encouraged through specifying what is required for an anonymous complaint to be acted on. Alternatively, publicising criteria for anonymous allegations makes it easier to dismiss them and for others to understand why they are ignored. Working through anonymous allegations with the people accused and their colleagues requires tact and emotional support. Investigations need adequate resources and experienced people with appropriate skills who are seen as independent.



About the Authors Paul Burns and Sue Crofton are Directors of Wendwell - Partners for Change. Paul’s background is Organisation Development and Sue was an HR Manager before becoming a consultant. Wendwell’s work includes advising on and investigating complaints such as discrimination and poor management. Tel. 020 8385 2900 [email protected] 98 West Hill, Wembley Park HA9 9RR References

i E.g. See reports by Canadian Association of University Teachers http://www.caut.ca/english/bulletin/2001_dec/news/ontario-board.asp and Canadian Medical Association http://collection.nlc-bnc.ca/100/201/300/cdn_medical_association/cmaj/cmaj_today/1999/12_21.htm ii Baker, N., 1977, Dealing with anonymous tip offs at work, Croner Employer Briefing, 11

November 11, Issue No. 136, pp. 6 & 7. iii Available from http://www.nhsia.nhs.uk/pdf/complaints.pdf

iv Based on The Public Disclosure Act 1998

v Malicious Communications Act 1988, Telecommunications Act 1984

vi The Art of Anonymous Activism; Serving the Public while Surviving Public Service, 2002,

jointly published by Project on Government Oversight, Government Accountability Project & Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.caut.ca/english/bulletin/2001_dec/news/ontario-board.asp

http://collection.nlc-bnc.ca/100/201/300/cdn_medical_association/cmaj/cmaj_today/1999/12_21.htm

http://collection.nlc-bnc.ca/100/201/300/cdn_medical_association/cmaj/cmaj_today/1999/12_21.htm

http://www.nhsia.nhs.uk/pdf/complaints.pdf

Poison Pen or Positive Protest? Dealing With Anonymous ...

Documents

Transcript of Poison Pen or Positive Protest? Dealing With Anonymous ...