zemeunvalsts.lv commentary

The attitude of one of the most prominent journalists of the Atmoda era towards Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga, hunters and hunting, and sometimes even forestry, is not always easy to understand. However... The article on whistleblowing within the Riga City Council (RD) raises several serious questions. For instance, how would the RD explain whether and how whistleblowing can lead to a good position (even if only temporarily)? Can the RD explain its tactics: a report is received, dismissals follow immediately, without verifying the report? Can the RD explain the purpose of press conferences regarding whistleblower reports if they contain words like "possibly", "could be", or "we will almost certainly prove"?

No matter what those responsible at the RD might like to think, the issue is not about the need for a specific person to hold a certain position, but about the situation: a report is produced, it is not verified, yet there is a public and sharp reaction, accompanied by various ongoing speculations.

It is not yet known who the next victim of the "whistleblowers" will be, or whether Reinbahs will go to court to seek justice, but it is possible that the Riga decision-makers will have to fight Aivars Tauriņš more seriously: so far, he has refuted every accusation levelled against him by the council. It is even possible that the "whistleblower's" snitch report did not end up where it was legally required to go: the Riga City Council's Bureaucracy Combating Centre... Could it have remained in the desk drawer of the Big Staķis himself? So, what are we really talking about?