Photo/Illutration Governor Motohiko Saito responds to the findings of a report by Hyogo Prefecture’s third-party committee on March 26 in Kobe’s Chuo Ward. (Seiya Hara)

A third-party committee is an independent and neutral panel established by an organization to investigate legal violations or improper conduct within its operations. The findings of such investigations should be used to identify those responsible, implement necessary corrective measures, and work toward restoring public trust.

However, Governor Motohiko Saito of Hyogo Prefecture, while apologizing for his harassment of prefectural employees as recognized by a third-party committee investigating the allegations, has refused to accept any disciplinary action against himself.

The committee also concluded that the prefecture’s handling of a whistleblower--a former head of the local government’s regional office who had reported the governor’s misconduct--was illegal. Saito rejected this finding, stating, “Our views differ.” His response is excessively arbitrary and may be seen as undermining the significance and authority of the third-party committee, something that cannot be overlooked.

Hyogo Prefecture’s third-party committee identified 10 instances of workplace harassment committed by Saito. While the governor did apologize to the staff in question, he stated that, moving forward, he would “correct [his] conduct, undergo training and strive to create a more open workplace,” adding, “That is how I will fulfill my responsibility.”

In previous cases where prefectural employees were found to have committed similar harassment, disciplinary actions such as pay cuts were imposed in accordance with internal guidelines. Saito’s refusal to mention any disciplinary consequences for his own conduct understandably sparked criticism and perceptions of unfairness within the prefectural government.

This instance of harassment by the governor started when Saito personally obtained the whistleblowing document prepared and distributed by the former head of the regional office and instructed close aides to investigate. Regarding the prefecture’s subsequent treatment of the whistleblower, the third-party committee’s report concluded that aspects of the interview process and disciplinary actions violated the whistleblower protection law.

Saito refused to accept the committee’s report, stating, “There are different perspectives on various issues,” and, “We have differing views from the third-party committee.” He further defended his position by saying, “The procedures and content of the disciplinary actions were appropriate,” reiterating his earlier stance.

At the same time, he said the prefectural government would move forward with strengthening its whistleblower protection system in line with the committee’s recommendations, adding, “I believe I have taken the report seriously as a whole.”

The controversy within the Hyogo prefectural government began a year earlier when Saito publicly criticized the whistleblower at a news conference, calling him a “total liar” and “unfit as a public servant.” The third-party committee later classified those remarks as a form of power harassment. Although Saito acknowledged, “I reflect on the fact that I used strong words,” he showed no intention of retracting the statements.

Anyone who gives the impression of being unreachable by reason or dialogue is unfit to lead an organization.

Commenting on his stance toward the report, Saito said, “I listened to the opinions of various people and ultimately made my own judgment as governor,” but added, “I will refrain from commenting on the details of the content and procedures” related to his final judgment.

His posture, repeatedly claiming to take the report “seriously” while effectively dismissing its findings, borders on self-righteousness. Given all the facts, the only reasonable conclusion is that Saito himself is unfit to serve as governor.

--The Asahi Shimbun, March 29