Fingers point over lack of IG
Thursday, Nov 2, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller
* WCIA…
The absence of a Legislative Inspector General has sparked some partisan accusations of their own. Representative Chad Hays (R-Catlin) says he and his GOP colleague Rep. Norine Hammond (R-Macomb) have recommended several names to the current and past chair of the committee, but none have been appointed.
“It is outrageous that the position remains open despite our sincere and repeated efforts to move this process forward,” Hays said, pointing an accusatory finger at Speaker Madigan, who does not sit on the Legislative Ethics Commission.
“My read on the matter is that the Speaker has thwarted efforts to finalize this dynamic,” Hays said. “No rationale for foot dragging on this matter is acceptable. The length of time that the position has remained unoccupied is absurd.”
A spokesman for Speaker Madigan responded, saying, “Mr. Hays’ claim has no basis in fact.”
The speaker’s office was aware of only one name briefly under consideration, a former state representative, but says the candidate’s poor reputation made them a poor fit for the job. Cullerton’s office says three candidates were offered a job within the last year, but each turned it down.
Somebody either isn’t telling the truth or doesn’t know the whole story.
* WTTW…
[Sen. Karen McConnaughay] says that she was active in helping to submit the name of one candidate […]
[Sen. Terry Link] says he has been actively trying to fill the legislative inspector general role in the year that he’s been at the helm of the commission.
But he says it’s been difficult: According to Link, the position is technically part-time, but “it can consume a lot of hours” as it’s up to the inspector general to actually do, or at least lead, the investigative legwork.
Link says an inspector general is paid an hourly rate for that work, so there’s no guaranteed salary. Few attorneys are apt to want to leave a full-time position for that.
Not to mention that although according to state law it “shall be a fully independent office,” an inspector general has to be willing to potentially burn bridges with powerful elected officials.
* Tribune…
But legislative leaders have failed to hire a permanent legislative inspector general since Tom Homer left at the end of June 2014. The following week, the Chicago Tribune published details of a secret report put together by Homer in the wake of a 2013 Metra scandal that offered new insight into how Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan navigated the intersection of public business and ward-style patronage through his Southwest Side office and Illinois Capitol suite.
The report contained an account of Metra’s chairwoman entering Madigan’s Capitol office to talk about state issues and leaving with a yellow Post-it note bearing the names of two workers the speaker wanted to see promoted. In another meeting, a Metra lobbyist who was a longtime Madigan aide was spotted leaving the speaker’s office with two resumes. Another time, Madigan simply called the cellphone of one of his “better” precinct captains to tell him about a state job, according to the report.
A copy of the unreleased report also gave a rare glimpse into Madigan’s thoughts on getting people government jobs and raises. In an interview with Homer, Madigan is quoted as speaking highly of both the work-related credentials and the political experience of one 13th Ward operative the speaker backed for a raise.
“You can understand that there are many people that are involved with me and campaigns and community service,” Madigan said, according to the report. “Among these many people, some are better than others. (He) happens to be one of those who is better than others.”
At the time, Madigan’s spokesman issued a statement saying the speaker asked for the investigation and cooperated fully with it and noted that the legislative inspector general had “found no violation of any law.”
* Tribune editorial…
The current uproar reflects badly on Cullerton, whose reliance on protocol is no excuse: He referred Rotheimer’s complaint to an office that he knows full well is rudderless and ineffectual. “It is our understanding that there is an open investigation” — spoken Tuesday by a Cullerton spokesman — is a pretty hollow assurance.
This reflects badly, too, on Madigan, who sprang into action only after a groundswell of protest about a culture of creepiness in the Capitol. Madigan desperately wants to avoid looking like he hasn’t taken sexual harassment seriously. Too late.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Nov 2, 17 @ 11:13 am:
Blame rauner /s
- Way South of I-80 - Thursday, Nov 2, 17 @ 11:38 am:
I understand why the position has been difficult to fill. Doubt there have been enough cases in the past for it to be a full time position (although that may change now). There would be very few qualified candidates available for the type of position as it stands now - let alone a qualified candidate who is willing to accept the position. They will have to find a way to enhance the compensation or change the job description to include something else so that it meets the needs for full time work.
- Nortorious RBG - Thursday, Nov 2, 17 @ 11:42 am:
Why exactly do we need a separate IG for the GA? (Yes, I understand the positions arise from separate statutes.) Why not consolidate the OEIG’s office with a legislative IG - if there’s really “not enough work” for the IG to do, they can help out with the OEIG’s responsibilities.
- Some Anonymous Dude (S.A.D.) - Thursday, Nov 2, 17 @ 11:48 am:
Is it that difficult to find a retired detective in Springfield to take this on?
- Perrid - Thursday, Nov 2, 17 @ 11:50 am:
@Nortorious RBG - This is speculation, but my non-cynical ideas are that the legislative IG would theoretically make more legislators upset, burn more bridges, and so should be more insulated and focused. Best argument I can come up with, weak as it is. Of course the cynical answer would be that the GA wants it small enough “to drown in a bathtub.”
- Casual observer - Thursday, Nov 2, 17 @ 11:54 am:
“three candidates were offered a job within the last year, but each turned it down.”
Who would want that job? Nobody would want to be seen within 50 feet of you. Why can’t the 4 leaders get together and take this on themselves? They are leaders for crying out loud. They should be held responsible for the actions of their members. Get together, clear the docket of these outstanding complaints and dole out punishment that is appropriate where necessary.
- A guy - Thursday, Nov 2, 17 @ 11:58 am:
I’d favor someone other than an attorney. These kinds of complaints might be better served by a person with probation office, HR, Social work, or other skill sets. The ethics officer can forward the process to a lawyer if it comes to that.
Having a woman in that job might generate more confidence in women who have feared coming forward. Now they are retiring; Barbara Flynn Curie? Patti Bellock? Darlene Senger (already retired from the GA)? I’m sure there are others. But all of them would understand the terrain.
- MG85 - Thursday, Nov 2, 17 @ 12:14 pm:
There’s a great Department in Illinois called the Department of Human Rights. Turns out, they are home to a whole host of investigators who investigate charges like sexual harassment, harassment, and discrimination on the basis of sex, race, and national origin. The Department is also home to attorneys who argue claims who go in front of the Human Rights Commission.
I’m sure someone over there would be interested in the position, be more than overqualified, and come in equipped to remain non-partisan in all matters pertaining to the office.
This “excuse” that no one wanted the job leads reminds me of Devon Banks in 30 Rock screaming out into the wind to warn Jack about an impending doom.
Of course no one wanted the job. No one knew it was being filled.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Nov 2, 17 @ 12:16 pm:
Neat trick boys: Not many cases because a) women were historically made aware the only result of a complaint would be a negative one towards them; b) with few willing to file a complaint due to above, there was no need for a professional full time officer and c), this worked out excellently for the dirtbags - active or complicitly passive/obstructive. Illinois so well deserves its reputation as the most corrupt.
- Perrid - Thursday, Nov 2, 17 @ 12:25 pm:
@ Anonymous at 12:16 - Very possible theory, but at the moment I am not aware of any retaliation claims, let alone the claim that this bureaucratic maze was intentionally made in order to deter victims. You may be right but wait for more evidence to convict everyone involved, yeah?
- Anonymous - Thursday, Nov 2, 17 @ 1:01 pm:
Good points
- Pot calling kettle - Thursday, Nov 2, 17 @ 1:08 pm:
I don’t doubt that there are folks who would want the job, but are they the people you want to have in the position? I bet Dan Proft or the Edgar County Watchdogs would take this on…but would you want them to?
- George - Thursday, Nov 2, 17 @ 1:37 pm:
Why do we need an GA IG at all? The members are all are separately elected officials. Their constituencies should conduct all oversight. Let the media report this stuff and let the voters decide whether they want to retain people who do bad things. If someone commits criminal acts, then prosecutors can handle that. But otherwise, let the voters decide.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Nov 2, 17 @ 1:46 pm:
I think it’s pretty fair to say that a new inspector general was a not a top priority for commission members, the four GA leaders, or anyone else in the GA.
I don’t recall anyone beefing loudly the past three years.
Now they’re all playing Catch-Up and CYA.
- A guy - Thursday, Nov 2, 17 @ 2:06 pm:
Eek George. Your not listening here. You need to talk to Georgette.
- Responsa - Thursday, Nov 2, 17 @ 2:13 pm:
George, I sincerely hope your comment was sarcasm. But I am not sure it was. And if it wasn’t sarcasm, God help us.
- Lt Guv - Thursday, Nov 2, 17 @ 2:42 pm:
Why a dedicated Legislative IG? Separation of powers.