Not a good look
Friday, Feb 7, 2020 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Capitol News Illinois…
All three people who have held the position of legislative inspector general in Illinois told a joint ethics panel Thursday the office needs more independence to police the General Assembly and maintain the public’s confidence in the process.
Carol Pope, the current officeholder, and former Inspectors General Julie Porter and Tom Homer appeared before the Joint Commission on Ethics and Lobbying Reform, a group that is to make recommendations for governmental ethics reform in the state by the end of March. […]
“The legislative inspector general cannot be independent, and having a legislative inspector general is a waste of resources, if a Legislative Ethics Commission staffed by legislators — all appointed by the House and Senate leaders — presides over her investigations and has the power to kill them,” Porter said in written testimony submitted to the panel. “That is precisely the system we have now in Illinois: The fox is guarding the henhouse.” […]
“Number one, the statute says that the legislative inspector general is an independent office. And I think the public thinks I’m an independent office, but I ask you if I have to go to eight legislators over whom I have jurisdiction to investigate, to ask for permission to open an investigation, how independent am I?” Pope asked.
* Hannah Meisel at the Daily Line has this bit about a legal loophole…
The legislative inspector general has jurisdiction over both lawmakers and staff members employed by each of the four caucuses. While the mandatory release of a report is fairly uniform across the inspectors general and ethics commissions across state government — any punishment of a suspension of three days or more means a founded summary report is automatically released.
However, Homer pointed out that it’s not so with lawmakers.
“Legislators can’t be suspended,” Homer said. “Ergo, there is no mandatory release of a report.”
* The commission should’ve asked Porter about her written testimony…
Former Legislative Inspector General Julie Porter on Thursday planned to testify in front of a newly formed ethics commission that legislators quashed — and hid from the public — an investigation into another sitting lawmaker, which Porter said involved “serious wrongdoing.”
Porter shared her prepared testimony with reporters ahead of the meeting with the Joint Commission on Ethics and Lobbying Reform, but she never got the chance to publicly discuss the thwarted investigation. Commission members — themselves state legislators — did not ask her or others testifying to read their prepared statements, although the legislators promised to enter them into the record and publish them all on the panel’s website.
That meant Porter was not questioned about the past investigation that members of the Legislative Ethics Commission — a separate body that handles complaints against state lawmakers — effectively made sure went nowhere.
That written testimony is here.
* Tribune…
All three inspectors general said they believe it’s improper that the Legislative Ethics Commission can refuse to publish investigations when members voting on whether to publish reach a 4-4 deadlock along partisan lines.
“What has happened is the four legislative leaders, over time, have put their surrogates on there to protect the interests of the caucus and of the caucus members, and that’s really not the commission’s role,” Homer said.
He and Pope both suggested the addition of a nonpartisan citizen member to break ties.
Better yet, Pope said, the inspector general should be given the authority to initiate investigations and publish reports without seeking permission.
* ABC 7…
“There’s really no reason why the LIG should report to people whom she is charged with investigating,” Porter said. “This is a great opportunity for this joint commission to make this change. It is absolutely critical to the independence of the LIG.”
“I’ve heard from colleagues that, you know, you don’t want an inspector general going rogue or running roughshod,” said State Rep. Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago). “You don’t see that happening around the country. I don’t think that’s a real risk. What is a real risk is people losing confidence in who we are as a body and what we do.”
And lawmakers called on Governor JB Pritzker to be involved.
“He has to lead on this issue of corruption, it’s not going to get done without the governor being active,” Rep. McSweeney said.
- Bruce (no not him) - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 10:29 am:
“Only people who are corrupt or corruptible run for office” Wow, that’s really cynical. Unfortunately, the only part I can disagree with is the “only” There are some who are there for the right reasons.
- JB13 - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 10:30 am:
One can only pretend to care about governmental ethics for so long.
- Bruce (no not him) - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 10:33 am:
Rich deleted a comment, that’s why my comment makes little sense.
- Ron Burgundy - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 10:37 am:
Wow. Imagine how shocked leadership must be when people they hire that are supposed to be independent start acting and talking independently.
- Boots - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 10:54 am:
I agree with Porter: the legislative inspector general is a waste of resources and the position should be abolished. Obviously the LEC disagreed with Porter. Why should we believe her over them? What are her motives? Legislators are elected officials. They should be accountable to their constituents, not to some appointed lawyer who feels morally superior to everyone.
- Precinct Captain - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 11:00 am:
Kind of bizarre statement from Cassidy. Has she missed the CPS IG leaving after running a terror campaign against employees? And then his holier-than-thou statement trying to sweep it under the rug? Or in Congress, an Office of Congressional Ethics investigators using their position to try to quash local law enforcement investigations.
That’s not to say that the system here is even functional, but Cassidy should make a wiser statement.
To the point of the testimony, since the caucuses are basically their own agencies and so are individual legislators in a way, what empowers an LIG to actually correct wrongdoing or discipline wrongdoers? What would they need to do that?
- DownStateGirl - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 11:14 am:
This sounds eerily similar to the obvious issues with allowing the Federal AG to have complete discretion over which investigations are allowed to go forward or not with regard to elected officials and campaigns.
- WH Mess - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 11:23 am:
On a related note, in this article yesterday, we have a general assembly member admitting they are introducing legislation to advance their own real estate investment interests.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/city-hall/2020/2/6/21127063/aldermanic-prerogative-chicago-city-council-zoning-wards-deanne-mazzochi-lightfoot
- OneMan - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 11:28 am:
== They should be accountable to their constituents, not to some appointed lawyer who feels morally superior to everyone. ==
And when it is such that their constituents never get to find out about any shenanigans all the better, right?
These health inspectors thinking they should be the ones to judge is food is safe, let the customers decided, if they end up puking their guts out after eating there they may decide not to eat there again. I mean, the restaurant owners obviously don’t like being told what is sanitary and what isn’t..
FYI, based on current and long term track records, it is actually fairly easy to feel morally superior to them. If you named another profession or job that had the same investigation rate/indictment/conviction rate as Illinois legislator you would feel morally superior to them as well.
- Boots - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 11:34 am:
OneMan — You have the right to vote and the freedom of speech. I suggest you use those to remake the legislature in your image. That work should not be outsourced to an unelected inspector general.
- Ron Burgundy - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 11:34 am:
—Obviously the LEC disagreed with Porter. Why should we believe her over them? What are her motives? Legislators are elected officials. They should be accountable to their constituents…—
I believe her because she came forward and explained herself. What are their motives? How can we hold them accountable if they act in secret?
- Rich Miller - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 11:39 am:
===How can we hold them accountable===
Primary day is about five weeks from now.
- Candy Dogood - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 11:44 am:
===That work should not be outsourced to an unelected inspector general.===
So far the only justice the People of Illinois seem to find is at the service of unelected federal prosecutors.
What I find distressing, Boots, is your arguments seem to reflect this notion that legislators should be exempt from following the law so long as their colleagues are okay with it.
Let the founded reports be public so legislators can explain the details to their constituents.
If you are sincere in your support for legislators committing acts of wrong doing, and then the legislative leadership pretending that referring the complain to the LIG counts as action when no consequences come from it, then I recommend you highlight exactly what kind of wrong doing you think legislators should be exempted from.
It’s clear that racism and sexual harassment meet a certain level of tolerance under the dome of the Capitol, but what other things must we tolerate?
- Rich Miller - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 11:44 am:
===introducing legislation to advance their own real estate investment interests===
It’s a citizen legislature.
Meaning, legislators often introduce bills based on their every day life experiences.
- Bourbon Street - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 11:49 am:
Whether to have an LIG is not an all or nothing type of situation. Homer and Pope’s suggestion of adding a non-partisan citizen member to the LEC should be tried, and the issue of the LIG’s powers can be revisited after everyone has had the chance to see if the addition of a non-legislator has made any difference. The Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission has had non-lawyer members for years which has helped quell concerns about “lawyers protecting lawyers”.
- OneMan - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 11:56 am:
So your argument is that even the rules of decent workplace behavior are merely suggestions for elected officials? That as long as they get re-elected they can harras, yell and intimidate to their heart’s content, and even the idea of looking into complaints about that sort of thing and making those complaints known should not be the responsibility of anyone in government?
Do I have that right?
- Rich Miller - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 12:00 pm:
===merely suggestions for elected officials? ===
There are some vague prohibitions in current law for things like conduct unbecoming a legislator. Punishment can be anything from announcing a finding of bad behavior, to a resolution by the chamber to actual expulsion. Government employees can be suspended without pay, which may be something the GA should look at doing to itself, or something in between a slap on the wrist and the death penalty.
- Boots - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 12:28 pm:
“What I find distressing, Boots, is your arguments seem to reflect this notion that legislators should be exempt from following the law so long as their colleagues are okay with it.“
Who said anything about exempting them from not following the law? If legislators commit a criminal violation, then the state’s attorney or federal prosecutor can prosecute. If it’s a civil violation, then the member’s leader can impose disciple, of the chamber can expel. If it’s an employment violation, the leaders can intervene. Or the employee can file a legal action. There are already mechanisms in place to address violations of law. Your problem is that you clearly don’t like the members of the general assembly (generally at least, perhaps not on a member by member basis). That’s fine. It’s your right. But the remedy for your dislike and frustration is to work to elect new officials. It’s not to create an unelected position to serve as legislative overlord. At some point final authority has to rest with someone. In a democratic government, it should be with an elected official or constitutionally appointed officer. It should not be with a statutorily created inspector general.
- Candy Dogood - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 1:19 pm:
===It should not be with a statutorily created inspector general.===
Do you understand you are against something based off of this principle that already exists on the federal level for the U.S. House and U.S. Senate?
===If it’s a civil violation, then the member’s leader can impose disciple, of the chamber can expel.===
I think the point you’re missing is my concern is over the fact that you’re advancing what are discretionary actions that can be taken by leaders, just as the LIG’s founded reports are also apparently discretionary.
You are also advocating that the people have the final say when they vote while simultaneously supporting a process that is secretive and discretionary.
===Or the employee can file a legal action. ===
It’s clear that the method in which individuals who file legal actions are dealt with is that even without individuals full of clout doing anything those individuals are subject to retaliation, including the denial of future job roles.
You’re also ignoring that if this becomes the common place — which it might as younger public employees seem less likely to put up with some of the stuff that has been tolerated for too long and bring suit against the State of Illinois — because that’s who is on the hook for this and we can learn the hard way, like Iowa has, that by not addressing these concerns and relying on discretionary actions and voluntary disclosures of wrong doing so that voters be informed, that it will cost us millions of dollars in penalties.
===There are already mechanisms in place===
From where I sit, they aren’t working very well. But maybe from where you sit — a person arguing against transparency and expanded accountability — everything is fine.
===you clearly don’t like the members of the general assembly===
The General Assembly is a public entity. They are a public employer. This isn’t about an assessment of individual legislators, this is an assessment of what happens when everyone gets together and creates a work place culture that protects and shields harassment, retaliation, and other unethical conduct. Every year we make state employees take the ethics act training — every year we make it clear that they have to — have to — report violations and unethical conduct.
The real issue is do individual members of our legislature have to report? Who do they have to report it to? What actions have to be taken?
And where does the accountability lie?
Yes — someone can take private legal action to sue the State of Illinois because we have failed them as an employer, but I hope you understand what a burden that is for someone to attempt to reach and what kind of attention that brings to the person who will almost certainly be retaliated against.
===It’s not to create an unelected position to serve as legislative overlord.===
The People of Illinois have empowered or legislature and our governor to create a law that allows for them to statutorily create an inspector general to investigate and report on wrong doing and other issues.
Should they see fit to pass a law that creates this position, then they have spoken for us — should they see fit to repeal a law to create a position then they have spoken for us.
We don’t need to elect every public official that has oversight of elected officials. U.S. Attorney General isn’t on the ballot either.
Your argument is against oversight and accountability, it is not in favor of democracy.
If you so loved Democracy you would also insist upon a system where a founded report is a public report and the People can then vote as they may.
I don’t believe my tax dollars should go to supporting a legislative entity that can decide to cover up legislators and their wrong doing.
I don’t believe I should trust in a system that hasn’t earned my trust and has repeatedly given me cause to distrust it.
- h'okay - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 1:47 pm:
lawyers often disagree about interpretation of law and the application of facts to that interpretation. Ms. Porter’s view appears to be that no one can challenge her interpretation of the law and her determination that the confidential facts show a reasonable believe that some type of wrong doing or misconduct occurred. she made very clear, she does not believe actual violation of the law is required for her make a “founded report”.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 1:53 pm:
===Ms. Porter’s view appears to be that no one can challenge her interpretation of the law===
And the attorney general agreed with her.
- Demoralized - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 3:37 pm:
==you clearly don’t like the members of the general assembly ==
That’s not childish at all. Disagree with you so they must automatically hate members of the General Assembly? That’s the conclusion you draw? Please. Support of a Legislative Inspector General does not mean a person hates members of the General Assembly. Heaven forbid we would want someone who can investigate wrongdoing. But, of course, our desire to have an independent authority to do that obviously menas we hate members of the General Assembly. Grow up.