* Hannah Meisel’s Daily Line story is chock full of interesting stuff today, but I want to focus on this part for now…

One major area the Joint Commission on Ethics and Lobbying Reform is studying in the weeks leading up to the deadline for its March 31 report is conflicts of interest — a subject the commission spent nearly five hours on during its Jan. 30 meeting.

[Legislative Inspector General Carol Pope] said the legislative inspector general is put in an awkward position by current state law, which prohibits her from using statements of economic disclosure filed by lawmakers as evidence of wrongdoing that could lead to discipline.

Pope told The Daily Line that “several” investigations of possible conflicts of interests have been hamstrung by seemingly competing responsibilities both to investigate possible wrongdoing and the language of the statute.

“You get to the point where you say to yourself, ‘Okay the taxpayers are paying me, am I going to spend hours, days investigating a conflict of interest?’” Pope said. “Even if there is a conflict and it’s not disclosed because disclosure is not mandated, where’s it going ultimately? I have to think about, ultimately, so I, you know, if I know that even if I make a founded report it’s not going to be published or go anywhere because of the conflicts legislation, it seems not a good use of resources to pursue it.”

* More on this from the Sun-Times editorial board…

Moreover, as the laws are written, the IG has a much broader authority to investigate various types of transgressions than the commission has the authority to do anything about. The commission is restricted to acting on such misconduct as doing political work on state time, promising something of value in exchange for a political contribution, accepting certain positions after state employments ends, sexual harassment and similar violations.

That leaves a world of mischief that the IG might uncover but for which the commission can’t impose penalties, such as fines.

So for example, if the IG gets a tip that a legislator is working for a company that’s going to get a huge financial windfall as a result of a bill the legislator is pushing, the inspector general can check it out and write up a report. But there is no way for the commission to impose a punishment.

And, of course, if the commission isn’t pleased, the report will never see the light of day.

* Meanwhile, the Tribune editorial board apparently thinks the governor can just snap his fingers and make something happen…

Strengthening the legislative inspector general’s authority should not wait until a March 31 deadline Pritzker set for his ethics task force to make recommendations. The legislature reconvenes Feb. 18. Make it priority No. 1, Gov. Pritzker. And then get about making public whatever “founded” allegations involving elected officials are being kept secret. Voters deserve to know. […]

The hearing also exposed the wariness of lawmakers to empower the watchdog, even now when ethics is top-of-mind for voters.

To Porter and other experts who testified, lawmakers tossed out numerous hypothetical questions about what could be considered investigation-worthy. What about political retribution, false claims, personal matters? Would divorces be off limits? Relationships? Financial conflicts? Stocks and investments? What about showing up drunk to work? Really. It came up. As a hypothetical, of course. […]

Pritzker cannot leave this inadequate setup for House and Senate leaders to overhaul on their own. They have proved they won’t do it, or they’ll only hang some window dressing. Pritzker needs to lead on this, and he needs to lead hard.

Elections have consequences and the voters did not elect someone who would wage all-out war with the General Assembly. That guy lost.