* My weekly syndicated newspaper column…

You may know that embattled Legislative Inspector General Michael McCuskey has agreed to resign his post by the end of September.

But this sorry saga shouldn’t end there. The Legislative Ethics Commission should immediately launch an investigation into why so many women over the years have said they were mistreated, belittled and dismissed by McCuskey.

They could also ask McCuskey’s replacement to revisit the cases.

And that sounds like what the commission might do. According to state Rep. Jeff Keicher, chair of the Legislative Ethics Commission, “The recent investigations and situations that the LEC has been involved in and the LIG has conducted have revealed points of frustration and pain that the LEC is very interested in closing the gap.”

Keicher, R-Sycamore, was referring to the inspector general’s investigations into former state Rep. Harry Benton, D-Plainfield, and current state Rep. Amy “Murri” Briel, D-Ottawa.

Benton was found to have sexually harassed women, but a female lobbyist complained that she was mistreated by McCuskey during her interview process.

Briel was accused of sexually harassing a 2024 campaign worker who eventually moved to her House district office staff.

Briel has repeatedly claimed that McCuskey ruled the allegations “unfounded,” meaning the claims were made without merit.

However, McCuskey declared he had made “no finding,” which has no bearing on whether the allegations against Briel were accurate.

Most of the allegations were about alleged victim Laura Jackson’s campaign work experience, and the legislative inspector general has no authority to look into those. He also ruled that Jackson was an “at will” employee and had no jurisdiction in the matter.

Either way, Jackson said she experienced many of the same problems as the unnamed female lobbyist reported about McCuskey.

McCuskey’s alleged behavior wasn’t a “systems” issue. It had little to do with state statutes and rules governing his office.

Yet, nobody can tell you with a straight face that the law creating the legislative inspector general is adequate. For instance, this one-person quasi-legal tribunal approach to deciding whether sexual harassment allegations are valid doesn’t work on its face, no matter who might be in charge.

The first thing that has to be done is to make sure those claiming sexual harassment or mistreatment are protected from further harm. Perhaps an ombudsperson could be brought in to help the accusers navigate their paths and maybe even attend interrogations with them (and that interrogation process ought to end as well, of course).

The office of the legislative inspector general is prohibited from investigating any reports it receives if they are filed more than a year after the alleged wrongdoing. That’s pretty ridiculous. As Rep. Mary Beth Canty, D-Arlington Heights, pointed out in a recent WGN TV interview, House terms are two years, so the limit should be at least that amount of time.

However, senators serve two four-year terms every 10 years, so there could be room for further expansion.

The legislative inspector general is also prohibited from investigating stories he or she may have seen in news media reports, unless and until someone files a complaint. That has to be changed.

Chicago’s City Council inspector general’s office has some limited enforcement authority over conduct in city campaigns (using images and video taken at places like city fire stations appears to be a favorite campaign thing). Campaign sexual harassment by a legislator or a candidate should be included in the legislative inspector general’s portfolio.

Finally, recent legislative inspector generals have had judicial backgrounds. Those folks are accustomed to lawyers bringing facts and arguments to their courtrooms. The next person in the post should have some investigatory skills to get to the bottom of things, rather than just looking witnesses in the eye to discern whether they’re telling the truth.

“This is a bad process in place from an investigatory standpoint, from a research standpoint, from a how do you communicate it, how do you hold responsibility. There are a lot of pain points that we need to fix,” said Keicher.