Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Executive Ethics Commission imposes just four fines a year

Posted in:

Illinois

* This is quite an interesting use of statistics…

Twenty-nine state workers have felt the wrath of the Illinois Executive Ethics Commission since the little-known board’s inception seven years ago.

For violating the ethics code, those workers were fined a combined $28,350 by the commission.

Meanwhile, the efforts of the nine-member board cost taxpayers $338,139 a year in salaries for the appointees — or more than $2 million so far. The members also receive reimbursements for expenses they incur.

The 29 fines, ranging between $100 for forwarding politically tinged emails and $5,000 for soliciting political donations on the job, are a fraction of the more than 1,000 complaints a year brought to the attention of the executive inspector general.

The Executive Inspector’s office has had its troubles. Having investigators tail a state employee into Springfield taverns after working hours was perhaps one of the more egregious abuses of the system I’ve ever seen. Investigating a gubernatorial chief of staff for almost a year over three very minor campaign-related e-mails was freaking ridiculous.

So, after 7 years and at least $2 million spent, all they have to show for their work is 29 fines at an average of $977? That’s an average of about 4 fines a year, at a cost to the state - for just the IG’s board - of about $85K per violation.

Considering all the time and effort they put into some of their more publicized investigations, there’s little doubt that the IG has thoroughly investigated the violation reports. But, if more than a thousand complaints are filed every year and an average of just four people a year are fined, that leads me to believe that the ethics reporting system is being abused, or at least misused by those who are claiming violations.

But even more than that, it’s tough to conclude otherwise that state workers are, overall, pretty darned ethical.

* Even so, not everybody’s hands are clean…

The son of Illinois’ former state parks director is resigning after investigators determined he slept on the job and abused his state cellphone, but Gov. Pat Quinn’s administration let him stay on the payroll long enough for his pension to vest, records released Tuesday showed.

The case involves Scott Flood of Belleville, who held a supervisory role at the Department of Natural Resources. He’s the 49-year-old son of Sam Flood, the agency’s former director and a longtime Democratic leader on the Illinois side of the Mississippi River near St. Louis.

The younger Flood’s attorney said Tuesday that his client negotiated the terms of his departure from state government in the wake of details in an investigative report that he maintains are inaccurate or out of context.

Executive Inspector General Ricardo Meza said investigators determined Scott Flood violated numerous policies. Among other things, he came into work late and left early and used his state cellphone for more than 370 personal calls, investigators found.

* Meanwhile, I’m not quite sure I get the logic on this criticism of Mayor Emanuel’s decision to cap lobbyist gifts to city employees at $50…

The $50 limit means a lobbyist can’t treat a city worker to the courtside Bulls tickets said worker would never be able to afford on a government salary. Instead, they’ll have to sit in the upper deck. Emanuel, you may have noticed, always sits courtside.

The limit also means a lobbyist can’t dine with a city worker at MK Chicago restaurant, where Emanuel recently attended a fundraiser for President Obama. The Spring Tasting Menu is $54. Perhaps MK can solve that problem by offering 10 percent off with a City of Chicago pay stub. Otherwise, there’ll be a lot more lobbying done at Phil’s Kastle Hamburgers on the East Side.

Really, these new “ethics” rules are no different than Emanuel’s offering higher salaries to top Chicago Public Schools administrators while stiffing teachers on their annual pay raise.

* And speaking of an argument I don’t quite understand…

With a campus of around 20,000 people at any given time, Great Lakes Naval Station is a huge collection of young people in northern Lake County.

And now, anti-gambling activists are arguing that a proposed casino in Lake County would be a bad influence on the young sailors nearby, pointing to research that says young people are more prone to gambling addiction.

But…

Supporters of the plan, though, say the argument is a red herring. Many of the recruits at Great Lakes aren’t old enough to legally get into an Illinois casino and aren’t even allowed off the Naval property while in boot camp. […]

The rest, he said, are adults who can be trusted to make responsible decisions about gambling.

* Related…

* Quinn meets with foes, supporters of gambling expansion

* New casinos could go to Quinn in October

* Illinois Policy Institute gets out of investigative journalism business

* Warren: Political Climate Cleaner, But Not Cleansed

* Quinn inks measure beefing up county control over boards and commissions

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 8:02 am

Comments

Haven’t you noticed how the Commission has cleaned up Illinois government over the past seven years? Remember how their work lead to impeachment and needed reforms to make our state better?

Hmmmm, where can we cut more from the budget?

Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 8:18 am
–The Executive Inspector’s office has had its troubles. Having investigators tail a state employee into Springfield taverns after working hours was perhaps one of the more egregious abuses of the system I’ve ever seen.–

I remember that one. That was a real abuse of power, and there were some lifestyle judgments being made there that were beyond the scope of an inspector general.

A state employee (or legislator) being drunk in a Springfield bar after hours? I almost fainted from the shock.

There were allegations raised that should have been in the purview of a human resources professional, not an Inspector General, or Inspector Clouseau.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 8:28 am
I do think that there are cases where “ethics” complaints are being filed as a retribution to policy or people that the employee has found distasteful. The majority the EEC does not investigate because they are obviously not valid but there is always the threat. There does not seem to be balance at the state between valid whistle blowing, a good thing, and using the EEC as a threat to stop management from making hard decisions.

It sounds like the line should be clear cut but there are so many statues and rules that an ethics violation at the state would be normal operating procedure in the private sector. The procurement policies are fraught with land mines on who you are allowed to talk to about a procurement or what information you can solicit from a vendor.

Add to that the EEC is now in charge of procurement with apparently limitless power to decide if a procurement can happen or not.

This is another area where the reform has paralyzed decision making at the state.

Comment by Observer of the State Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 8:53 am
“There were allegations raised that should have been in the purview of a human resources professional, not an Inspector General”

I suspect that the main reason the IG got involved in that particular case was that the relevant “human resources professional(s)”, for whatever reason, WOULDN’T get involved.

Comment by Secret Square Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 8:53 am
SS, that really doesn’t matter, even if it is true. They went way beyond their scope on that case.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 8:54 am
Link cites the casino-entry age to defend a new casino near Great Lakes.
The casino-entry age of 21 could be lowered some day, just as many other casino restrictions have been repealed since 1992. The argument will be that 18-year olds can bet at racetracks and buy lottery tickets, and they’re old enough to join the armed forces.

Comment by reform Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 8:57 am
===The casino-entry age of 21 could be lowered some day===

Yeah, but are you really going to base policy on a really iffy hypothetical like that?

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 9:01 am
The comments of about the IG remind us of the vaunted, taxpayer funded Professor Dick Simpson study which scanned over four decades and a universe of over 1 million who worked or did business with government at all levels in IL ( even the squeaky clean ‘burbs) and found just 1,500 wrong doers.
Tolerate zero wrong doing, but get it through your heads that nearly all are honest and aren’t looking for the short cut.
Hap tip to Capt Fax.

Comment by CircularFiringSquad Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 9:04 am
This state is about to collapse under the weight of it’s bureaucracy. Maybe a new state constitution would have been a good idea. I can’t believe we got talked out of it because “special interests would have had too much power.” If that is the state of affairs, we have bigger problems. I guess I see special interest when it comes to state government being state government. Looks like the Illinois SBA might have less funding than these guys.

Comment by JBilla Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 9:07 am
The Great Lakes argument is specious, anyway. Sailors are adult enough to put their lives on the line for their country, but too childish to enter a casino? Pick a lane.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 9:07 am
As much as I think he might be a step away from reality at times, Aaron Jaffe is right on with his comments this time. Constitutional problems, special treatment for one casino and not the others, tracks being allowed to open “temporary facilities”, not to mention John Johnston still owns Balmoral and Maywood and could very well have problems passing the backgroun d check based on his VERY close association with Blago.
Chicago makes all the sense in the world to me…..but the rest needs very close scrutiny by the gov.

Comment by downhereforyears Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 9:09 am
I am not surprised by their ineffectiveness. I had the unfortunate experience of enforcing an IG report. My major complaint was their report did not relate to the State’s standard disciplinary procedures or penalties. It was like they were making up the laws and punishment based on what they wanted to see happen, not based on the established legal/civil service system. They didn’t tie the evidence and charges to violations of state law or personnel regulations. For example, they recommended firing people for offenses that the civil service commission did not consider permissible.

I also found that they viewed themselves on the side of everything that was good and right in the world and if you didn’t agree with everything they did, you were a corrupt hack.

Comment by Chicago Guy Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 9:22 am
Great Lakes argument is specious. Really?

When the DoD was considering closing Great Lakes, they made it quite clear that having gambling near the base would be considered a negative consideration. Now that there is only one training facility in the US, they will have to handle the situation their own way.

Comment by Plutocrat03 Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 9:22 am
=I suspect that the main reason the IG got involved in that particular case was that the relevant “human resources professional(s)”, for whatever reason, WOULDN’T get involved.=

In the Scott Flood case how could the HR people get involved? It was the Director’s son who was violating policy. I also suspect this was one of the “endemic hiring fraud” issues Fitz spoke of. It was reported the FBI subpoenaed Flood’s personnel file way back when.

Comment by Leave a light on George Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 9:29 am
–Great Lakes argument is specious. Really?–

Sorry, I though I was clear. The age argument is specious. You let 18-year-olds volunteer to possibly die for their country, but they have to be protected from casinos.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 9:46 am
I had the pleasure of being interviewed by OEIG investigators, and the experience was seriously Kafkaesque.

The rules governing the “investigation” were arcane and seriously violated any concepts of due process. Even worse, the investigators seemed to have absolutely no understanding of how my job worked, and when I tried to explain they made repeated, fundamental mistakes.They confused the timeline, again and again, and confused who did what — again, despite repeated explanations.

The cherry on the sundae came when they asked me whether I knew who had committed a specific serious infraction. I did not, and I said so. So then they asked, “Well, could you guess?” I immediately thought of that great line in The Maltese Falcon: “My guess might be excellent or it might be crummy, but Mrs. Spade didn’t raise any children dippy enough to make guesses in front of a district attorney, and an assistant district attorney and a stenographer.” Or, in this case, a couple of slipshod investigators from the OEIG’s office.

Comment by soccermom Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 10:19 am
Are you really that obtuse?

The DoD frowns on having casinos near their bases. Surely they have a better idea of what is better for their troops. It does not matter what age the troops are.

Comment by Plutocrat03 Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 10:31 am
At least this provides some documentation for the absurdity that is the Office of Inspector General and the alleged “ethics” that it is supposed to enforce. From its misleading “training” to its misbegotten “investigations” OIG has been a total waste from the beginning.

Comment by D.P. Gumby Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 10:33 am
I looked at the article. It could have done a better job at distinguishing the EIG’s Office and the EEC and the distinct statutory roles and limitations of each. As I understand it,the EEC (procurement activities aside, which are also conducted by other, distinct individuals) is largely dependent on what GETS to it, and then hears formal cases. The EIG is the invgestigative body, and hopefully doesn’t pursue bad cases if the facts so indicate. The article blurred the roles of each entity.

Comment by WishForMore Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 10:34 am
Pluto, I don’t know what ax you’re grinding, but, for the record, you still have to be 21 to enter an Illinois casino.

As far as your deep insight as to the Pentagon’s policy regarding casinos proximate to bases, I guess Scott Air Base will be shutting down pretty soon. The military bases outside Las Vegas and Reno are goners, too. Same with ones in Mississippi. The Air Force Academy will have to relocate, same with Coast Guard in Atlantic City and on and on and on….

You can’t swing a cat in this country without hitting a casino.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 11:00 am
===The DoD frowns on having casinos near their bases.===

You mean like Nellis Air Force Base, which is 8 miles from downtown Las Vegas?

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 11:03 am
Also, Scott AFB is within a few miles of at least seven casinos.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 11:05 am
Can’t believe Mr. Flood’s conduct violated any state rules. Glad to see his retirement is secure after he was unfairly driven from the state payroll.

Comment by Jim Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 11:05 am
Pluto, you might also want to click this link. Slot machines on a base? Yep. Oh, and click here as well.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 11:07 am
Even before the “new” (7 yr old) ethics rules, the State had a requirement to file an “Economic Interest Form” and a different ethics form I don’t remember the title of. Anyone with an outside business of any kind had to fill them out every year, even if the business was done totally on personal (non-work hour) time and the business was totally unrelated to the State. I had to do it for a single family home I rented out. I also had to do it for royalty income from books I wrote. And anyone who touched procurement issues knew exactly where the lines were.

Everyone with outside income was supposed to fill out those forms. It didn’t seem to make any difference in the level of corruption that was going on. And spite complaint filings occurred then also; I’m personally familiar with a couple.

By and large, the state employees I knew were honest people just trying to do their job. Can’t say the same for some of the political hacks we had appointed at various management levels over the years. At least one of them fled DC to IL ahead of a subpena, and then resigned and left the country ahead of that investigation. Another was later caught & convicted at a different branch of state government.

Laws don’t make honest or ethical people; they just define the boundaries for the crooks.

Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 11:11 am
- Also, Scott AFB is within a few miles of at least seven casinos. -

Not to mention some of these boys and girls could end up stationed all over the world, where lots of things are possibly legal or really not strictly enforced. From the stories I’ve heard from my pals in the Navy, an Illinois casino isn’t going to be the most tempting vice presented to these youngsters.

Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 11:23 am
Actually, STL, the U.S. Navy is aware that, historically, after a few months hitch at sea, sailors on liberty adjourn en masse to the nearest library in port to catch up on their reading. That’s the way it’s always been in every Navy the world over.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 11:30 am
Apparently you gambling fans do not recognize the difference between a basic training base and an operational one. Go ahead and check the records when that came up during the discussion of whether to close Great Lakes.

Next you will support medical marijuana dispensaries everywhere…

Comment by Plutocrat03 Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 11:43 am
Wordslinger — there also is the severe and growing problem of young sailors demanding taffy pulls at all hours — sometimes even after 8 p.m.!

Comment by soccermom Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 11:45 am
Blago convicted on 17 counts. Seems the ethics folks could have almost doubled their output on just him.

Comment by downstate hack Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 11:48 am
And Pluto, make sure you check the history on how easy it is to close a domestic military base — and who really decides and on what criteria. Maybe Sen. Dixon can help you.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 11:52 am
Following a mother taking her young child to school in the morning, asking the single mother if she was involved in interracial dating and registered on interracial dating web sites. Calling a slideshow of two people kissing, head up, no nudity.. a “homemade video engaging in sexual activity.” Those are the types of things the investigators find relevant while investigating. All of this and more while investigating a salaried employee who has 24/7/365 IT responsibilities, after a disgruntled employee who she had disciplined for legitimate reasons turned in a false report. Abuse? Harassment? Weapon of choice to harass your boss when they discipline you? Fabricating policies that do not exist just so you can say the person you’ve wasted all of this time and money investigating broke a policy? We pay millions of dollars of tax money so that innocent workers can be harassed and mentally tortured by disgruntled employees and OEIG investigators. Great system!

Comment by For the people Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 2:15 pm
Glad to see you edited my post….

Comment by For the people Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 2:34 pm
It was either that or delete it.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 2:37 pm
Maybe you should delete the entire post? I will probably end up being punished for telling people about the things they do.

Comment by For the people Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 3:39 pm
–there also is the severe and growing problem of young sailors demanding taffy pulls at all hours — sometimes even after 8 p.m.!–

Soccermom, I have a buddy who did a year long tour of the Pacific on the old U.S.S. Midway back in the day, and if I recall his stories correctly, that was the name of the specialty of the house in a popular Subic Bay bar.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 4:30 pm
Word, you are hilarious.

Comment by soccermom Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 5:38 pm
–Following a mother taking her young child to school in the morning, asking the single mother if she was involved in interracial dating and registered on interracial dating web sites. Calling a slideshow of two people kissing, head up, no nudity.. a “homemade video engaging in sexual activity.” Those are the types of things the investigators find relevant while investigating.–

For the People, if that’s your experience with what the Inspector General is “investigating,” take a breath, slow down, be more specific and let folks here know what’s going on.

That’s a story I want to hear in full.

If you don’t get any relief through official channels, believe me, the folks here — across the political spectrum — will raise hell until the last dog dies.

As a citizen, I don’t need — and no other citizen deserves — any information or explanation as to what state employees in good standing do in their private lives.

It’s an America kind of thing.

If they can’t do their jobs, fire them. Otherwise, leave them alone.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 6:54 pm
Attended an October 2009 presentation by Chad Fornoff of the Executive Ethics Commission. He said the Commission had received several calls nearly identical to the following:

EIG Employee: “We need this PC.”
Agency IT / Inventory Employee: “You need to sign for it.”
EIG Employee: “This is confidential - I won’t sign for it.”
Agency IT / Inventory Employee: “You can’t have it unless you sign for it.”
EIG Employee: “The you’ll be cited for impeding an official EIG investigation.”

Can anyone produce a copy of the EIG cited “Administrative Order 3″ ??

It is mentioned in the FY 2007 Annual Report
http://www2.illinois.gov/oeig/Documents/OEIGG_FY_2007_Annual_Report.pdf
but not the FY 2006 Annual Report. Has anyone seen this Order? It isn’t available online.

Comment by Smitty Irving Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 8:49 pm
Word, hilarilous. FWIW, AA jr., (LTjg USN,F-18C pilot) advises that reference lives on in today’s Navy. Also opines that any casino in proximity to Great Lakes would simply be decreed “Off Limits” by the base CO, and that, ladies and gents, would be that. When he was in training, he was subject to a similar list even as an officer, as were the officers that trained him.
The OEIG needs one of those lists, since they obviously never read the one titled “The Constitution.”

Comment by Arthur Andersen Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 9:00 pm
AA, good to hear from you, always.

Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jul 8, 11 @ 6:40 am
Word, if at some point you want to hear the full story of my trip through OEIGland, just let me know. It was absurdist theater. (And of course, they warned me that it was all confidential, so I wasn’t supposed to tell anyone. Try and catch me now, suckers!)

Comment by soccermom Friday, Jul 8, 11 @ 9:47 am
-Photos taken of me leaving in the morning from my home to take my young child to school and go to work.
-Photos of me going to lunch with coworkers, in the restaurant while having lunch and then coming back.
-Asked me about my recent move from a home I sold to a condo. They had pix of me in front of my condo.
-The questions were asked after they had gone through my email. In 2006, staff and student email accounts were merged into one account to be used for both. Anyone with an existing student account had their mail moved into their new student/staff account and all mail from the old account was forwarded into the one account for dual use. I had registered for some social media sites at one point using my student account and had mail coming in that was being automatically forwarded to the address by the system. This is where the questions regarding the dating account and slideshow originated. There is no policy against personal use of email, especially in the case of a dual student/staff account, there was never a reason to go through my mail in the first place, there is no policy against using it for personal use. I suppose they could say they were looking to see if I was using it for political use. I am not a political person at all, nor was that part of the complaint, so I can’t imagine that being a logical reason to go through 10 years worth of email….. There was no policy against it, they quoted things out of a policy that does not exist. Using “..” and sighting the source as the policy, the policy does not exist and neither does the “..” in the policy they site it as existing in. They made it up….
There is a lot more details that I can go into, I don’t think it is in my best interest considering I am still working there. I got a great employee evaluation this year, just as I have for the past 10 years that I have been there. I have never had any sort of issues at any job I’ve ever had or at this one for 10 years. Not even a warning. I’m a single mom and very aware that I am the only support my kids have, I won’t even get on the back of a motorcycle or participate in some sports because I know my kids are depending on me to support them. I definitely would not break a policy or a law that would put me in a position of losing my job. I do my job and I make sure the employees I supervise are doing theirs and doing them well. With 24/7/365 critical IT services under my realm of responsibility, nobody can work if our systems aren’t up. When the time comes that I need to discipline someone, I do so with care and only when it is necessary. I disciplined a man, a man who has an issue having a female boss in an IT department. He and another person disciplined in our department joined forces and used this system to harass their discipliners. Unfortunately the OEIG participated and continued it by making up policies that do not even exist. It was if they have a personal vendetta against me. The hardest thing for me has been trying to figure out why? Why would they treat me in this manner? Why would they make things up? Why would they lie? Knowing that one of the two people who filed the false complaint had called me a “N lover”, and the questions about the interracial dating and twisting the description of a slideshow of a white woman kissing a black man into something that it is not, the conclusions I draw are very disturbing. You can draw your own conclusions…. I might add, this was not the only agency these disgruntled workers sent a false report into. They also sent false reports to other agencies making false claims, those agencies all contacted me to let me know I was being harassed. They investigated and rather than making something up, they deemed it as a false and harassing report likely coming from my place of employment. It all started in 2008 when I disciplined this guy, I’m really ready for it to end, I’ve had enough. I hope he is happy. Considering he now has 2 DUI’s and has been sent home from work multiple times for coming in under the influence, I would think at some point his credibility would be questioned? Perhaps they should consider digging out the policies of the witch hunts of the past, they at least investigated the person filing the complaint before putting the person being accused of being a witch through hell…

I’m a single mother, I have no money, no power and frankly I’m tired from the beating I’ve had to endure for over three years now. I use to love going to work and took pride in doing a great job and providing 99.999% uptime in the critical IT systems area. I can’t say I care anymore. I’m just waiting for them to come to my home and go through my underwear and sock drawer, I keep them folded neatly just in case.

Comment by For the people Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 2:40 am
The false complaint contained accusations that I was abusing time. This is where following me to and from work, to and from lunch and apparently being concerned with where I was living? I am responsible for critical systems being up 24/7/365 and receive notifications day and night from systems and help desk staff as they are having issues. My office hours are from 8:30 to 5, but I am on call 24/7/365. I work whenever and wherever I get a notification that a system I am responsible for is down. The only policy in existence is that I must put in 37.5 hours a week, either on campus or at another location approved by my supervisor.

They found that I was not on campus 4 hours during the 6 days they had me under surveillance, therefore stated I was not working during those four hours and had falsely reported my time. They found my one employee in question was not on campus for 1 hour and said he had falsely reported his time and I had approved it, therefore I broke that policy also.

They called my employee a “manager”, he was not, he did have 24/7/365 responsibility, as he administered several systems critical to the business. They sighted policies around the 37.5 hours but failed to mention that there were policies that specifically state that our schedules can be adjusted according to business needs and that the policy specifically says that we can remotely administer and maintain systems from locations approved by our supervisor. In IT, you can administer and maintain systems anywhere you have an internet connection.

Rather than sight the true policies, they maliciously picked out certain words of a policy and then deceptively stated that we broke policies. Why would they lie about the policies, why would they leave out the parts that were actually created because of services like IT that require 24/7 attention?

They followed IT employees from 8 to 4:30, never even knowing what their jobs or schedules involved. These were people on call 24/7/365, it was never even considered that all IT work is not done in the “campus arena.” Considering we had to explain to them several times how email worked, their technical skills leave a lot to be desired.

All surveillance took place in October 2008, we were not interviewed and asked about the hours until June 2009. 9 months later, they wanted to know where I was during those 4 hours. Of course after being shaken by seeing the photos of my daughter and I going to school, then being asked this question without any pre-warning that I would need details of things from 9 months earlier, I could not answer as to what system was down or what was going on 9 months prior. I was verbally attacked when I told them that our student/staff email accounts had been merged into one and there was no policy against personal use of email or computers, so to respond to this was not in my best interest, it was obvious they were not looking for the truth.

Aside from all that has already been done, I’m now in the process of fighting to keep this report out of the public’s hands. I definitely do not want these lies to be put out on display. In many ways I feel like I’m being raped by this system. I don’t have a lot of energy to fight anymore. I have never had any type of legal issues in my life so I have no idea how to deal with people like this or how to go up against an organization that would make up such lies. I can only think if they will go to the extent of lying in an official government report about policies of a government agency and about their employees, what will they do to someone who points out what they have done? I have lived in Illinois my entire life, I have worked at this place ¼ of my life, do I need to flee the state to avoid further damage from this? Exactly what am I to do? I really don’t know.

The only thing I feel I can do right now is to warn those who could potentially go through the same things I have endured. Beware…You do not have to do anything wrong. They will fabricate policies, distort the truth and maliciously make things up just to have a finding. Beware…

Comment by For the people Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 1:51 pm
I learned today that the investigators showed up on campus a few months ago to interview workers in one department about their annual departmental pot-luck Christmas lunch. Perhaps they were confused, there is no actual “pot” in a pot-luck.

I can’t imagine why they would waste time and money investigating a once a year Christmas pot-luck luncheon. I suppose someone was upset that didn’t get invited to eat lunch with them. Now I know who to call anytime I’m feeling left out.

Comment by Merry Christmas Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 10:17 pm