Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* Press release…

Illinois Attorney General Candidate Erika Harold today announced sweeping recommendations to address the Democratic majority in the General Assembly’s failure to confront the #MeToo movement.

“The failure by Speaker Madigan, Senator Kwame Raoul and the Democratic majority in the General Assembly to enact meaningful reform of the investigation and complaint resolution process is a failure of leadership,” Harold said. “Women deserve real reform, and as Illinois’ Attorney General, I will demand no less.” […]

Erika Harold recommends the following changes:

* the law governing the Legislative Inspector General’s position should be amended to provide for an investigation that is independent of the General Assembly’s influence.

* the ethics commission should be expanded to include members of the public, so that legislators will be accountable not just to their colleagues in Springfield but also to their constituents.

* if the ethics commission finds evidence that a legislator engaged in sexual harassment, retaliation or other misconduct, then a Complaint should be filed with the independent Illinois Courts Commission, as opposed to being resolved by the ethics commission.

* the Illinois Courts Commission should be empowered to censure, fine or recommend for removal members of the legislature found guilty of sexual harassment or other misconduct.

* the perpetrator’s identity should be made public, as the public is entitled to know which legislators abuse their power and position.

* The Question: Which of these recommendations could you support and which would you oppose and why?

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:28 pm

Comments

I would re-write to do right this bill and add the death penalty.

Comment by One Time Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:34 pm
how do she feel about the ERA?

Comment by ProIL Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:34 pm
The ICC should not have that kind of power. It doesn’t jive with the separation of powers concept.

Comment by A Jack Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:35 pm
Why limit it to just the General Assembly’s influence? It should be for all executive officials and employees.

Comment by Claud Peppers Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:37 pm
I don’t support any these.
Perfidious weaponizing
Of me too
Careful what you wish for Mrs Harold

Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:37 pm
Some of these are fair, but the ICC recommending member removal is ludicrous from a Constitutional standpoint. Also, you shouldn’t serve on the legislative ethics commission unless you’re currently employed in association with the legislature, or were employed in association with the legislature for at least several years. Like putting your neighbor Carl on the zoning commission even though he doesn’t know what zoning is because you wanted “the public’s” input.

Comment by Stark Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:38 pm
The first two need points need more detail. If it’s independent then who’s running it? What’s the criteria for members of the public, is it everyone or like lawyers?

Third and fourth points seem fine to me, but honestly I don’t know much the Illinois Court Commission.

Fifth I’m fine with if it’s after the person is convicted.

Comment by Epic Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:39 pm
OK with the first two, but bringing in another branch of government in the Courts Commission starts to lose me. The Courts Commission’s power should be limited to the judicial branch. If an independent body with public membership wants to make recommendations on punishment, that’s fine, but the GA should ultimately decide on the punishment. They will be accountable (in theory) for any deviations from the recommendations.

Comment by Ron Burgundy Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:51 pm
How about start with ERA support — and then go from there?

Comment by Macbeth Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:52 pm
Sexual harassers should be given lower priority in adoption cases than gay couples.

Comment by Moist von Lipwig Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:53 pm
Yeah the ICC provision violates separation of powers and the provision in the constitution that leaves it to each chamber to establish their own rules and to expel by a vote of 2/3ds of members. You’d think a Harvard Law grad would consult the constitution before prescribing a remedy.

Comment by TominChicago Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:57 pm
How about we ask John Anthony — as a voice of experience

Comment by Annonin' Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:59 pm
–The ICC should not have that kind of power. It doesn’t jive with the separation of powers concept.–

Exactly. A very strange recommendation.

I’d like to see some more meat on these proposals before forming any opinions.

I think this is just a quick-and-dirty political pop to yesterday’s news, as well thought out as a book report written on the school bus the day it’s due.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 3:00 pm
==- Peduncle - Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:47 pm:

I’d like to #metoo Erika Herold and I bet you would too.==

No. But I would like to know what kind of person openly advocates sexual assault and tries to gin up a band of brothers into joking over it.

I would also like to know what kind of person needs to talk like this about a woman who assumes a public role.

I am also very interested in what kind of office, if any, would employ this kind of person.

Comment by crazybleedingheart Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 3:13 pm
===Illinois Attorney General Candidate Erika Harold today announced sweeping recommendations to address the Democratic majority in the General Assembly’s failure to confront…===

To the QOTD…

What’s disappointing…

… is that Harold wants to make it about the Dems… abd not about doing something important.

“Illinois Attorney General Candidate Erika Harold today announced sweeping recommendations to address the Democratic majority in the General Assembly’s failure… “

This might be one time you’d leave the partisan politics of the policy.

It’s disappounting.

My take is… if Harold wants to have a bipartisan panel put these recommendation thru the rigors, make it about something bigger… then I’ll have a better grasp.

As others have said… need a bit more “there”

But if you want to make this a partisan thing…

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 3:13 pm
- Make it independent of the ILGA - I assume she means not have to get the Comission’s permission? That I agree with. Does she want some kind of lifetime appointment? Does she want the GA not to be able to fire the LIG? What does independence look like to her?
- Members of the public on the commission - Needless fanfare. Especially if you are pulling the commission’s teeth in part 1.
- The 2 points about the Courts Commission - The first one I don’t know much about, but it sounds OK, the second is fairly ludicrous. You want to fine them, OK that’s doable, censure, sure badmouth them all you want, but remove them from office? The stupidity is breathtaking there.
- Doesn’t the LIG already offer reports to the commission? I know the report into Silverstein were made public, are other reports not public/ subject to FOIA? Not sure what she wants to add there.

Comment by Perrid Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 3:15 pm
- Make it independent of the ILGA - I assume she means not have to get the Comission’s permission? That I agree with. Does she want some kind of lifetime appointment? Does she want the GA not to be able to fire the LIG? What does independence look like to her?
- Members of the public on the commission - Needless fanfare. Especially if you are pulling the commission’s teeth in part 1.
- The 2 points about the Courts Commission - The first one I don’t know much about, but it sounds OK, the second is fairly ludicrous. You want to fine them, OK that’s doable, censure, sure badmouth them all you want, but remove them from office? No.
- Doesn’t the LIG already offer reports to the commission? I know the report into Silverstein were made public, are other reports not public/ subject to FOIA? Not sure what she wants to add there.

Comment by Perrid Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 3:16 pm
Is everyone just going to ignore Peduncle’s comment??

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 3:16 pm
–But I would like to know what kind of person openly advocates sexual assault and tries to gin up a band of brothers into joking over it.–

A loser.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 3:18 pm
===A loser.===

… which is why I’m ignoring it.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 3:20 pm
Right, if #metoo has taught us anything it’s that only losers harass and assault, not powerful men, and the culture sorts itself out if it’s just politely ignored.

Comment by crazybleedingheart Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 3:21 pm
–only losers harass and assault, not powerful men,–

Powerful men can be losers. I can think of many.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 3:24 pm
===Is everyone just going to ignore Peduncle’s comment??===

Trolls leave provocative comments intentionally to generate indignant responses. Not responding is not the same as ignoring, but it does have the practical effect of denying the idiots the response they want.

Not taking the bait isn’t the same thing as silence = consent.

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 3:35 pm
They need to make changes. We should not go another year without better safeguards in place.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 3:35 pm
To the question, I’d support this concept:

“the ethics commission should be expanded to include members of the public,…”

Why? Because I want to be the public representative on this ethics panel.

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 3:43 pm
Put the Courts Commission in charge of policing lawmakers and go ahead and transfer the Executive Inspector General powers to the House Rules Committee.

Comment by Michelle Flaherty Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 3:51 pm
The challenge remains: What does “independent” mean in the context of one branch of government self-policing? It is generally an IG roll, filled by someone selected by that branch.

Comment by walker Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 9:31 pm