Editorial: Fight corruption, yes, but prudently
We all want something to be done about government corruption. So when a new way to fight is proposed, it easily draws attention.
Last week, former Chicago alderman Dick Simpson released a report that stated a suburban inspector general “could help deter public officials from taking corrupt actions, and could help publicize the problems of corruption.” He compiled a list of more than 100 local convictions over three decades for violations that include theft, bribery, police misconduct and conflicts of interest. He also asserted that the estimated cost to run such an office would be far surpassed by the lowered cost of running clean governments.
It sounds good, and on paper it looks good, but in reality, there are good reasons to pause for some questions. Can we be certain the money spent investigating corruption would return to taxpayers? Strict oversight and ongoing evaluation could help ensure that a suburban inspector general does not fall into the same situation as the Illinois Executive Ethics Commission, which a Daily Herald investigation showed had spent $338,000 on salaries per year and reaped only $28,350 in fines for ethics code violations.
Nor should there be any confusion about purposes and expectations. Last week, the inspector general of the state Department of Human Services, whose mission is to investigate “all reports of abuse, neglect and exploitation,” was cited for failing to do just that. A Belleville newspaper found that since 2003, reports of neglect and abuse of 53 disabled adults in state care went unchecked. Two of the victims died. Gov. Pat Quinn responded that he is now re-evaluating the IG’s role.
In addition, the downstate tragedy points to case overload, and budget concerns put expansion out of the question. Would a suburban inspector general be given the resources to investigate all the complaints that come its way? If so, can our states and local governments afford it? Currently, there is no framework in place for overseeing the 1,200 varied governing bodies.
Perhaps because of the state’s history of corruption, inspector general has become a buzzword for our time. There’s an inspector general in four of the top state offices. The tollway has one, as do CTA and Metra, and Cook County has its own. It seems we’ve over IG’ed ourselves. Then again, maybe the offices really are needed. The numbers will tell, but adding layer upon layer of government is something Illinois does not need. At 7,000, it has more taxing bodies than any other state.
It’s easy to get caught up in seemingly simple solutions. If an inspector general position is considered, suburban leaders who understand the nuances of smaller government units should be part of the planning. In the meantime, all units must emphasize transparency, the antidote to corruption. They also could implement ethics training that encourages a culture of rightdoing and, if necessary, whistle-blowing.
We know the majority of elected officials do their jobs forthrightly and honestly. Sadly, a crooked few can blotch the overall picture. If an inspector general could efficiently root them out for prosecution, the proposal is worth considering.