Ethics reports should be made public

Here we have yet another example of why the state's ethics laws need to be refined.

The Chicago Tribune and Associated Press reported last week that a state employee is trying to get back a job that he lost after blowing the whistle on another state employee who had been accused of doing campaign work on state time.

According to published reports, Matthew Magalis, fired by the Illinois Department of Human Services on Oct. 10, admitted that he took a key from a co-worker's desk and used it to obtain a report into allegations that fellow department employee Khalil Shalabi had organized a fundraiser for Gov. Rod Blagojevich on state time. The Department of Human Services says Magalis faxed the report to a Chicago Tribune reporter.

Magalis' attorney told reporters this week he won't discuss specific allegations made against his client. But he characterized him as a whistleblower who feared that important information was going to be swept under the rug.

What did the Department of Human Services intend to do with findings on Shalabi? Nobody knows. Did Magalis act appropriately if, in fact, he took the report and fed it to a reporter? Reasonable people can disagree on that point.

But there should be no disagreement that the authority to investigate ethics complaints -- the kind of authority state lawmakers have granted to Inspector General James Wright -- means little if the public has no access to the inspector's findings. As it stands now, Wright, in most cases, is permitted to submit his findings only to the agency involved.

Only in the narrowest of circumstances does current law allow Wright to share his findings even with the governor-appointed state ethics commission. In fact, of the 64 inspector general reports last year that found evidence to support complaints, not one was eligible under current law for further review by the ethics commission.

This makes no sense. How can the ethics commission, if it is routinely kept in the dark, perform independent reviews and assess whether the agencies involved have acted properly on the inspector general's reports?

Many legislators -- most legislators, in fact -- apparently see and understand the shortcoming. Both the state House and Senate last winter approved measures pushed by state Sen. Susan Garrett, a Lake Forest Democrat, and state Sen. Bill Brady, a downstate Republican, to make these reports available to the ethics commission and to make at least portions available to the general public through Freedom of Information requests.

But the two chambers passed varying versions. So far there's been no reconciliation vote that would serve to open up the inspector general's findings. There should be. Any time now.