Editorial: Process was indeed flawed, but that's not the issue for ethics watchdog

The initial reaction to the appointment of a new ethics watchdog for Illinois state government has centered on the troubling way in which former judge Michael McCuskey was chosen for the job.

To be sure, that process was deeply flawed in ways that longtime watchers of Illinois government can only greet with an eye roll and a long, exasperated sigh. But there is even more and greater exasperation ahead if we let this all-too-familiar partisan disappointment overshadow the reason the legislative inspector general position was open in the first place.

On that score, direct your attention to the description of the job from the previous person who held it: "paper tiger."

The legislative inspector general is supposed to investigate ethics complaints against members of the Illinois General Assembly. When, last July, former appellate judge Carol Pope announced her resignation from the post two years early, she complained that restrictions on the position made it all but impossible to achieve its goals. It was a familiar refrain, virtually mirroring complaints from her predecessor, Julie Porter. Porter, by the way, had been brought in during an embarrassing 2017 #MeToo scandal in the legislature because the job had been vacant since 2014.

Pope announced her resignation in July and left the job a month and a half ago. Democrats pointed to the delays and what they described as a political stalemate regarding her successor as the justification for ramrodding McCuskey through the House and Senate last week.

But before we rush to celebrate their sense of urgency, consider what lawmakers have done to respond to Pope's and Porter's concerns. They decided the inspector general can open a case without first seeking the blessing of the state Ethics Commission.

That's it.

They have not granted the watchdog subpoena powers critical to getting testimony and information. They actually made the job tougher by requiring a formal complaint to open an investigation rather than allowing the watchdog to pursue cases based on media or public reports.

Neither party gets any points, of course, for trying to break the Ethics Commission impasse over two finalists. They both contributed to the stalemate, and neither showed any inclination to try to solve it, until Senate President Don Harmon, an Oak Park Democrat, brought forth McCuskey.

So now, at least, we have an official watchdog to oversee ethics issues in the General Assembly. And, by all accounts - even those of people who voted against him because of the process - the former judge is respected for his independence and integrity.

But Pope and, before her, Porter both came into the role with similar credentials and reputations. And both left frustrated and disappointed. So, the key issue now isn't that we have an inspector general, nor even the unsavory tactics that put him in place. It's whether he's going to be allowed to do his job or will step away in disgust a few years hence.

If either party truly cares about currying the public's confidence and respect, that's where they'll concentrate their attention.