© 2024 NPR Illinois
The Capital's Community & News Service
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations
Illinois Issues
Archive2001-Present: Scroll Down or Use Search1975-2001: Click Here

End and Means: Inspector Wants Lawmakers to Focus on Their Own Shop

Charles N. Wheeler III
WUIS/Illinois Issues

In the last couple of years, Illinois has adopted an impressive — by historical standards, anyway — array of ethics reforms.

Campaign contribution limits, a ban on pay-to-play contracting, new conflict-of-interest and economic disclosure requirements for members of state boards and commissions, independent procurement officers and purchasing monitors, stronger whistle-blower protection, tighter revolving door prohibitions and more. It’s a lengthy list, tailored closely to the kind of questionable behavior that has one former governor in federal prison and another on his way.

Now, Legislative Inspector General Tom Homer wants the General Assembly to focus on its own shop, beefing up the law setting out rules of conduct and ethical principles for lawmakers.

The coming fall legislative session, one might suggest, would be a good time to begin the task of overhauling a statute that has remained largely unchanged in the 44 years since its enactment.

Like virtually every ethics measure ever adopted here, the 1967 law followed embarrassing revelations about legislative wrongdoing, touched off most notably by a 1964 article in Harper’s Magazine titled, The Illinois Legislature: A Study in Corruption, co-authored by state Sen. Paul Simon, then early in his long and honorable career advocating for good government.

In the article, Simon detailed vote-buying, shakedown schemes, rampant conflicts of interest and other misbehavior. The piece won Simon few friends in the legislative chambers, but its fallout ultimately led to creation of a Conflict of Interest Laws Commission. The panel’s recommendations became the basis for the 1967 law, with the notable exception of its proposed Board of Ethics to monitor the code of conduct, left out of the legislation.

But the law’s chief failing, Homer said in a recent letter to all 177 legislators, is its lack of any enforcement mechanism to deal with conflict-of-interest violations. In fact, the law’s “ethical principles” section states specifically that its provisions “are intended only as guides to legislator conduct, and not as rules meant to be enforced by disciplinary action.”

So lawmakers are free to vote to benefit their own financial interests, with little fear of sanction under the toothless law.

“The absence of penalty provisions undermines our ability to investigate, expose and prevent abuses,” Homer wrote to lawmakers. “Even the appearance of conflicts of interest by legislators perpetuates public cynicism.”

Homer, a former legislator and appellate court judge, was appointed inspector general in 2003, when the position was created as part of ethics reforms in the wake of scandals embroiling former Gov. George Ryan.

At that time, and in the latest round of reforms inspired by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s shady dealings, the legislative conflict issue received relatively little attention from reformers.

“The idea of conflicts was never a front-burner item,” Homer noted. “But it’s always been on my radar. ... It’s been a source of frustration for some period.”

His office receives complaints that he believes warrant action, but unless an allegation involves potential criminal activity, which is referred to law enforcement officials, there’s not much he can do in conflict situations.

To change that, Homer proposes that the Legislative Ethics Commission be empowered to hear potential violations brought to it following investigation by the inspector general. The commission would hear the case, make a determination, and if a violation occurred, report its findings publicly and impose a penalty, which could be a fine or a recommendation that the legislature censure the offender.

“We need to put teeth into the law, to prohibit debating, or voting, or sponsoring a bill when it’s a conflict of interest,” he said.

One challenge, though, is to define exactly what constitutes a conflict. Under the current law, a conflict involves “a substantial economic interest, distinct from that of the general public.” Specific cases can be tricky, though. Few would see a conflict in lawmakers providing perks like reduced license fees and property tax breaks for senior citizens, even though seniors aren’t the general public and lawmakers hope to live long enough to enjoy the perks. However, few would condone a city alderman voting to rezone property he secretly owned to increase its value. But should a lawmaker whose kids attend a private school sponsor a tuition tax credit bill? Or should a lawmaker who’s also a hog farmer be involved in crafting environmental legislation?

Homer believes the issue arises when “a narrow interest is being served ... distinct economic benefits that benefit you or a member of your family, or a close associate.” The trick, he said, is to craft reasonable guidelines and exceptions, and provide due process safeguards so the law isn’t arbitrarily implemented by the panel overseeing it.

To help the public identify potential conflict situations, Homer also wants lawmakers to require more detailed disclosure of economic interests. The current disclosure form offers little insight into a public official’s economic interests; typically, most respondents answer “not applicable” in all its categories. Homer favors the more detailed form judges must complete, which provides greater information about potential conflict situations, such as debts, family members’ jobs and any financial relationship that could present a conflict.

Whenever the issue of tougher ethics standards or more detailed financial disclosure comes up in Illinois, someone always raises the possibility that the new laws will drive talented people away from public service. Indeed, in its 1967 report, the conflict of interest panel expressed concern that the conflict rules not be “so severe that they would tend to deter men of ability and integrity from standing for legislative service.”

But Homer discounts that fear: “There’s no shortage of people that come forward to run for office. It’s no deterrent to Congress,” which has tougher disclosure standards than Illinois.

“Legislators should be precluded from profiting in any way from their legislative initiatives and actions,” Homer told lawmakers in closing. “Strong new ethics laws and effective enforcement provisions will help restore public confidence in state government.”

A lofty goal, to be sure, but one sorely needed in the Land of Lincoln.

Charles N. Wheeler III is director of the Public Affairs Reporting program at the University of Illinois Springfield.

Illinois Issues, October 2011

The former director of the Public Affairs Reporting (PAR) graduate program is Professor Charles N. Wheeler III, a veteran newsman who came to the University of Illinois at Springfield following a 24-year career at the Chicago Sun-Times.
Related Stories