In the News

Chicago Tribune, May 28, 2007

SPRINGFIELD -- Top internal investigators for Illinois' five statewide offices are rebelling against proposals they say would jeopardize their efforts to uncover government wrongdoing.

The proposals, including legislation the Senate could vote on this week, reflect the frustration of the state's Executive Ethics Commission, a panel that technically oversees the inspectors but actually has had little involvement in how they do their jobs.

The complaints on both sides represent a rare public airing from two groups whose work is normally kept quiet. The commission and the inspectors general were created in 2003 as part of a landmark ethics reform package approved in the aftermath of Gov. George Ryan's scandal-tarnished administration.

Under one proposed rule, investigators would have to disclose to the targeted agency's ethics officer the opening of a probe within three days of its launch.

Separately, the commission is backing legislation that would require the five inspectors general to brief the commission on each new case within 10 days of opening an investigation and to submit detailed summaries of any cases in which they find that a state employee has violated the state ethics act. The summaries would not include the employee's name or agency and could not be made public.

While the inspectors general said they don't object to sharing their findings with the board, they warn that the new rules could jeopardize future investigations and discourage people from being whistle-blowers. They said their biggest fear is that wayward state employees will discover they are under investigation and use that information to destroy evidence and thwart justice.

"When we do investigations, we rely to a great extent on the element of surprise," said James Wright, the executive inspector general for agencies under the governor. "But with these proposed rules, you now have to give advance notice that you want to go in and seize a computer or get a document or whatever. And that is just unworkable."

The five inspectors general and their staffs investigate allegations of wrongdoing by employees under the governor, secretary of state, attorney general, comptroller and treasurer.

Since their creation, the five offices have conducted more than 1,600 investigations at dozens of agencies. At least 13 state workers were fired, resigned or are in the process of leaving state employment, and at least six cases have been turned over for prosecution to federal prosecutors, reports show.

Occasionally, those investigations have ruffled feathers, either among the accused or their co-workers, said Lawrence Oliver II, vice chairman of the ethics commission.

"I don't want to go into any particular concerns, because there is an aspect of confidentiality in our communications," said Oliver, a former federal prosecutor who was appointed to the board by the governor. "But it is fair to say there have been some concerns."

Officials in the governor's inspector general office said they were aware of just two complaints about them. Other inspectors general said they are unaware of any complaints about their conduct.

To limit the potential for abuse in the investigatory process, the commission wants new rules that would force investigators to deal more openly with the agencies they're looking at.

For instance, inspectors general would have to funnel evidence requests to the targeted agency's top legal counsel.

Investigators also would be required to obtain the permission of an investigative target before tape-recording an interview and to provide transcripts of any prior interviews before a new interview begins. They'd also have to conduct interviews in such a way as to not "unduly embarrass, inconvenience, intimidate or degrade the interviewee."

In a rare joint interview, the inspectors general said the proposed rules would unfairly tie their hands and turn otherwise friendly encounters with tipsters into adversarial situations.

"There might be an employee who wishes to cooperate, but once they know I have to go to senior management, they go, 'Oh boy, this is my job, I don't want this to happen,' " said Diane Saltoun, executive inspector general for the attorney general's office.

The investigators said the rules also would make it easy for wrongdoers to impede their progress by filing unwarranted complaints with the Ethics Commission.

Oliver said he thinks the inspectors general are overreacting.

"As soon as they interview witness No. 1, people are going to know there is an investigation," Oliver said.

Nevertheless, Oliver said the proposed rules could be modified during the monthslong review process.

The legislation backed by the commission originally would have made public any report in which an employee was found to have violated the ethics act, as long as the employee's name and other identifying information was omitted. After the Senate passed such a bill in March, the House sponsor recently overhauled the bill to make it illegal to make those reports public.

Rep. Elaine Nekritz (D-Northbrook) said she changed the bill at the request of House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago).

Steve Brown, Madigan's spokesman, said Madigan was worried that people still could identify wrongdoers. Madigan also didn't believe that the reports should be made public.

Sen. Susan Garrett (D-Highwood), who sponsored the original legislation, sharply disagreed and said the Madigan-backed changes could have a difficult time getting through the Senate.

"I would have preferred more transparency," Garrett said. "It is a great deterrent to people in state government who think they can pull a fast one."