Chicago: Legislative IG and Mayoral Travel

Chicago's Legislative IG
The battle continues in Chicago over government ethics authority and funding. According to the cover letter to the legislative inspector general's semi-annual report dated August 22, 2014 (attached; see below), the IG's office has expended its 2014 budget and the city council is not willing to provide it with more funds. The council has also transferred campaign finance authority from the IG's office back to the ethics board, over the opposition of both the IG and the ethics board itself, which also lacks the resources to deal with the huge demands of campaign finance oversight, and believes that it is better to separate investigation from enforcement.

As the IG states in the letter, "Since the campaign finance reporting mechanism in itself is essentially based on an honor system which requires self-reporting, it is imperative that there are proactive reviews taking place on a consistent basis to ensure compliance." According to the IG, last year the ethics board was changed from an investigative body to an an adjudicative body, with the IG offices (there is also an executive IG) to take over its investigative responsibilities.

The IG powerfully describes the council's attitude toward ethics enforcement (council members are called "aldermen"):

For months, aldermen have refused to cooperate with lawful [legislative IG] investigations. Some refuse to provide information or documents based on proper requests, while others fail to appear or answer questions in person. To describe this conduct as unbecoming would be an understatement; some members of this body act in full defiance of the law, ironically, a law they wrote and swore to uphold. Aldermen openly mock this process, knowing that by law this Office cannot comment on any open investigations or their targets, thus allowing them to flaunt their disregard with impunity.

With respect to the budget, the IG writes, "this sparse budget was in fact designed as an intentional obstruction to limit the abilities and resources of this agency." Them's fighting words. And the IG points a finger at the mayor for his inaction, as well.

Mayoral Travel
Speaking of the mayor, according to an article in the Chicago Tribune yesterday, Mayor Emanuel has instituted a new travel policy, retroactive to the start of his term, whereby on trips in which city business is mixed with campaign work, "costs shall be allocated according to the percentage of the trip spent on each type of business."

However, according to the article, the policy's guidelines "do not spell out what Emanuel considers campaign business. That gives him latitude to determine what travel costs he pays for and which ones taxpayers pick up, without having to disclose what he did on the trips."

Pursuant to the policy, Emanuel paid $14,000 into Chicago's coffers. However, according to the Tribune's research, this "did not include costs associated with at least three taxpayer-funded trips during which the mayor met with current and future campaign donors, and six trips where records show he conducted little or no city business." The article provides details about these trips.

Mayoral policies are not the right way to deal with ethics issues. Mayoral travel should be dealt with through ordinances or ethics board regulations and interpretations of the law. Compliance and enforcement should be handled by the ethics board, not by the mayor's office. Self-regulation seems okay until you read the small print, as the Tribune has done. Then it looks self-serving.

Kent Redfield, an emeritus professor from the University of Illinois at Springfield, calls for more transparency. He told the Tribune "that for Emanuel's new travel policy to be truly effective, his calendars should include enough detail so it's clear what type of events he is taking part in. The calendars also should be made available to the public in a timely manner, he said, so it can be determined whether his policy is being implemented properly."

In addition, Redfield suggested that the "policy should be adjusted so trips with no city business are paid for by Emanuel's campaign."

There's also the issue of who pays for a security detail and staff members who travel with the mayor. The mayor insists that he needs a security detail wherever he goes, but if he travels for other than city purposes, he or his campaign should pay for the security detail's travel costs. The same goes for staff, but here there is also the issue of the extent to which staff members should be permitted to be involved in personal or campaign-related activities.

But most important, the mayor should not have the final say on whether his travel is campaign-related, personal, or on city business. He or his staff should seek advice from the ethics board in advance or, if his activities change from what he expected, immediately after the trip. The ethics board and his staff should interpret the rules and, thereby, set clear guidelines on payment for travel by the mayor and by aldermen and other officials.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---