Chicago: Legislative IG and Mayoral Travel

<b>Chicago's Legislative IG</b><br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
The IG powerfully describes the council's attitude toward ethics
enforcement (council members are called "aldermen"):<blockquote>

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.</blockquote>

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.<br>
<br>
<b>Mayoral Travel<br>
</b>Speaking of the mayor, according to <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-rahm-emanuel-trave…; target="”_blank”">an

article in the Chicago <i>Tribune</i> yesterday</a>, 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."<br>
<br>
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."<br>
<br>
Pursuant to the policy, Emanuel paid $14,000 into Chicago's coffers.
However, according to the <i>Tribune</i>'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.<br>
<br>
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 <i>Tribune</i>
has done. Then it looks self-serving.<br>
<br>
Kent Redfield, an emeritus professor from the University of Illinois
at Springfield, calls for more transparency. He told the <i>Tribune</i> "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."<br>
<br>
In addition, Redfield suggested that the "policy should be adjusted
so trips with no city business are paid for by Emanuel's campaign."<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---