Is the Camel's Back Truly Broken, or Just More Mayor-Council-Feds Politics in Chicago?

Last week, according to an article in the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley responded to the conviction of yet another alderman by proposing (i) that the Inspector General's office oversee the city's hiring program for fairness, instead of the Office of Compliance the mayor set up in 2007; (ii) that the IG's office take jurisdiction over the council (whose members are called "aldermen") and their staff, something the council rejected twenty years ago, and ever since; (iii) that city workers and contractors who fail to report corrupt activity be punished; (iv) that the IG office's investigative reports be posted online, minus the names of those involved; and (v) that the IG's office get a guaranteed minimum budget. Click here to see a video of the mayor's proposal.

On first glance, all one can say is "Wow!" He even said the right things, such as "people are losing confidence in government. [The conviction of another alderman] broke the camel's back." And "We have to reassure the public that there is independence, accountability, transparency and honesty in government."

But there are a few problems with this proposal, besides the fact that the aldermen aren't thrilled with being investigated by someone appointed by the mayor.

One is that the mayor is not offering to make the IG's office independent through appointment by an independent panel. Two is that nothing is being said about the city's ethics board. Three is that guaranteeing a minimum budget won't do much to help an IG's office whose reach is being expanded to include hiring and the aldermen. Four is that the IG's office might find itself less able to deal with problems in the executive branch, since it will be very busy with hiring and the aldermen.

Of course, aldermen are saying the very same things. Aldermen are especially arguing that separation of powers prevents an executive appointee from having jurisdiction over them. I haven't seen the term "legislative immunity" yet, but that won't be long in coming, considering that the city's corporation counsel is using the argument against subpoenas in a current case (see my recent blog post).

Aldermen are also saying that the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office are doing a fine job now. Who needs city oversight?

The proposal still sounds good. But is it sincere? Tribune columnist John Kass, a strong critic of Daley, isn't sure. He has some proposals of his own.

First, [the mayor will] tell us who promoted Angelo Torres, the former gangbanger put in charge of his scandal-plagued Hired Truck program. Daley promised he'd tell us. But he must have forgotten because that was, oh, 1,971 days ago.

Next he'll hand out a list of every free airline trip and "working vacation" to foreign lands he's taken since 1989, and who paid, and his fellow travelers, including fave mayoral developer Michael Marchese.

While he's at it, he'll also disclose how many sports jackets (if any, like that yellow one) he's received from mayoral fashionista/waste consultant Fred Bruno Barbara.

And he'll list all the insurance clients of his brother Johnny Daley, whether they have city contracts or not, and all the zoning deals of his brother Mike Daley.

Naturally, he'll happily list all the Chicago business executives who joined him on that recent trade mission to Moscow, and which Russian political bigwigs were introduced to his son Patrick, who was doing business in Moscow

In other words, it's easy for a mayor to win the people's trust by proposing oversight over a city's legislators. What's hard is for a mayor to win the people's trust by being transparent about his own ethics problems. If he did that, his proposal would be seen as something more than a way to look good and, while he's at it, get the federal patronage oversight people off his back (see my recent blog post on the patronage situation). But that will only happen if the camel's back is truly broken.

This battle between mayor and council points to the importance of independence to government ethics. The city's ethics board is appointed by the mayor with consent of the council. The city's IG and its compliance director are also appointed by the mayor.

A better solution would be to create a panel selected by community organizations (see my blog post on this), as in Atlanta and Milwaukee, and have this panel select the members of the ethics board, the IG, and the compliance director. Or the ethics board itself could select the IG and/or the compliance director. The advantage of the second solution would be to more closely integrate what can otherwise be competing offices (see my recent blog post).

An IG selected by the ethics board could do ethics investigations, thereby better separating ethics investigation, advice, and enforcement. And a compliance director selected by the ethics board could be not the mayor's ethics officer, but an important part of the ethics program, reporting to an independent board.

For more background on the situation in Chicago, see the following Tribune articles and editorials:
City Hall on the Grill (editorial)
Daley Presses City Council
Daley Suspends Top Ethics Aide
Policing the Aldermen (editorial)

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---