Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Don't Look Behind the Curtain

So it's 7:30p.m., I'm looking through the latest supplemental calendar and I come across HB4572, which has had its deadline for passage extended. This is an interesting bill that deals with some of the secrecy issues that have been raised by Ethics Commission Chairman Scott Turow and others, although it still leaves a lot of issues unresolved. At the end of this post is a summary of what's in the bill.

But before you read the summary, keep the following in mind, which I would imagine is going to become an issue. At a minimum, it makes for an interesting sidebar.

According to the analysis, one proponent has stepped out in favor of the bill - the Executive Inspector General of the Treasurer’s Office. At the same time, only one entity has come out against the bill - the Executive Inspector General of the Governor’s Office. Go figure.

On to the bill, HB4572:

(i) Allows an Inspector General to disclose the name of a confidential source to employees of the Inspector General or Ethics Commission who need the information for proper performance of their employment functions;

(ii) Allows a law enforcement agency, an ultimate jurisdictional authority, an Ethics Commission, or another Inspector General who received information from an Inspector General to disclose the information to their employees who need the information for proper performance of their employment functions;

(iii) Allows the subject of an Inspector General file or report to request, in writing, a copy of the report and gives the ultimate jurisdictional authority discretion to release a redacted copy of the file or report;

(iv) Makes it a Class A misdemeanor to intentionally disclose the name of an individual providing information or reporting alleged misconduct (except to employees of the Inspector General or Ethics Commission); and

(v) Makes it a Class A misdemeanor to disclose information contained in an Inspector General report if the person disclosing is an employee of an entity receiving information from a report in order to perform their job or the person who was the subject of an investigation who received a redacted copy (with an exception for disclosing information to a personal attorney or union representative).


At May 2, 2006 at 9:16 AM, Blogger Randall Sherman said...

Representative Fritchey, it would appear that this is further evidence that your predecessor in your State House seat (the Governor) is showing his true colors on the issue of reform, that being an opponent of it.

Secretary/Treasurer, Illinois Committee for Honest Government

At May 2, 2006 at 1:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Smart move on JBT's part to come out in support of the bill. IDIOTIC move on the part of the Governor's office. It's one thing for them to try to work to kill it behind the scenes, but to openly come out against it? What the heck are they thinking?

At May 3, 2006 at 1:41 PM, Blogger Keane4292 said...

From all corners of state employees, there is a distrust of the level of confidentiality that will be given to anyone who reports or speaks to the commision. Adding these modifications on the release to union officials and other"performing the duties of their job" does not create an environment of openness for the potential whistle-blower.
Any comments for me can be sent to my blog. I look forward to hearing other ideas.

At May 4, 2006 at 8:44 AM, Blogger leo said...


We're having our Democratic Meetup at Goose Island next Tuesday (5/9).

Is there something we can tell our attendees about HB4073/SB 2138 -- where it stands and what they can do to promote it?

Also, if we call up our State Rep/Sen., what can we say beyond just "Support HB4073/SB 2138"?

Thanks for any pointers,


P.S. FWIW, here's my latest on the Subject:


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home