Coverage of Ethics Reform Lacks Depth and Scope

Ethics reform is not an issue that excites the public. So, I understand why media outlets short-change their coverage of the issue - when they have coverage at all.

The result of course is a sparse amount of context and important aspects of ethics reform are often go uncovered.

Now no story can provide total or even a majority of the needed context. The same is not –or at least should not be- true about the cumulative product of the media’s coverage.

As a case study, let’s look at media coverage spawning from the Joint Committee on Government Reform that was held in Springfield on Tuesday Morning.


As I said above, no one story could provide full context without qualifying as a novella and that certainly applies to this article. Before I get hit with the charge of being a hypocrite, I will rescue myself via to the wonders of the internet. Here are my copious notes from the hearing. They are a little rough, but they cover all the untold details.

The most striking aspect of the media coverage of this hearing was the absence of coverage in general.

Only 3 articles were published in IL papers that dealt with the Joint Committee on Government Reform’s hearing.

Unfortunately, the products of these papers did not cover all the issues, and the context of most issues was sub-par.

* First, the Associated Press actually does a great job giving the meat and potatoes of the story considering the length of the story.

Investigators who sniff out misconduct in state government say lawmakers should release their findings to the public.

The law now requires the results of most investigations be kept private. But the inspectors for several constitutional officers say telling the public would discourage secrecy and corruption.

They asked a joint ethics committee on Tuesday to change the privacy law. They also want permission to investigate anonymous tips and initiate their own probes.

Jim Burns is an inspector for the secretary of state. He says, "It’s one thing to knock out corruption, but you also have to change the culture of the institution."

There is a whole bunch of missing context regarding the issues they covered.

Just as an example, the releasing of Inspector General (IG) reports, the AP fails to add that majority of witnesses called for privacy protections for individuals that have been victims of unfounded allegations as well as other measures that effectively make it so all reports will not be made public, or at the very least they will be published as incomplete.

The most glaring omission of context, however, was that there was no mention of a root cause of the current transparency problem in the IG reports. The Executive Ethics Commission does not have oversight authority on allegations and reports that deal with violations to the 2003 State Official and Employees Ethics Act. As a result, many IG reports are stuck in limbo because only the Executive Ethics Commission can make a report public.

While the bulk of witness testimony centered on the need to reform the IG reporting process to increase transparency, it certainly was not the only issue.

For example, Rep. Tyron testified about the new IL Portal website for government transparency and openness. This website puts all state expenditures on the internet for easy public viewing and that allows citizens to search state expenditures by agency, contract, vendor, district, representative. This website will be a cost saving for the state by reducing Freedom of Information Act requests by 90%.

Additionally, a representative of AFSCME testified in opposition to the new state transparency website placing the salaries of all rank and file government employees online. AFSCME was also opposed to the publication of reports from IGs that have found no wrong doing, but that contain allegations of wrong doing.

Finally, the AP did not mention testimony that called campaign finance reform as essential. Scott Turow, Commissioner of Executive Ethics Commission, testified that ethics reform must be accompanied by campaign finance reform to promote state employee morale as well as general public perception of corruption. This is a large issue I will return to later.

* The State-Journal Register had very narrow coverage that focused solely on the merits of putting all state employee salaries on line for public viewing. To be fair it is an editorial, so I can’t really complain about the fact that they failed to discuss any other issue covered in the hearing. As an editorial, that is their prerogative. But it does not really add much to the total product.

* The Tribune omitted all same issues as the AP with the exception of Campaign Finance Reform, but context was extremely lacking.

Scott Turow, a member of the Executive Ethics Commission, backed opening up investigative reports, but said lawmakers should couple the proposed changes with campaign finance reform. Illinois has no limits on campaign contributions.

This should have been the lead story for all coverage of this hearing. Scott Turow chaired the Executive Ethics Commission from 2005-2008 and is now the Commissioner of Executive Ethics Commission. The Commission is in charge of oversight of ethics legislation, and as such Mr. Turow is in a uniquely qualified position to comment on what IL reform efforts will require to be successful. As such, the more weight should have been given to his testimony that he has a “strong view that ethics reform must be accompanied by campaign finance reform”.

To paraphrase Mr. Turow's rationale behind his position:

There is of course the notion of public perception, and politicians allowed to take unlimited funds from sate contractors and vendors just does not appear Kosher to most citizens. More important is the expectations of state employees, who express doubts over whether the administration and their bosses really care about ethics reform. It is impossible to have rank and file workers live by rules when state leaders do not live by same code. Cynicism and disappointment is the result when an employee can’t take a free meal but their boss can take unlimited campaign contributions. Thus, unlimited campaign contributions undermine the culture of ethics reform among those who have the most impact upon ethics implementation. Without a proper culture embedded in its implementation, ethics reform will fail.

When this testimony is contrasted with Senate President’s Cullerton’s stance on campaign finance reform, a clear conflict exists in the movement to reform IL government.

From the Daily Herald:

If the public is hoping the latest confounding scandals in Illinois politics will prod major campaign finance reform, they are likely going to be disappointed.

That is if Senate President John Cullerton, a Chicago Democrat, has anything to say about. And he does.

Cullerton told the Daily Herald editorial board Monday he thinks Illinois' wide-open campaign finance system is just fine and repeated the mantra of lawmakers who have long refused contribution limits: disclosure, disclosure, disclosure.

The real story regarding ethics reform is that Cullerton’s public stance contradicts the testimony of an expert whose oversight authority is the product of legislative delegation. However, most of the testimony focused upon IGs and the transparency of their reporting process, so this became the lead. The focus was clearly misplaced and the media did not see the forest through the trees.

The notion that journalism and mainstream media is shallow in depth and scope of the coverage of most issues of coverage in hardly original, and I have provided a recent example with ethics reform. But it can’t hurt to point out the obvious.