Democratic leaders are looking to change a law that puts a one-year time limit on investigations into claims of wrongdoing against lawmakers after the sexual harassment scandal at the Capitol brought to light that more than two dozen ethics complaints have sat in limbo.

The behind-the-scenes maneuvering represents the latest effort by legislative leaders to respond to widespread complaints about a culture of sexual harassment in Springfield that stretches back decades. Those efforts accelerated after a victim rights advocate alleged at a Tuesday public hearing that she was harassed by a state senator but her complaints went unanswered for nearly a year.

The time-limit issue centers on a provision in the Illinois ethics act, which states that an investigation “may not be initiated more than one year after the most recent act of the alleged violation” unless “there is reasonable cause to believe that fraudulent concealment has occurred.”

That could mean many of the 27 complaints that have stacked up in recent years have expired. Legislative leaders failed to appoint a legislative inspector general, and without one, there is no one to look into the cases.

A spokesman for Democratic Senate President John Cullerton said Thursday that the office is “aware of that problem” and hopes to extend the statute of limitations in legislation being pushed by Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan, who has been in power all but two years since 1983.

Madigan wants to add a specific prohibition against sexual harassment into the ethics law that governs lawmaker behavior, making it possible for a panel of lawmakers to act on allegations of harassment, should an eventual inspector general investigate and bring them to the panel. Currently, sexual harassment isn’t covered under the state ethics act, so the Legislative Ethics Commission, a bipartisan panel of lawmakers that reviews findings from the inspector general, can’t take up those cases. The new legislation also would require sexual harassment training for legislative employees and lobbyists. It is expected to be voted on when lawmakers return to Springfield next week.

Legislative leaders also are pushing to hire an inspector general by next week, with the possibility that potential candidates could be named as early as Friday.

Sen. Terry Link, a Democrat from Waukegan who chairs the commission, said it will be up to the new inspector general to determine what happens with the complaints. Madigan spokesman Steve Brown said he was not aware of potential changes to the bill to expand the time frame for investigations, but said the speaker’s office “will examine the question.”

The backlog of cases came to light after Denise Rotheimer, an activist for victims of violent crime, told lawmakers Tuesday that Democratic Sen. Ira Silverstein made unwanted comments about her appearance, sent her hundreds of Facebook messages and placed midnight phone calls as she was working with him to pass a bill for nearly 18 months. Silverstein has disputed the allegations and said he apologized “if I made her uncomfortable.” He has since resigned his leadership post with the Senate Democrats.

Rotheimer said she complained to Cullerton’s office in late November 2016 but heard nothing. Cullerton’s office said the matter was referred to the inspector general, saying “it is our understanding there is an open investigation.”

However, the complaint instead has sat in a binder and was not reported as a pending case to the Legislative Ethics Commission. Republican Sen. Karen McConnaughay, who sits on the commission, said the panel’s executive director told her that a complaint is not considered a case without action from the inspector general — the post that’s long been vacant.

“I refuse to allow that to be an excuse for washing our hands of this,” said McConnaughay, of St. Charles.

Link took issue with comments made by Madigan during a hearing on his bill, in which the veteran speaker said the vacancy at the inspector general’s office was “regrettable” but had not prevented the ethics commission from functioning. Madigan spokesman Brown declined comment, saying “the speaker’s statement stands for itself.”

At Tuesday’s hearing, Madigan said the commission’s executive director, Randy Erford, who is part-time and largely handles administrative tasks, took complaints “directly” to Link. On Thursday, Link called Madigan’s comments “a bald-faced lie” and said he has no knowledge of what is in the complaints.

“Never once was any of them taken to me directly. Did Mr. Erford say to me there were complaints? Yes. (But) I have never seen one complaint.”

Tom Homer, the last permanent legislative inspector general who left in June 2014, said the relationship between the ethics commission and the inspector general’s office is like a judge and a prosecutor. The inspector general is tasked with investigating cases and presents the evidence to the ethics commission. The commission then decides whether a violation has occurred and what the punishment should be.

Homer said that it would be “inappropriate” for commission members to know about the substance of a complaint before the inspector general had looked into it because the panel might have to hear the case and should remain impartial until that occurs.

With the inspector general’s post vacant, Homer said, there’s no clear path for filing complaints, so it’s possible that the commission would become aware of the complaints.

“I guess you’d file it with the commission and hope they would take it upon themselves to appoint someone to look into it,” Homer said.

___

(c)2017 the Chicago Tribune

Visit the Chicago Tribune at www.chicagotribune.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Advertisement