It’s fair to assume most Illinoisans didn’t know who the state’s legislative inspector general was before the last few weeks. A lot more of them do now, and not for the right reasons.
Michael McCuskey, a 78-year-old former judge, seems to be struggling with basic aspects of his current role. Such as, talking about only what’s in the public domain.
McCuskey recently hit the radio waves for a lengthy discussion of Harry Benton, the disgraced former state representative McCuskey’s office investigated. And McCuskey, the primary watchdog over Springfield lawmakers’ offices, sure ran his mouth.
“You always give me a chance to be transparent and put my foot in my mouth,” McCuskey said at the end of Tuesday’s interview with WMAY’s “PM Springfield” host Patrick Pfingsten. “So, we’ll see what the other people say in the, in the journalism world.”
Yes, we will. Here goes.
Benton resigned amid a sexual harassment investigation of his behavior during his tenure in Springfield. A recent report from McCuskey’s office included allegations from three women and identified a “pattern and practice of inappropriate sexual conduct” by Benton.
We understand why an LIG might discuss a major report after its release, especially when some facts are disputed. But this lengthy sit-down was unusual and left us with more questions.
The most significant public dispute over the report comes from the female lobbyist who accused Benton of making crude, inappropriate comments and showing her lewd photos on his phone of women with whom he claimed to have had sexual relationships during an interaction at a River North bar, which the Tribune reported. In a letter, she questioned why McCuskey dismissed her account as unfounded. She also said the report attributed to Benton a remark she says he never made and misstated when she told another legislator about the encounter and what that lawmaker said.
Another revelation she offered, and McCuskey confirmed in the interview, made us sit up straight.
“It’s likely that these errors stem from the fact that LIG McCuskey did not record our one-on-one interview or take contemporaneous notes,” she wrote.
More Top Picks Best Gaming Desks For Streamers
Asked why he did not take notes, McCuskey said he prefers to maintain eye contact.
“I like to look the victim in the eye, to get the feeling of anger, to get the feeling of being distraught. And sometimes they cry and I want to be sympathetic. I don’t want my head down writing, which to me is ‘he’s just taking notes, he doesn’t really care about what I’m saying.’”
Fair enough. We understand McCuskey’s desire to make victims comfortable, and we don’t dispute the value of maintaining eye contact rather than burying his head in a notebook. But he has an overriding obligation to get the facts right. There’s no good reason one can’t listen empathetically to a victim while creating a reliable record of what that person says.
Pfingsten pointed out that McCuskey’s years on the bench came with a rather important difference: “You also had a court reporter doing a transcript for you, though.”
“This is true,” McCuskey replied.
When pressed on concerns over his interviewing tactics, he said, “Don’t pick the fly shit out of the manure. The minor details are not important.”
Really? Aren’t details everything in this sort of investigation?
“I have never tried cases in the press,” McCuskey said in a July 31 statement responding to alleged inaccuracies. “Nor will I ever do so! My judgments have never been attacked by an individual doubting my credibility! Being the Legislative Inspector General is a much different experience than being a Federal or State Judge. I have nothing more to add.”
Just weeks after making these comments, however, McCuskey was recording a radio interview discussing the investigation.
Beyond the dispute over interview tactics, there’s more here. McCuskey makes some surprising disclosures, even though Pfingsten opened the conversation trying to give McCuskey cover for not being able to answer certain questions.
Pfingsten asked McCuskey whether there’s an investigation into House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch. Initially, the LIG responded that he could not answer that question, but he goes on to say “nobody’s filed a complaint,” immediately adding that he shouldn’t have told Pfingsten that.
Later, when Pfingsten said someone “hinted” that a complaint had been filed with McCuskey’s office against state Rep. Carol Ammons, D-Urbana, who has pleaded not guilty to 10 federal felony charges, including wire fraud, lying to the FBI and conspiring to obstruct justice, the LIG says, “No.”
“No, no complaint has been filed?” Pfingsten clarified.
“I take it back. I can’t tell you. Talk to Tony McCombie,” McCuskey said, referring to the House Republican leader.
What?
Surely “no comment” would’ve sufficed.
But he goes on!
“I shouldn’t even be telling that, but what the hell? They can’t take my job away, because it’s not a felony. They’re stuck with me for two more years.”
We reached out to McCuskey Friday with questions about the interview and his investigative practices. He responded after our deadline, explaining that he was dealing with a death in the family and did not have time to answer our questions.
We find ourselves scratching our heads over this whole episode. McCuskey didn’t have to do this interview. Yes, transparency from a government watchdog generally is something to applaud, but the LIG occupies an unusual position: People must be willing to tell his office sensitive things with confidence that their information will be handled with extraordinary care.
That’s why an inspector general needs to know not only when the public deserves answers, but when his obligation to the people who come through his door requires him simply to say: No comment.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email [email protected].