Smith Responds To Miller's 'IIG' Plan

EVANSTON, IL — Evanston attorney and community leader Jeff Smith issued a statement today dismissing the call of Ald. Brian Miller for the creation of an Inspector General for the City of Evanston, as follows:

I am extremely familiar with the role of an Inspector General, having cooperated with the State of Illinois's while I served as chief General Counsel for an agency with a headcount and budget on a par with that of the City of Evanston, and which agency had far more legal and financial matters to deal with because of our far greater real estate management and statutory duties, including grantmaking. Our agency had no separate IG. Few do. Ald. Miller has failed to make a case for an IG for a 9-sq.mi. municipality of 75,000 residents with far fewer business matters.

The City of Evanston already has a mayor and nine alderman who are paid in part to function as a check and balance on each other and on staff. Aldermen who read materials before meetings, and show up prepared, are capable of asking questions about any item on a City agenda or in a City ordinance or spending bill. City financial staff and auditors can also be questioned. Nor does that need to be during Council session.

All the items Ald. Miller lists as reasons for an inspector general – some of which only I have raised in the past two months of public forums -- could have been the subject of public inquiry,including his own, in the past 20 months he's been alderman. Such questions should have been brought to public attention in the normal course, not on an election eve as a stunt that can only distract voters from review of candidate qualifications and positions.

One of Evanston's greatest problems is a possible future loss of state or federal revenues. Evanston does not need a new, costly office, virtually without precedent for a city of our size. Any such office would be more efficient if created, not solo, but jointly with other districts.

The proposal also is ironic given Ald. Miller's proposals to reduce the number of committees and meetings, which ideas would reduce transparency, oversight, and public input. Finally, it illustrates why a mayor must be committed to serving at 3⁄4-to-fulltime, not just after hours when another taxpayer-funded job permits, or what is commonly called 'double-dipping.'