Last year was an “annus horribilis” for Metra. Finally, public scrutiny was brought to the transit agency when Executive Director of Metra, Phil Pagano committed suicide amid allegations of major fiscal fraud and disclosures that he had taken $475,000 in unapproved vacation pay and forged memos. Ironically, he stepped in front of a Metra train.
This year did not prove much better when, in April, Illinois State Rep. Jack Franks (D-Marengo) called for the immediate removal of Metra’s Board treasurer and ten members of the of the Board for “repeated acts of negligence and recent disregard for federal law.”
For some fun reading, look at the 2010 Annual Report from the Office of the Metra Inspector General. I am not discussing those findings here, but it’s great to peruse when at the beach.
The intro states:
“Introduction/General Principles
Effective July 1, 2011, the provisions of Articles 1,5,10,20,50 and 75 of the State Officials and Employees Ethics (5ILCS/430 et seq.) apply to the regional Transportation Authority (RTA), the Suburban Bus Division (Pace), the Commuter Rail Division (METRA) and the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA).”
Isn’t it about time that these groups had to bide by the ethics rules that all other government employees have to?
Employees are then forewarned, “It is important for you to understand that in certain instances, the Ethics Act places new obligations on you as an employee… and it is your responsibility to comply with these requirements.”
That should be obvious that an employee has to comply if that is now the law! To ensure compliance, the Ethics Act requires the employees to complete ethics training by August 1st. Not much notice given!
If an employee does not take the training, “Failure to complete training directed to do so exposes employees to disciplinary action by their employer, up to and including termination of employment.”
I loved the review questions. They are so simple a three year-old could answer them. Here is one from the manual.
Conflicts of Interest Lesson Review Question:
“Jack is a supervisor at Metra. Jack is interested in gaining the support of Anna, another supervisor, regarding a proposal he plans to make to their boss. Jack has told Anna that if she supports his proposal, he may be able to steer some Metra business to a company owned by Anna’s son. Anna has agreed. Are Jack and Anna’s actions ethical?
A. No, their actions represent a conflict of interest (and possibly much worse).
B. Yes, their actions are nothing more than the typical exchanges of favors that occur within any business.
C. Yes, their actions are okay, since it is not clear that either of them will personally benefit from Jack’s plans.”
Such a tough question! Did you guess “A”? None of the other questions are any harder than that.
It was not until I got to the section dealing with how employees can handle gifts that I found a problem.
That section said:
“Under the Ethics Act, Metra employees or appointees may not intentionally solicit or accept prohibited gifts from certain individuals or entities that are defined by law as a “prohibited source” or in violation of any federal or state statute, rule or regulation. It is also unlawful for employees’ or appointees’ spouses or immediate family members living with them to solicit or accept a prohibited gift from a prohibited source.”
It is crystal clear that Metra employees CANNOT solicit or accept a gift from a “prohibited source.” So how does the following footnote make sense?
“Please note that Metra’s internal policies prohibit the receipt of more than $25 worth of food, drinks, and gifts (combined) in a calendar year from all prohibited sources combined.”
How can there be a $25 limit on gifts when an employee is not allowed to accept any gifts? You cannot have a limit when zero is the only accepted amount of the value of gifts! Seems like there is an ethical conflict here; better let the Inspector General know.
I agree. I never understood that. The City Code had something like that, too.
ReplyDelete