A Lot of Silly Hand Wringing About Michael McCuskey
Legislative Inspector General Michael McCuskey, pictured in 2014. (Photo: Chicago Tribune)
NOTE: This story was originally posted for subscribers only. To receive subscriber-only newsletters and content, click here.
OPINION
It’s not everyday a simple interview on my radio show (I usually do between 2 and 4 on a normal day) turns into a thing. But, since our interview last week with Legislative Inspector General Michael McCuskey turned into a big to-do among some hand wringing bloggers and the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board, we wanted to address a couple of things.
First of all, some background. I met Judge McCuskey for the first time in 2005. He frequently spent a whole hour on a call-in radio show on my old station in Champaign. He was always forthcoming and engaging with listeners and kind of the exact opposite you would expect from a federal judge. And, as someone who has sat in quite a few courtrooms as a reporter, it’s quite the departure.
I lost contact with him for a few years until he was installed as Legislative Inspector General in 2022. A mutual friend told me earlier this year he listens to my radio show and would come on if I asked him. And he has done so twice this year (and probably not again for a while.)
Anyone who has known the judge for more than 10 minutes knows he’s a bit of a talker. And, by a bit of a talker, I mean you have to stop his answer to your question after he doesn’t come up for air for 15 minutes.
He did my show back in May and didn’t raise any alarms. When I asked him if then-Rep. Harry Benton was under investigation, he responded “Harry who?” It was a funny way of saying “no comment.”
And you don’t have to explain to him, I’m sure, that addressing investigations in our conversation last week was inappropriate and he shouldn’t have done it. He’s not dumb.
But, let’s also be clear that it is no surprise that House Speaker Chris Welch isn’t under investigation. The contact he had with the Benton staffer in 2023 and detailed by the Chicago Tribune had a one year statute of limitations. So, even if an opponent would have filed a complaint, the LIG wouldn’t have been able to open an investigation anyway. My reporter brain sometimes kicks in looking to put things like that on the record.
The way he addressed an investigation into Rep. Carol Ammons (D-Urbana) was more complicated. The House has launched a Special Investigating Committee, so it wasn’t clear what McCuskey’s role may be. Now, I’d like some clarity as to what contact McCuskey and House Republican Leader Tony McCombie (R-Savanna) may have had. Which, by the way, we’re continuing to look into.
McCuskey has been criticized for the way he conducted an interview with the lobbyist who was harassed by Benton earlier this year, not taking notes and not recording the session. It’s not how I do things. I put almost everything that could make it into the newsletter in a quote on tape. While the judge was criticized for saying he prefers to look empathetic and look his interview subject “in the eyes,” the issue that was ignored was his concern that he would be able to get witnesses to come forward if they felt like they were sitting for a deposition. He’s investigating, not prosecuting.
The hand wringing from the Tribune editorial (which linked the interview, and my radio digital team was very happy for that, so, thanks) was completely over the top. As have been calls by some politicians to fire McCuskey or remove him.
It would be extraordinary for an LIG to be removed. McCuskey didn’t commit a crime, he hasn’t violated his constitutional duties. He had loose lips in a radio interview. He said thing she shouldn’t have, sure, but there are a hell of a lot more important things we should be focused on in reforming ethics laws and cleaning up state government than zooming in on the comments of a watchdog. By the way, nobody in the Chicago media seemed to mind when former Chicago LIG Deborah Witzburg constantly made the rounds and said whatever she wanted.
I would also argue that if McCuskey were replaced, we don’t know who would succeed him. In a state where patronage and political connections mean more than qualifications, I think we would be hard pressed to find someone with the qualifications and experience of a judge who spent eight years on the appellate court and 15 years as a federal judge.
Anyone who knows Judge McCuskey will vouch for the quality person he is, the ethical professional he is, and as someone who cares about the job he does. Did he say too much in one interview? Yep, absolutely. But the ninny hand wringing is a bit much.
