Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
Google Reader
Google Profile
YouTubeJacksonville’s Inspector General: When A Story Isn’t As It Seems
During Jacksonville's recent budget debate, the City Council Finance Committee's proposal to eliminate the $1.1 million budget for the City's Office of Inspector General. Hours after the Finance Committee voted to eliminate funding for the office; however, Mayor John Peyton launched a public relations blitz to save the office, making the case that the Inspector General was on the verge of recovering $1 million for the city due to an investigation by her department.
The 10-member Office of Inspector General was added by the Mayor after public outcry over contracts awarded to individuals connected to the Administration. Many observers, both within and outside city government, have felt that the Inspector General was a duplicative role. After all, the City has an Ethics Officer and Ethics Commission to handle ethics issues, as well as an independent auditing agency in the form of the City Council Auditor.
The high-profile investigation the Mayor referred to received a good deal of press and the Inspector General was widely lauded for her work in investigating flaws in the bidding process, a practice Jacksonville seems incapable of mastering. After public criticism of the Finance Committee's action to eliminate the Inspector General's budget, the funds were restored during budget negotiations between the Mayor and City Council.
Of course, things aren't always as they seem. Inspector General Pam Markham and her office did not uncover the allegations of wrongdoing at the Ed Ball Building. In fact, allegations were made by a private investigator hired by a company who felt they had been short-changed in the bidding process. That PI went public over a year ago on JaxOutLoud.com. And, he wasn't the first one to raise questions. In an article published by The Florida Times-Union, reporter Mary Kelli Palka highlighted e-mails sent by city employees more than a year before the office of Inspector General was even created. One of those e-mails, dated June 20, 2006; was sent barely four months after the city entered into the initial contract with Jones Lang LaSalle, the company accused of wrongdoing. City employees and private investigators weren't the only one raising red flags. According to an earlier Times-Union article, Jones Lang LaSalle notified the city in March 2008 that one of their employees may have engaged in "possible wrongdoing." The actual "investigation" in this particular case appears to have been completed by a private investigator, honest city employees and a Times-Union reporter. The Inspector General does not appear to have uncovered anything of consequence, instead merely writing a report for which the majority of the evidence was already gathered.
Jacksonville does not need to lose a public watchdog within government, but the Office of Inspector General has yet to manifest itself as an essential department. The $1.1 million allocated for the office would likely be better spent beefing up the city's existing independent auditor--the Office of the City Council Auditor.
