Connecticut has had its share of corruption scandals that pop up only under the rumored threat of federal investigations. Sen. John McKinney, R-Fairfield, is bringing back a bill proposing to create a state office of inspector general. From the Republican American:
For the second time since 2003, McKinney has introduced a bill to establish an office that would be responsible for rooting out corruption and inefficiency in state and municipal government“The reason for my interest in 2003 was sparked by the municipal scandal in Bridgeport,” McKinney said. “It’s my belief that we as a legislature do too much legislating and not enough oversight. We need to engage in much more oversight of where our money is going in state agencies and municipal governments.”
Former Bridgeport Mayor Joseph P. Ganim was convicted in July 2003 on racketeering charges as a result of a federal investigation, and is serving a nine-year prison term. Other corruption convictions here typically come from federal probes.
“In the Bridgeport case the conviction and trial clearly showed there was corruption and fraud and use of city and state dollars that went to contractors that paid off the mayor and his team,” McKinney said.
In the state’s most recent scandal, a project to widen three miles of Interstate 84 in Cheshire and Waterbury was found to have hundreds of drainage basins that were incorrectly installed, some without any piping attached.
Investigations at the state and federal levels are ongoing, but McKinney said in October it would have been better if Connecticut had “a state office empowered and equipped to act as soon as the first hint of a problem appeared.”
The article goes on to identify the opposition to the idea. Attorney General Blumenthal worries that it adds a costly layer of bureaucracy. But on the surface, it might be a good idea. The more important issue the article raises does seem to be the neglect of oversight that the legislature seems to project. News keeps flooding out of proposed new legislation, yet hardly a mention of investigations or oversight of existing projects. The I-84 fiasco seems ripe for a committee or two. It seems in total that the legislature is content to forgo scrutiny on its spending, by refusing to adopt GAAP, and reluctant to engage as a more active participant in examining the results of legislation enacted, budgets approved, appropriations made. How can legislators enact new CT DOT projects knowing what they don’t know about how projects are managed by the DOT?
