More Chicago vs. Springfield

Bernard Schoenburg in his SJ-R column today asks if the current CMS scandal might have been avoided if the Chicago are CMS managers spent a little more time in Springfield where the bulk of the CMS workers are.

At the risk of sounding a little Springfield-centric, I found the geography
quite interesting as events unfolded this week concerning that damning state
audit of the Illinois Department of Central Management Services.

Longtime Springfield resident BILL HOLLAND, the state's auditor
general, issued the audit. He also felt compelled to hold the first news
conference of his 12-year career as auditor to reinforce the audit findings and
defend his office against an aggressive attack from CMS. He did it in the
Statehouse pressroom.

Three CMS honchos later had their own news conference on their own turf
in the Stratton Building. They included PAUL CAMPBELL, who has been named by
Gov. ROD BLAGOJEVICH to replace MICHAEL RUMMAN as director; ED WYNN, CMS general counsel; and BRIAN CHAPMAN, CMS chief operating officer.

They live, respectively, in Arlington Heights, Lake Bluff and Chicago.
Rumman, who also lives in Chicago, didn't make it down to the meeting.

All four of the CMS officials came into state government after the 2002
election of Blagojevich.

CMS has 1,605 employees, said BECKY CARROLL, a spokeswoman for the governor's budget office who was dispatched to help with inquiries about CMS this week. Of them, 1,179 are based in Springfield, and 258 in Chicago.

Interesting, isn't it, how the people trying to explain their way around the audit’s allegations of sloppy, or worse, contracting practices are among the state’s commuting leaders. And, just asking, but might some problems outlined in the audit might not have been so severe had there been a little more direct oversight of the bulk of the work force in Springfield, which used to be known as the state capital?

Normally, I defend Governor Blagojevich's decision to reside in Chicago. I think that's his choice and he can conduct State business there as well as here for the most part. But when you start getting down to the agency level I think a presence is required. If for no other reason than to instill confidence and a sense of leadership in the agency workforce.

I once worked for a State department that, for a while, was headed by a director that was more interested in her political career than running the department. Needless to say, she wasn't around a lot and everyone working there knew it. It's just bad business -even for government work.