|
Ohio Inspector General Didn't Investigate Complaint on Supporters of honest government and church-state separation should be concerned about the Ohio inspector general's mishandling of a complaint filed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). The complaint was about the blatant promotion of Christianity at the governor's "Service of Healing." This event was held on Sept. 12, 2001, in response to the previous day's terrorist attacks. Although state officials used the occasion to promote Christianity, the inspector general dismissed the complaint as baseless. He apparently lacks respect for church-state separation and the religious diversity of Ohioans. Moreover, his response to the complaint is symptomatic of other problems with his office and with Ohio's state government. State event illegally endorsed Christianity At the state-sponsored event, the chairman of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission (of all places) told state employees and the public that God's "basic instructions before leaving earth" are "written in the Bible." It's hard to imagine a clearer endorsement of Christianity. Other acts by state officials also indicated the state favors Christianity. These included prayer and the playing of "Amazing Grace." The entire ceremony was videotaped, so the evidence of what transpired is indisputable. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that governmental endorsement of Christianity violates the First Amendment's requirement of church-state separation. The practice also is unfair and offensive to minority religions. As Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote: "[G]overnment endorsement . . . of religion . . . sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community." Those harmful and divisive messages have been recognized since the country's inception and were a reason the Founders separated government and religion. In the words of James Madison, governmental promotion of religion "degrades from the equal rank of citizens all those whose opinions in religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority." Additionally, members of minority religions cannot
expect unbiased treatment from a government favoring the majority
religion. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackman stated: "A
government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created
equal when it asserts that God prefers some." State officials know better But none of this is news to Ohio's state officials. As shown by their acts in other contexts, they know that governmental favoritism toward religion is insulting and hurtful to members of minority religions. Ohio's state government requires its employees to go through Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) training. There they are told that the display of religious messages in the state workplace shows a lack of sensitivity to the religious diversity of customers - whose taxes pay their salaries - and fellow employees. Also in the training, state employees learn that if a customer or coworker is offended by a religious display in the work environment, a valid EEO complaint can be brought against the employees responsible for the display. The lesson is that promoting religion in the state workplace is discourteous, inappropriate, and punishable. Yet after sending employees through EEO training, state officials turn around and violate the very same principles at the highly publicized "Service of Healing." And they did it in an attempt to gain political points from the Religious Right and others. Apparently, state officials believe that politics trumps the Constitution, the sensitivities of members of minority religions, the need for respecting the religious diversity of Ohioans, and the importance of setting a good example for state employees and the public. Then the official responsible for identifying and correcting wrongful acts in state government, the Ohio inspector general, declares it's perfectly acceptable for state officials to behave that way. The whole matter is a sickening display of political hypocrisy, lawlessness, insensitivity, and cowardice. State officials besmirched Christianity Christians should be concerned that their religion can look bad as a result of state officials using it for political purposes. The person responsible for the ceremony - Republican Gov. Bob Taft - later incurred the infamy and disgrace of being the only Ohio governor convicted of criminal acts while in office. He pleaded guilty to four misdemeanor counts of violating Ohio's ethics laws. But he refused to resign from office. And he allowed a close associate who was convicted of similar acts to also remain in office. No wonder the U.S. Supreme Court warned of history's lesson that religion becomes disrespected or despised by being associated with government. Corrupt governmental officials often will, if they can, use an outward display of religiosity to conceal from the public their venal nature and acts. As the Rev. Barry Lynn writes in his book Piety and Politics: The Right-Wing Assault on Religious Freedom: "Patriotism, it has been said, is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Now it seems to be religion. Indeed, religion is frequently the first." When the curtain is eventually thrown open on such officials, though, the public sees that religion did not prevent unethical behavior in government. Rather, officials appear to have misused religion as an instrument for hiding and furthering corruption. Religion thereby becomes one of the casualties of the wrongdoing. Inspector general mum on his reasons According to media reports, the inspector general said attorneys in his office reviewed FFRF's complaint and found it baseless. He and his lawyers did not, however, provide the complainant or the public with a legal basis for their finding. They apparently want to keep their reasons secret. But as John F. Kennedy said: "The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society; and we as a people are inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings." In a democratic society based on "the consent of the governed," the actions and decisions of public officials generally need to be open to public scrutiny so that "We the People" can hold those persons accountable for their performance. Additionally, former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote that it is "not burdensome to give reasons when reasons exist." The inspector general's office could not provide valid reasons because the First Amendment violations by state officials at the "Service of Healing" were flagrant and legally indefensible. Any attorney can immediately see that. The inspector general and his legal counsel also see it. They simply don't have the character and courage to put the Constitution, the rights of minority religions, and their sworn legal duties above considerations of political expediency. Conflict of interest is a problem In addition to concerns about the First Amendment, this matter raises questions of whether an Ohio inspector general who is handpicked by the governor, and virtually serves at the pleasure of the governor, can be expected to vigorously and impartially investigate wrongdoing in the governor's administration. Obviously, a conflict of
interest exists in the current arrangement for investigating corruption
in state government. The governor has too much control over the person
responsible for investigating wrongful acts and omissions in the governor's administration.
This means the inspector general's office can be another instrument for concealing and furthering wrongdoing by state officials. Political pressure and considerations may, at least in theory, be brought to block or hinder investigations. If the Ohio legislature were to change the law to make the inspector general's office independent of the governor's administration, state officials might have to obey not only the First Amendment but also other laws the inspector general is not enforcing. More failures to investigate and more corruption The inspector general's annual reports may indicate how extensive the problem of inadequate investigations is, particularly if other violations referred to his office have been as blatant as this one. Those reports show that during the years 1999 through 2006, the inspector general declined to open investigations on over 1,600 complaints of wrongdoing in state government. He would have us believe that a remarkable number of Ohioans mistakenly think they witnessed governmental misconduct. In response to some of those complainants, the inspector general probably should have quoted Groucho Marx: "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" And in regard to FFRF's complaint, the choice he left was between believing him and the videotape of what happened. The refusal to investigate so many complaints might be an underlying reason why Ohio gained a reputation of having one of the most corrupt state governments in the nation. For example, Paul Krugman analyzed some of Ohio's scandals in a June 17, 2005 article that the New York Times titled "What's the Matter With Ohio?" Since then, several more major scandals in Ohio's state government have come to light. Krugman said Ohio provided "an object lessen in what happens when you have one-party rule untrammeled by any quaint notions of independent oversight." He obviously thought inadequate oversight of state officials was at the root of the problem. The inspector general is the main governmental official responsible for that oversight. Krugman also explained that "when a political machine controls all branches of government, and those officials charged with oversight are also reliably partisan, politicians feel safe from investigation. Their inhibitions dissolve, and they take full advantage of their position, until the scandals become too big to hide." Possibly the election of many new state officials, who took office in January 2007, will change the situation in Ohio. But the new Democratic governor's reappointment of Taft's inspector general was not a good sign. That inspector general was the one who dismissed FFRF's complaint and was in charge of oversight when many scandals occurred - including the ones Krugman described. Consistent with Krugman's assertions, at least some corrupt officials in Taft's administration didn't seem the least bit afraid of him. Those officials were eventually exposed
by the newspapers - particularly The Toledo Blade - and not the
inspector general. Independent governmental oversight and investigations are essential for preventing public officials from acting illegally, dishonestly, or incompetently. As for FFRF's complaint, though, no investigation was conducted. State officials got away with flagrantly violating the Constitution and the rights of minority religions. They have also been allowed to casually and blatantly flout many other laws with impunity. That's practically been their standard operating procedure for many years. And it's all been fine with the Ohio inspector general. For example, in response to a complaint by Common Cause/Ohio that numerous laws were violated in the appointment of a state official, his explanation for doing nothing was that such laws are violated all the time. In Federalist No. 73, Alexander Hamilton noted: "A power over a man's support is a power over his will." Similarly, the novelist and social commentator Upton Sinclair wrote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Ohio's inspector general sometimes acts as if his salary depends on his not understanding that illegalities and corruption occurred in the governor's administration. In "Law Like Love," W. H. Auden wrote in 1939:
Others say, Law is our Fate; Today, some of the "others" in the latter category have had dealings with the Ohio inspector general. And those persons say the same about justice. If the inspector general's office were made an independent agency, it could truly become the people's watchdog of state government - instead of what many currently consider as a mere lapdog of the governor. Ohio's citizens and their state's reputation have paid dearly because of this problem. |