Lawmakers should look outside of Springfield when choosing a fiscal watchdog

Illinois Auditor General Frank Mautino is retiring after a 10-year term of monitoring public spending. The scrutiny his own campaign spending drew should have lawmakers rethink how they choose his replacement.

Illinois will soon be seeking a new top fiscal watchdog, but how it picked the current one shows it should change how it picks the next one.

Illinois Auditor General Frank Mautino is set to retire after a decade in the position and 24 years as a state lawmaker before that, according to reporting from the Illinoize. His campaign spending came under scrutiny and ended with ethics violations, a federal criminal investigation and a refusal to respond to requests for information.

The auditor general’s job is to monitor how public funds are spent in the state. The state constitution puts Mautino’s replacement solely in the hands of the General Assembly.

Lawmakers picked one of their own when they chose Mautino. His replacement should not be one of their own, or any long-time Springfield insider. The person should be independent and an outsider with a clean record. Mautino’s proved to be spotty, to say the least.

Between 1999 and 2015, Mautino’s campaign spent $225,000 in gas and repairs for personal vehicles, which an Illinois appellate court and later the Illinois Supreme Court ruled was in violation of state ethics rules. The campaign also spent $150,000 in checks written in the name of a bank, which were then cashed without a full account of where the money went and without returning any unused portion of the funds. These expenses prompted a federal criminal investigation into Mautino.

Between 2015 and 2025, no fewer than five resolutions to remove Mautino were filed by members of the general assembly. These cited, among other things, Mautino’s repeated refusal to respond to requests for information by lawmakers and his avoiding questions from the State Board of Elections.

None of those resolutions ever saw a vote, and the state constitution requires three-fifths of both chambers to both appoint and remove the auditor general. That is a high bar in normal circumstances. When the auditor general was a former colleague with a long history in the legislature, it would seem almost insurmountable.

It is common advice never to go into business with friends or family, because you should not hire someone you cannot fire.  But that is exactly what the General Assembly did.  They hired a long-time colleague who was a friend to many of them. If he were not, he might have been held to account.

Not every state faces such conflicts of interest when appointing the state’s auditor. Indiana’s version of the auditor, the state examiner, is appointed by the governor and confirmed by its legislative council, providing checks between branches of government. In 17 states, voters directly elect the state auditor.

Absent an unlikely constitutional amendment to reform the selection process, Mautino’s replacement will be in the hands of state lawmakers alone. They should avoid even the appearance the state’s fiscal watchdog is too close to the legislature.

Distance would give the public some confidence the legislature will hold the auditor accountable, and vice versa.