From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Lawyer calls Illinois ethics exam unethical
By Kevin McDermott
POST-DISPATCH SPRINGFIELD BUREAU
11/19/2007

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — An ethics training exam for Illinois government employees takes an unethical swipe at two state workers, their attorney alleges.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich's administration fired the two workers for allegedly arranging state jobs for politically connected applicants. The two argued that the governor's office was actually behind the jobs scheme, and that they were scapegoats. Ultimately, a judge slammed the administration and reinstated the workers.

Despite that outcome, an ethics training exam for state employees still outlines what looks like the case against the two workers, presenting the discarded allegations as if they are proven fact, a Post-Dispatch review has found.

"Certain state job applications, which appeared to be sponsored by individuals on the basis of the applicants' political affiliation, received special treatment," begins a passage on the computerized ethics exam, which was taken by a reporter last week with the consent of the state office that administers the program. =

The passage is presented as an example of real-life unethical behavior. It doesn't name names, but it gives extensive details that match previous allegations against Dawn DeFraties and Michael Casey, the Springfield-based state employees whose highly publicized firings later boomeranged on the Blagojevich administration.

After dismissing the two workers last year in a public display of ethical house-cleaning, the administration quietly accepted a court's ruling in August reinstating them. In his ruling, the Sangamon County judge called the administration's handling of the case "bizarre" and "Kafkaesque."

During the case, the administration fought to quash internal e-mails that indicated the two workers were pressed by the governor's office to engage in the very conduct that later got them fired. The case raised new questions about the administration's hiring practices, already under scrutiny by federal investigators.

None of that is mentioned on the ethics exam. Instead, it merely states that two employees were disciplined. It doesn't say that the discipline was later overturned.

"This is ethically and morally wrong," said attorney Carl Draper, who represents DeFraties and Casey. "They should not be using this as an example, because they did not prove what the test says happened."

Draper said he knew that an earlier version of the ethics exam had referenced what clearly appeared to be his clients' situation while the case was still in progress. But he expressed surprise when told that the passage is still on the exam, because the case against his clients has since been thrown out and the administration has declined to appeal.

"This certainly is defamatory, and it could lead to an action," Draper said.

The exam is administered through the state's Office of the Executive Inspector General, which is the same agency that originally investigated DeFraties and Casey.

Deputy Inspector General Gilbert Jimenez said the passage in question is a "hypothetical," though it isn't identified as such on the exam. "I can neither confirm nor deny … that this hypothetical was based on that case," Jimenez said.

When pressed by a reporter about the similarities between the passage on the exam and the real-life legal case, Jimenez responded: "You and Mr. Draper are doing a lot of speculating."

This is the passage in question on the state ethics exam:

"An OEIG (Inspector General) investigation found that certain state job applications, which appeared to be sponsored by individuals on the basis of the applicants' political affiliation, received special treatment. The job applications from those individuals were handled separately by the state's central personnel organization. In some cases, applications were returned to the applicants so that they could be corrected and resubmitted, so that they might receive the highest grade, that is, 'A.'"

When the person taking the ethics exam clicks on a button marked "outcome," it is revealed that two unnamed employees were "disciplined" as a result of the investigation.

DeFraties and Casey were employees in the state agency that hires government personnel. They were fired after the inspector general's office investigated allegations that they gave special treatment to job applicants with political connections. Among the charges were that they returned applications to the applicants so that they could be reworked and resubmitted to get higher grades in the state's employment grading process.

The Internet-based ethics training exam is required to be taken annually by all state employees under the governor. It takes less than an hour to complete, and there's no way to fail it. Employees who don't answer the questions correctly are prompted to keep trying until they do.

Many of the items involve common sense ethical dilemmas or what appear to be real-life examples of ethical lapses — including one about using state resources for political purposes, which is part of what led to former Gov. George Ryan's federal prison sentence, which began this month.

The exam is administered under a $1.1 million multiyear contract with Meridian Knowledge Solutions, a Virginia company. A company spokesman declined to comment Friday, citing a nondisclosure clause in the contract.