THERE ARE a lot of dumb reasons to put the brakes on a bill that would grant independence to the city's inspector general's office. For example, turf wars between the functions of the inspector general, which investigates corruption in certain City Hall offices, and the offices of the controller and the district attorney have led to arguments about how "confusing" it could be to have too many people ferretting out corruption. (Is such a thing even possible?)
Others argue that granting the inspector general independence would create a patronage position that would soon stink of cronyism. If we can't trust a city agency to not hire cronies, then we're in bigger trouble than we thought.