Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley
Honoring Bill Angrick, Iowa Ombudsman
Submitted to the Senate Record Wednesday, May 12, 2010
In 1972, the Iowa legislature created the office of citizens’ aide to address instances of dissatisfaction with government agencies. In 1978, Bill Angrick became the state ombudsman at age 32, according to the Des Moines Register. Just a few weeks ago, Bill Angrick announced he would take the state’s early retirement incentives at age 64.
As a member of the state House in 1972, I was enthusiastic about the creation of the ombudsman’s office. I’d gone from political science student to state legislator and was beginning to appreciate the value of government oversight in the practical world. It’s one thing to study political theory and have a concept of how things should work. It’s another thing to represent citizens as their elected representative and see how things really work. The federal constitutional framers knew what they were doing when they built in checks and balances among the three branches of government.
The decision to create a state ombudsman wasn’t unanimous. The House vote was 70 to 28, the Senate vote 30 to 20. Then, as now, those who perform government oversight might have been seen as skunks at a picnic, fueling fears of those who might abuse their investigative powers or among agencies, rein in their power. Inspectors general and whistleblowers at federal agencies are regularly eyed with suspicion or targeted for retaliation. I run into this at the federal level all the time. Sometimes the executive branch tries to stifle inspectors general or federal employees who have reports of wrongdoing. Yet those people are very often heroes who expose waste, fraud, and abuse and by putting themselves on the line, get problems fixed and strengthen government. They deserve honor and protection, which I work to provide. And I conduct oversight of federal agencies, just as the voters oversee my performance as their elected representative.
By all accounts I’ve heard, Bill Angrick served his oversight role with the honor, diligence, and integrity envisioned by those of us who created the state ombudsman’s office.
His retirement provides a good opportunity to reflect on his work and on the role of an entity that exists to listen to citizens, investigate concerns, and render findings in the spirit of fixing shortcomings for public benefit. The office exists to perform oversight of state and local government agencies. Sometimes it initiates investigations upon a citizen phone call of concern or complaint. It receives thousands of inquiries every year.
Occasionally, my staff in Iowa adds to the workload, referring cases to the ombudsman that deal exclusively with state and local government. I appreciate the careful consideration given in those instances. Other times, the ombudsman’s staff sees the need for an investigation of an agency’s interaction with a citizen over a particular case, or multiple agencies’ handling of a state matter that’s either complex or has fallen through the cracks. As a third party, the ombudsman’s office is charged with the responsibility of examining the facts as impartially and thoroughly as possible and rendering findings and recommendations in a thoughtful, constructive way. The office is removed from the emotions and biases of the people involved and proceeds without a predisposition toward a certain outcome.
The workload can involve an issue with broad implications, such as state and local governments’ treatment of prison inmates and response to child abuse cases. Mr. Angrick’s office reviewed whether inmates were held too long in restraining chairs and whether government procedures were adequate to protect children in violent circumstances.
The office has given special attention over the years to state and local governments’ treatment of mentally ill and disabled citizens. Mr. Angrick recognizes that some challenges are interwoven among segments of society and government and merit a comprehensive response. For example, he’s given needed understanding of and exposure to the fact that state prisons have become de facto housing for mentally ill citizens in many cases. He’s right that government has to address this situation and give appropriate treatment to those who can’t advocate for themselves.
The ombudsman’s workload also involves cases with a more narrow focus. A recent investigation covered a city street superintendent accused of using city equipment on his own property and retaliating against a citizen who complained while local elected officials stood by. The resolution of that dispute might not resonate statewide, but it’s meaningful for the residents of a community who expect their city employees to function above board and expect their elected officials to enforce city rules and regulations. The office serves as a check-and-balance backstop on potential abuse of power.
However, the ombudsman’s office doesn’t only conclude that the government is wrong. Sometimes it affirms that government agencies acted properly, as in 2004, when it concluded that the Iowa Department of Natural Resources’ investigation of three Asian markets for unlawful fish sales was fair and reasonable.
The citizens’ aide office is open to everyone, regardless of position and station in life. That equal voice for everyone is critical to its purpose and its success. Under Mr. Angrick’s leadership, a prison inmate’s call is taken respectfully and with care for the facts, the same as a mayor’s call. Mr. Angrick recognizes that a prisoner should not be abused and is entitled to humane, compassionate treatment and certain rights as he pays his debt to society. This is not only the right way to treat our fellow human beings, but it also contributes to a stronger civic structure. If the prison inmate feels heard, he may leave his service with a greater regard for society and the rule of law than he did going into prison. He might not commit a crime the second time.
By holding the government accountable, the ombudsman’s office builds faith in state and local civic institutions. A well-functioning government in which citizens have a voice, are heard, and affect change is the best antidote to cynicism about government. My strong impression is that Bill Angrick and his staff accomplished the simple slogan of their office: “Dedicated to Making Good Government Better.” I thank Bill Angrick for his 32 years of service to the people of Iowa.