Frank Mautino has retired – for good this time – and although the post he’s left is that of the state’s auditor general, the exit from public office invites one final look back at his legislative career.

To be clear, this isn’t a comprehensive assessment of almost 25 years as a state representative, but an opportunity to spotlight certain ways in which one politician leveraged state rules to personal and professional advantage. And to be fair, Mautino isn’t the only person to benefit from these structures, just a convenient, timely proxy.

Mautino, a Spring Valley Democrat, first joined the General Assembly in 1991. His father, Richard Mautino, had been representing the 76th district since 1975 but suffered a fatal heart attack that August, shortly after his 53rd birthday. The younger Mautino, not yet 30, completed his late father’s term and then won every succeeding election through 2014, last holding off Republican Jerry Long by about 340 votes.

He became a deputy House majority leader in 2011 and spent 18 years on the Legislative Audit Commission, a dozen as co-chairman. A few months into the final House term, around his own 53rd birthday, Mautino’s political future took shape: Auditor General William Holland (no relation) announced he’d be retiring about three years into his third 10-year term.

Support for Mautino to replace Holland coalesced fairly quickly, and his legislative peers formally tapped him for the job in October 2015. The Senate vote was unanimous; only 10 House Republicans dissented.

In January 2016, a watchdog group raised concerns about Mautino accepting campaign donations between his appointment and Dec. 7 inauguration. That led to larger questions about campaign expenditures over the preceding years, notably around reimbursement for transportation expenses.

A citizen lodged a complaint with the state Board of Elections, and while the procedural details were interesting – my Ottawa newsroom colleagues spilled a lot of ink on the topic – the end result was a dud. The Elections Board demanded information about Mautino’s campaign expenses, but the campaign didn’t cooperate and refused to pay a $5,000 fine before dissolving.

In 2018, the Illinois Fourth District Appellate Court ruled the Board had to decide whether the committee violated certain election codes. The result? A 4-4 partisan deadlock.

Mautino’s time in the House started with a vacancy appointment that, under laws in many other states, would’ve warranted a special election. It ended with a bipartisan reward from his peers of a secure final job. And then the financial watchdog ran out the clock thanks to toothless penalties and boards built to stalemate.

There is much more to Mautino’s legacy. Many others abuse similar levers. Still, he provides a prime example of a system designed to protect the powerful.

• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Local News Network. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.