Glen Ellyn votes on ethics ordinance tonight

After nearly two years of discussion, Glen Ellyn’s proposed ethics ordinance will be put to a vote Monday.

It’s only a nonbinding “straw vote,” but it could provide an indication of where the village’s seven-member board stands. Members voted 4-3 last month to table the ordinance until Monday to allow more time for fine tuning and resident feedback on the village’s website.

The ordinance would establish rules to guard against gift giving, political activity on public time, conflicts of interest and undue influence by civil servants, defined as elected or appointed officials, or village employees.

Those who are found to be in violation of the ethics ordinance could be fined anywhere between $250 and $750.

An ethics officer, potentially a retired lawyer or ombudsman, would be responsible for handling all complaints of ethics violations. That person would recommend to the village board and president appropriate action, including referring the matter to the village prosecutor.

Supporters, such as Trustee Peter Cooper, argue the rules are needed because state ethics regulations don’t go far enough.

“Where state law is silent and what is of critical importance to the village are issues of conflicts of interest and undue influence,” Cooper said. “That’s what we need to address.”

But at least one soon-to-be trustee, Diane McGinley, said she wouldn’t vote for the ordinance under its current language. McGinley is running unopposed in the election.

She said she’s concerned that the village’s prosecuting attorney could take cases to court, tying up village resources that are already lean.

McGinley also contends that ethics rules for employees shouldn’t be in the ordinance, but in an employee manual.

“I don’t believe that for infractions that could be taken care of in a managerial style, we would instead be taking employees to court,” she said.

The ethics rules would require elected officials to recuse themselves from matters involving family or clients, or from which they would benefit personally. If a board member has a conflict and serves on a board or commission, the official would be prohibited from appearing before the board if that matter is addressed.

“There’s a conflict between a private commercial obligation and your public duty. You have to make sure they don’t overlap,” Cooper said. “If you have two masters, I don’t know you can serve them both.”

On undue influence, trustees have discussed such a hypothetical: a trustee, who is also a practicing attorney, asks the village forester to plant trees in front of a client’s house.

The draft ordinance states civil servants must follow the same rules that apply to the public.

“We have to make sure we have in place measures that ensure the public that no one is getting either favorable decisions or favorable attention because of his or her position,” Cooper said.

McGinley said she agrees with ethics policies, but didn’t think the proposed ordinance was the right one.

“I think residents would be very disappointed to learn the same things they’re complaining about, this ordinance won’t address,” she said.