Kane County ethics ordinance in jeopardy

Kane County Board members will begin a full reworking of the ethics ordinance for elected officials it formulated just last year. Kane County State’s Attorney Joe McMahon has completed a full examination of the law. It’s likely portions of the ethics package are invalid or unenforceable.

McMahon’s report is now in the hands of Kane County Board Chairman Karen McConnaughay and board member Phil Lewis. No other board members have received copies of the report. Lewis is chairman of the committee in charge of examining the ethics ordinance. On Wednesday, Lewis said he was aware of McMahon’s report but had not yet read it. Lewis and McConnaughay will spend the next month reviewing McMahon’s report before Lewis’ committee starts to examine the findings.

“There’s been a review,” Lewis said. “The state’s attorney has done his thing. And as the chairman (of the committee) I have the authority to review things before it comes to the committee.”

Board member Jim Mitchell is no longer a member of the committee that drafted the ethics ordinance, but said he plans to attend all the discussions regarding McMahon’s report. Mitchell was one of the leading voices in creating the new ethics ordinance. Even he believes portions of the ordinance are flawed.

That belief comes, in part, from a report former State’s Attorney John Barsanti wrote just before leaving office. A cover letter of the report was made public, but not the full report. The Kane County state’s attorney’s office is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act and has not favored requests to release Barsanti’s full report.

Mitchell said he expects the portion of the ethics ordinance that says it applies to all the county’s elected officials, not just county board members, will be deleted from the next incarnation of law.

“I believe that’s illegal,” Mitchell said. Other than setting budgets, the county board lacks any statutory authority over the other elected county offices, such as the county clerk and treasurer.

Barsanti’s letter also indicated he believed the limits the ethics ordinance placed on political contributions were also invalid and that the state’s attorney had an inherent conflict of interest in being named the enforcer of the ethics ordinance.

Mitchell said he’s not sure what McMahon’s thoughts are on those issues. However, any discussion of the ethics ordinance is always a touchy issue, Mitchell said.

“No matter what you do, someone is probably going to say they don’t like it,” Mitchell said. “But I’m fairly sure Joe McMahon will give us a fair opinion.”