Kane County Board facing Tuesday vote on proposed ethics code

Kane County Board members will take another crack at approving an enforceable ethics code next week, but discussion Wednesday didn’t reveal new confidence in the proposal by officials who voted down the code in December.

Board members spent a large part of 2011 trying to formulate an ethics code with real teeth to govern conflicts of interest. One proposal the majority of the board agreed to was largely struck down by State’s Attorney Joe McMahon as unenforceable. Many of the remaining parts not eliminated have yet to be implemented, leaving the county with an ethics code in name only. Subsequent attempts to write an enforceable law have become mired in disagreement about the legality of proactive investigations into ethical breaches.

The Human Services Committee, charged with fixing that disagreement, Wednesday agreed in a 4-2 vote to one change in the ethics code: Funding for the state’s attorney’s office to investigate violations. The four members voting in the affirmative are hoping the change is enough to bring over one vote in favor of the proposed ethics code next week. The last vote on the ethics code ended in a tie and created added urgency to implement a code before the March primary. Every county board seat is up for re-election.

Several board members voting to force further debate on the ethics code in December submitted ideas in writing for changes they’d like to see implemented following that tie vote. Almost none of those ideas were vetted Wednesday.

Perhaps the most controversial proposal still lingering was crafted by county board member Jim Mitchell. He’s called for the ethics code to force all board members and the county board chairman to publicly state any political contribution that may be perceived as a conflict of interest prior to all votes impacting the giver of that contribution. That idea received no debate Wednesday. Board member Deb Allan suggested the ethics code instead require a board member to abstain from a vote when a conflict exists. Assistant State’s Attorney Joe Cullen said that suggestion would require research to determine its legal viability, ending the debate.

Board member Myrna Molina is not on the committee discussing revisions, but asked why ideas by Mitchell and others weren’t being discussed.

“The ideas can be discussed in this committee,” responded Chairman Phil Lewis. “Members of this committee can choose what they want to discuss. At this point, they have not chosen to discuss it.”

Board member T.R. Smith pitched a new idea to create a five-member ethics panel to review possible violations. Smith said that would eliminate the need to have the state’s attorney as sole ruler on ethical breaches. The majority of the committee killed that idea, saying they trust the state’s attorney to handle it.

The committee ended its discussion with Smith and Allan as the two “no” votes on putting the ethics code up for another vote by the full board.

“In terms of putting teeth in the ordinance, the revised ordinance has significantly more teeth than the current ordinance,” Lewis said. He pointed to the increased potential fine from $500 to $5,000 for violating the ethics code. Board members, however, voted out a provision that would’ve created the possibility of jail time for an ethics violation.

That sets the stage for a politically difficult vote Tuesday for board members who still believe the ethics ordinance is flawed.

Board member Drew Frasz, who is not on Lewis’ committee, may have summarized how the vote will be measured.

“We can set our own ethical standards, but voters are the ultimate authority,” Frasz said. “If they don’t like what we’re doing, they can vote us out.”