Shame vs. jail time new focus of Kane Co. ethics debate
The next key vote in Kane County's ongoing debate about ethical behavior for public officials won't be about sending someone to prison. It will be about creating the fear of a public shaming that could lead voters to toss an official out of office.
A little more than half of the county board showed up to debate the longest policy struggle in the body's recent history. Board members have fought over proposed changes to the county law that will govern their conduct for nearly two years now.
County Board Chairman Karen McConnaughay said she will force board members to take a binding vote on the ethics changes at the next full county board meeting June 12. Before that, board members will vet any lingering amendments to the underlying ordinance, which board members have already agreed to.
After two years of debate, there's one major sticking point remaining.
A block of board members lead by Jim Mitchell wants a proactive ethics ordinance. That means either the Kane County state's attorney's office, or perhaps a three-member ethics panel, would review any votes taken by county board members that result in a direct or indirect personal financial gain or could be viewed as a quid pro quo for a campaign contributor.
The sticky point on that proactive stance is the campaign contribution facet. A vote resulting in personal financial gain does carry possible legal implications, said Kane County State's Attorney Joe McMahon. But a vote that benefits a campaign contributor is not illegal, nor does it necessarily imply a conflict of interest, he said.
"I don't think there's any support in the law for that kind of a proposition," McMahon said.
That leaves shame as the only ramification to publicly outing an elected official for voting in support of a campaign contributor. Mitchell said that's good enough.
"I don't care how someone votes," Mitchell said. "But I think the public should know why someone voted they way they did. That's all I've ever said."
Opponents to Mitchell's amendment, including McConnaughay, say the public can already find campaign contributions on the Internet. There's no need to spend county taxpayer dollars to link contributions to politicians and votes because the Illinois State Board of Elections already lets voters do that for themselves, they said.
"Is it that that information is hard to get to?" McConnaughay asked. "Would it be proactive enough if we provide a link to that information on our website? To ask the state's attorney to pay someone to sit there and look at (campaign contributions) does not sound like a good use of taxpayers."
"That's where you and I disagree," Mitchell responded.