Kane County closer to deciding who will determine ethics violations

Beefing up Kane County's ethics ordinance will be just as much about who decides whether an ethical lapse occurred as it will be about what behaviors won't be tolerated. The county board's Human Services Committee decided Wednesday it would be better to put that task into the hands of a few when determining if a violation was committed.

The committee decided there are three key components they want involved in the oversight of a new ethics law. The first is an ethics adviser that an official could consult regarding, for example, the legality of a campaign donation. The second key is a compliance officer who will proactively investigate violations. Such a pursuit would include a thorough review of all campaign contribution filings. The final piece is a person in the state's attorney's office to prosecute an official in violation of the ethics ordinance if the compliance officer deems there has been a violation.

The committee was torn on whether a state's attorney employee could act as both compliance officer and prosecutor. That decision may come down to money to pay a new employee versus available manpower in the state's attorney's office.

Committee Chairman Mark Davoust said officials must be careful about being too proactive.

"It's true, when you look at our existing ordinance, there's not a lot of meat on the bone," Davoust said. "But the pitfall of being too proactive is creating the atmosphere of a witch hunt."

The committee will next tackle the idea of what an appropriate campaign donation amount is from an individual, business or union and from a political action committee. Davoust suggested limits of $2,000, $4,000 and $8,000. Committee member Jim Mitchell, who spawned the board's pursuit of a new ethics ordinance, said his discussions with unnamed board members lead him to believe those amounts are too high. That statement sparked a rare tirade from committee member Sylvia Leonberger.

"You are the chairman," Leonberger said, motioning to Davoust. "If there's other voices, you should be hearing them, not Jim (Mitchell). I get a little tired of Jim saying that (he's getting direction from other board members). I'm very uncomfortable with that. It makes me worried that we are doing something that we should not be doing."

Davoust agreed, saying he wants a process free from "mystery, intrigue or innuendo."

Mitchell pointed to board members Drew Frasz and Barb Wojnicki as those who've helped him draft suggested changes to the ethics ordinance. Neither of them are on the committee reviewing the ethics changes.

"I'm proud to be board member question mark," Frasz said. "Jim (Mitchell) is our point man, and he's on your committee. We're just trying to follow the process."

Davoust reminded the trio to not have any discussions that would violate the Illinois Open Meetings Act. Mitchell assured Davoust no illegal meetings have occurred.