Kane Co. panel reaches consensus on ethics law

A new era of ethical behavior may be on its way for Kane County officials after a county board committee reached a consensus Tuesday on sweeping changes to a law that will regulate their conduct. However, the board member who first raised the idea that it was time to take another look at ethics remained skeptical that the provisions are proactive enough to actually catch any unethical behavior, should it occur.

Committee members set campaign contribution limits more restrictive than the state laws. Those limits range from $1,000 for an individual contribution to $4,000 for a contribution by a political action committee. There would also be a lower dollar amount triggering mechanism of $15,000 for any contractor or vendor doing business with the county to disclose all political contributions before getting work with the county. And the committee also decided no elected official or county employee should be allowed to hire or oversee a direct member of their family, though current instances where that is occurring will be excused.

Yet, the main debate of the day centered around how ethical violations would actually be discovered. An ethics adviser and a compliance officer in the Kane County state's attorney's office will give opinions and prosecute violations of the code. However, as the new ethics code is written, no one will proactively seek out ethical violations. Instead, infractions will have to be self-reported or revealed by a whistle-blower. County board member Jim Mitchell said that's equal to having laws and judges, but no police force investigating crimes. Mitchell said the compliance officer should be required to examine elected officials' behavior, at least campaign contributions, twice a year.

"The reason we haven't had any complaints under the old ordinance is that it was so loose it didn't require anything," Mitchell said. "If everyone was good, and Christian, and doing everything they are supposed to do, we wouldn't be talking about an ethics ordinance. I don't feel it would be a witch hunt."

But Mark Davoust, who is overseeing the committee wrestling with the ethics changes, said a proactive approach creates the wrong atmosphere.

"I don't believe we are a particularly unethical group as a whole here," Davoust said. "We are not on a quest to root out evil here. We are encouraging people to engage in ethical conduct. I am not in favor of extra levels of government. If you assign someone to go looking, they begin to look for something that isn't there."

The committee split evenly on the issue of having a proactive officer. That caused Davoust to rule there was no consensus to change what is already proposed, which is a reactive system that responds to complaints rather than seeking violations.

The draft of the ethics ordinance now moves toward discussion by the full county board. Mitchell said after the meeting Tuesday that he thinks the ethical changes will be approved by the county board. However, he plans on renewing the discussion on having a proactive compliance officer.