Glen Ellyn's long-awaited ethics law will wait some more

A long-awaited vote to implement an official code of ethics in Glen Ellyn must wait a little longer. After about an hour of discussion Monday, village trustees delayed the vote to give its attorney time to fine tune the ordinance and include suggestions made at the meeting.

The delay also gives officials time to receive feedback from both village staff and residents through its website. Additionally, some trustees questioned whether the draft's wording created confusion on who the ordinance covers.

Discussion of the ordinance resumes Feb. 14. If trustees approve it, it would end an almost two-year process that kept getting delayed as officials worked to finalize the terms. Village President Mark Pfefferman said other issues, such as the village's downtown plan and budget, took priority.

Trustees and residents both expressed surprise at Monday's meeting when they learned that the village does not have an ethics ordinance in place.

“This bothers me and it's kind of crazy,” Trustee Phil Hartweg said. “We're way behind. It should be in the personnel policy and should have been in there years ago. (But) let's be careful how we do it.”

Hartweg agreed that the ordinance could wait a bit longer while feedback is received. He offered to help structure a remediation process that would include a corrective action. As it is currently written, village officials who violate the ordinance would receive fines of between $250 and $750.

“If you just slam someone with a fine, you haven't done anything except slam them with a fine,” he said.

One situation officials hope the ordinance addresses is the number of requests made by officials to village staff. But resident Diane McGinley, running unopposed in April for a spot on the village board, said asking the staff to prepare reports whenever that is done will further tax an already lean staff.

She also cautioned that the new law could be taken the wrong way.

“Our village has an image that we are not welcoming sometimes,” she said. “We are in the process of filling three new positions and here we are again saying, ‘Here is a list of rules you cannot do.' We are not approaching it positively.”