Kane board delays ethics vote again

Kane County still doesn't have an ethics ordinance.

The county board Tuesday, on the tiebreaking vote of Chairman Karen McConnaughay, sent the newest version back to the judicial and public safety committee for more work.

The move was requested by county board member Jim Mitchell.

Mitchell is upset nothing from a previous ethics ordinance adopted in 2010 was included in the current version. He called the previous one “proactive” and the new one “reactive” in its approach to getting public officials to behave themselves.

“The change in philosophy bothers me,” Mitchell said.

Judicial and Public Safety Committee member Phil Lewis defended the latest ordinance, pointing out former State's Attorney John Barsanti and current State's Attorney Joe McMahon had opined that large portions of the previous ordinance were unenforceable.

The old one tried to apply the ordinance to other elected officials, such as the sheriff and the circuit court clerk, and the attorneys said the county board didn't have legal authority to do that. For example, the old one required the state's attorney to review the economic impact statements and political contribution statements of all elected officials, whether or not there is a complaint against the official. The county board, Lewis said, can't tell the state's attorney what to do.

The new one gives clear guidelines for behavior, Lewis said. “I would contend it is a proactive document.”

Board member Bonnie Kunkel disagreed with a provision that said the state's attorney's office was to enforce the ordinance “to the extent it is funded.” Kunkel said there should be no chance that a state's attorney would think that the county board might withhold money to prevent the office from investigating an ethics complaint.

That bothered McConnaughay, too, who suggested that clause be removed. The county board has the obligation to provide money to uphold all its ordinances, she said.

Some board members, however, were confused as to what they had voted on, contending they thought they had voted on the motion to amend, not the proposal to send the ordinance back to committee. McConnaughay said, however, that nobody had objected to her request for a voice vote instead of a roll call on the amendment and that she had indeed conducted the vote.

McConnaughay said she voted the way she did because if the board is split on something, she believes a committee ought to reconsider a proposal.