Ethics vote before election unlikely for Kane County

The fate of Kane County’s ethics ordinance is again in the hands of the Kane County state’s attorney’s office, but it won’t be decided in time to provide voters any clarity on March 20.

Kane County Board Chairman Karen McConnaughay confirmed Wednesday she’s sent the ordinance back to Joe McMahon’s office for review. McConnaughay said the committee reviewing changes to the ordinance failed to address several comments and questions county board members posed in writing to the committee.

Some of the lingering questions involve the value of requiring board members and the chairman to abstain from voting because of political contributions received, having an ethics panel instead of an ethics adviser, and the ability to adopt an ethics ordinance that is more restrictive than state law, such as the one DuPage County has in place.

McMahon’s office has not yet responded to McConnaughay’s request for further review, which she sent Feb. 15. The first chance to publicly respond would’ve been Wednesday during a meeting of the committee reviewing the ordinance. No state’s attorney representative attended the meeting even though the ethics ordinance was on the agenda as a discussion item.

With no substance to debate pending the state’s attorney’s review, committee members were left to gripe about Committee Chairman Phil Lewis’ handling of the process. Board member T.R. Smith said Lewis should’ve taken the time during the committee’s last meeting to address issues board members submitted in writing even if those board members weren’t present at the meeting. Assistant State’s Attorney Joe Cullen was present at that meeting to answer questions.

“Looking back, I think that (not discussing the issues) was probably a mistake,” Smith said. “It’s your responsibility as a chairman to bring those up.”

Lewis said he expects the state’s attorney will quickly respond to McConnaughay’s call for a review to resolve the lingering questions.

“When it moves forward we should have some very specific information,” Lewis said.

But for some board members, the process isn’t moving fast enough. Board member Jim Mitchell has been one of the leading advocates for a more stringent ethics policy. He said he plans on calling for the board to speed up the process, if possible, so board members don’t get a free pass on voting on the ethics policy before the election.

Asked if it would be regrettable if the board doesn’t vote on the ethics policy before the election, McConnaughay said she believes another vote is pointless unless and until all the lingering questions from board members are answered. The process shouldn’t be held to a political timeline, she said.

“It’s democracy,” McConnaughay said.