Election could muddy Kane County ethics dilemma

Kane County Board incumbents are stuck between a political rock and an ethical hard place just in time for election season.

The county has effectively functioned without a code of ethics to govern the conduct of elected officials and county employees for more than year. Just before he left office to become a judge, Kane County State's Attorney John Barsanti ruled an ethics ordinance revised by the county board unenforceable.

At the time, board members billed the new ethics code as the strongest, proactive policy governing campaign contributions and economic conflicts of interest in the area. But upon taking office, new Kane County State's Attorney Joe McMahon also invalidated that work. That's left the county with an even more lax policy than it had before the revisions.

Even more bizarre, the rulings created a scenario where Kane County Board members wanted to impose a more strict code of conduct upon themselves but were barred from doing so because interpretation of state and federal laws blocked it.

A new committee revised the ethics code, with the assistance of McMahon's office, into a document that could sustain a legal challenge. But county board members failed to approve the new code last month when it was tagged as being too watered down by board members who ushered in the ethics revisions junked by Barsanti and McMahon.

On Wednesday, a county board committee took up the task of drafting a third version of a revamped ethics code that will satisfy both the law and the need to have an aura of ethical conduct in the county. The fact that the task begins just two months away from a primary election that may boot several board members out of their elected offices was not lost on the committee members.

“There might be a lot of board members who have opponents and don't want to address it one way or the other,” board member T.R. Smith. “(Last month) I think a lot of county board members didn't want to have to vote for a watered down ethics ordinance.”

That's where a reframing of the debate might begin. Board members wanting to keep their seats will seek a vote that shows them as champions of ethics while also avoiding the threat of lawsuits from an ethics ordinance that is too restrictive of personal freedoms.

Assistant State's Attorney Joe Cullen said board members can reach that balance just by passing the ethics ordinance in the form that failed last month. That's the version Cullen helped draft.

“Under the version that this committee approved, you have taken up an ordinance that is far more than what is required by law,” Cullen said. “It is not watered down.”

Board member Phil Lewis is chairman of the committee charged with making another run at the ethics code. Lewis said the board has taken enough time debating the issue, and it's time to move on with a rapid solution. To get there, Lewis will send a letter to every county board member asking them to put any gripes they have with the last version of the ethics code in writing. That will allow the full board, and the public, a chance to see, comment and find a compromise to the differing opinions, Lewis said.

“I'm getting frustrated with this whole conversation, quite frankly,” Lewis said. Lewis wants to get his letter out, and responses back, in time for his committee to send the ethics code up for vote in February. If not, the vote might run up against the primary election in March.