Kane County officials not eager to debate ethics again

The primary election is over but some Kane County officials aren’t showing any pressing desire to rekindle debate about an ethics ordinance that’s lingered in flux for more than a year.

Debate on making the county’s ethics ordinance more proactive, especially in disclosing political contributions before votes, stalled just before the primary. The debate became increasingly political in nature as board members began commenting on each other’s donations and support for various issues.

As that infighting began, County Board Chairman Karen McConnaughay sent the issue back to the Kane County State’s Attorney’s Office for further review of the proposed revisions. McConnaughay requested that review nearly two months ago. She will lead a meeting of the committee that now controls the direction of the ethics ordinance Thursday morning. There is no discussion on the topic scheduled.

Instead, the ethics ordinance appeared on the agenda of the board’s Human Services Committee Wednesday. But board members on that committee had almost nothing to say on the topic either.

Board member Deb Allan pointed out again that the changes to Kane County’s ethics policy are modeled after DuPage County’s ethics law. DuPage’s ethics laws were based on former prosecutor Patrick Collins’s ethics recommendations. Collins led the prosecution of former Illinois Gov. George Ryan.

“Knowing that helps me think that someone is trying to solve a problem,” Allan said of what’s fueling lingering debate on Kane County’s ethics law.

But fellow board member Phil Lewis said the lame duck status of several board members following the primary may be dulling some of the momentum of the debate. Six of the 13 members of the board’s Executive Committee, where debate of the ethics law now sits, will no longer be on the board after the November general election. That includes McConnaughay, who is chairman of the committee.

The nastiness of some of the debate also hasn’t increased the desire to continue discussions on the topic, Lewis said.

“Unfortunately, the whole conversation had too much negative connotations to it,” Lewis said. “I don’t have any particular issue other than I want something we can rely on, a legally enforceable document. When the topic was in my committee, I think we did our job. The questions sent to the state’s attorney are legitimate questions that will need to be answered when, and if, the issue is brought to the board floor again, because I guess there are still some people on the board who think we are not doing our job.”