Proposed Kane Co. ethics ordinance coming into focus

If and when Kane County gets a new ethics code it won't apply to any of the elected department heads unless they voluntarily decide to adhere.

Kane County State's Attorney John Barsanti delivered that opinion Thursday to a committee of county board members reviewing new ethics guidelines. Barsanti told the committee the rules they are creating would apply to county board members, the county chairman and employees overseen by the county board. However, the auditor, county clerk, circuit court clerk, coroner, recorder, sheriff, treasurer and Barsanti himself would not be subject to the ethics law because they maintain full authority over their own offices.

The news wasn't a surprise to county board members who are already used to negotiating with the elected department heads about how to run their offices when the county board allocates their budgets.

Barsanti also told the board they can't pass any law that prevents a county employee from serving on a politician's fundraising committee, nor can they ban any other form of political speech by employees. However, the county can approve a law that restricts the value of campaign contributions board members and the chairman receive as well as political gifts or money their immediate family members receive. All those facets of a revised ethics ordinance are still up for debate in the committee before moving on to discussion with the full county board.

The committee still has much to debate. Disagreements arose Thursday over proposed provisions in the ordinance that would restrict county board officials and their immediate family members from receiving paid appointments under the control of the chairman or county board. That situation already exists with board member Gerald Jones serving on the Board of Review. Committee Chairman Mark Davoust said the committee must think harder about banning those appointments.

"Sometimes the best person for a job may come from our ranks," Davoust said. "We have to be careful what we wish for. Wouldn't we want to include everybody who might be the best candidate? We want it to be fair. We want it to be transparent."

Board member Jim Mitchell said too often that sort of appointment creates an inherent conflict of interest.

"I should not be on a committee appointed by someone who may influence my vote," Mitchell said. "That makes sense to me."

Davoust also tried to delete a section of the new ethics code that would address situations where a county board member, who may be a lawyer, finds him or herself representing a client suing the county.

"This is just not worth the paper that it's written on," Davoust said. "It's convoluted. It's just not really a factor."

Mitchell again put the brakes on that reasoning.

"If employees who work for the county are representing people who are suing the county, that does seem like a conflict of interest to me," Mitchell said.

Those issues plus debate about the ability of an employee to receive two publicly-funded pensions are likely the next portions of the ethics bill the committee will address.