Kane County Board leaders like medical examiner over coroner

Local taxpayers moved a step closer Tuesday to answering what may be a question as much about trust in the Kane County Board as distrust of the coroner's office following a criminal indictment.

Members of the county board's Executive Committee unanimously voted to place a question on the November ballot asking constituents to relinquish their ability to elect a coroner. The county board would then assume the power to appoint someone to perform the coroner's duties. That would trigger several possible scenarios.

The most likely scenario involves the creation of a medical examiner position with higher prerequisites. Those standards for employment may include a medical license and a background as a forensic pathologist. Such a dual role would make the medical examiner both the administrator of what is now the coroner's office and the person who performs autopsies. Coroner Chuck West administers the office and a pays a part-time forensic pathologist to conduct the autopsies.

Or, the county board may choose to keep the current setup, changing only the status of the coroner as an elected official to one of an appointed employee. The full county board must still approve the referendum and its wording before it gets on the November ballot.

Executive Committee members argued appointing a medical examiner will give the county board more control over the office, including the ability to fire the appointee. The referendum push follows the indictment of West on charges of criminal misconduct.

A call from County Board Chairman Karen McConnaughay urging West to take a leave of absence while the charges are resolved resulted in West saying he intends to serve out the remaining two years of his term. Under the current system, the county board is powerless to remove West. Even if voters were to OK a new system, a new appointee would not take over until West's term ends.

One of the unresolved questions about a medical examiner system is any cost increase that comes with it. Research by county staff several years ago showed the change would be cost prohibitive. Research completed recently and presented Tuesday was inconclusive. Special Projects Coordinator Barbara Rahden said there are no universal requirements for how a medical examiner's officer differs from a coroner's office to compare.

"As a result, it would be very difficult for me to report to you if the system is going to cost more or less," Rahden said, before adding, "There tends to be an increase of cost when you switch to a medical examiner setup."

Executive Committee members seemed less concerned about cost and more focused on setting a higher standard of conduct and qualifications for the office. After the meeting, McConnaughay said she doesn't look at the pending referendum as telling voters they've done a poor job at selecting a coroner or as a measure of how much constituents trust the county board to appoint someone better.

"What I hear the Executive Committee talking about today is the value of creating an office where professional expertise is required as part of holding the office, and that's what you get by going to an appointed position," McConnaughay said. "It's not the fault of the voters. I don't think we've had many (forensic) pathologists run. Obviously, cost will be a factor in everything you do. You have to balance that with the importance of having a higher professional standard for services you receive."