Kane County locks in new ethics policy

Kane County entered a new law onto the books Tuesday that will test the axiom that says you can't legislate morality.

Months of haggling over what truly is proper conduct for an elected official ended with Kane County entering a new ethics law into its legal code. The ethics law brings restrictions on campaign contributions, requires people doing business with the county to disclose political contributions and places new limits on nepotism for the first time in the county. County board members approved the law unanimously on a day that even saw some last-minute waffling by board members who previously stood against some suggested additions.

Chief among those last-minute changes is a provision that makes the ethics law a proactive policy. The ethics code requires the state's attorney, or someone chosen by the state's attorney, to review all the economic interest statements and political contributions received by the county board and its chairman once a year. Up until Tuesday, only a formal complaint could trigger such a review, and only of the elected official cited in the complaint.

County board member Jim Mitchell pushed the addition in the original draft of the ethics law, but met with resistance from other board members who believed such an annual review would be too burdensome. County board member Mark Davoust was the leading voice against such a provision. At one point he said such a provision would "create the atmosphere of a witch hunt." On Tuesday, Davoust went as far as seconding Mitchell's motion to include the proactive review. The reversal followed encouragement to include the change by County Board Chairman Karen McConnaughay.

"What this amendment is saying is that the compliance officer, I'm guessing at least once a year, needs to tool around through the (campaign finance reports) and economic interest statements to see if there's anything that invokes a red flag," McConnaughay said. "What's wrong with that? I don't see that it's cumbersome."

With that statement, opposition to the amendment wilted.

Other board members tried to add other changes, including a reduction of the monetary threshold that requires when a company seeking business with the county must disclose political contributions. Board member Drew Frasz suggested lowering the threshold to $10,000. The ethics code places it at $15,000. Frasz's suggestion came as the county board meeting approached four hours in length. Some board members felt, at the late hour, it was too late to suggest any more revisions on a plan already debated for months.

"To go over this minute by minute by minute ... people have a life," board member Sylvia Leonberger said. She sat on the committee that drafted the ethics ordinance and hosted months of debate on the individual provisions of the ordinance, including the $15,000 threshold. "This is very difficult to have these (amendments) brought up again and again and again."

Frasz responded that his amendment was a serious issue that deserved further debate.

"If you're in a hurry, you can leave," Frasz said. "I'll stay here all day to get this done right. For $15,000 you can buy a car. That's a big item."

The eventual vote on the amendment ended in a tie, as some board members did, indeed, leave the meeting. McConnaughay cast the tiebreaker "no" vote on the ground that there wasn't a consensus on the board to include the amendment.

The ethics law, as a whole, passed without objection.