Naperville council divided on whether proposed ethics rule would improve transparency

Should elected officials in Naperville be required to disclose campaign contributions of more than $500 if the donor later becomes involved in an issue brought before the city council?

A proposed ethics code amendment addressing that question has divided the city council, which held its first reading on the topic last week. Though many council members support its purpose of increasing transparency, some expressed uncertainty over whether the measure would have the intended effect.

Among the most vocal critics of Councilwoman Theresa Sullivan's idea is Mayor Steve Chirico, who called the proposal "riddled with problems." He said he fears the rule would suppress the participation of voters and community members and lead to undue political pressure.

"It's not fair, it's not open, and it's certainly not a way of being inclusive of the election process," he said. "We're voted (into office) to vote and to make these decisions. To make that more difficult and play this game, I think, is going to create an unethical situation."

The intent is not to punish, shame or discourage anyone from making or accepting a donation, but rather to mitigate the influence of campaign contributions on future council decisions, said Sullivan, who introduced the concept during a meeting in September.

State law already requires candidates to report their campaign finances. The proposed code amendment, Sullivan said, would simply ensure the public is aware of any prior financial support given to a council member by a donor who later becomes involved in city business as a petitioner, opponent, development partner or other interested party.

"That's a level of transparency we're missing," she said.

The rule would take effect after the next municipal election and would apply only to campaign contributions over $500 that were accepted during the most recent election cycle. The measure will be back before the council Dec. 15, along with a proposal to make campaign contributions reported to the state accessible on the city's website.

Sullivan initially proposed mandating that elected officials recuse themselves from matters involving a donor, a concept she later realized would "open the door to way more unintended consequences than I had thought about or anticipated," she said.

The revised version still would allow elected officials to weigh in on discussions and cast a vote as intended, Sullivan said. And, as always, it would be up to them to decide whether the situation at hand is a conflict of interest.

Council members who backed Sullivan's proposal said disclosing campaign information before a vote or discussion would be a positive step toward gaining public trust.

"To me, it's a common-sense effort ... to show a good example from the ground up for other layers of government," Councilman Patrick Kelly said. "I think it's really meant to be a pretty easy and straightforward proposal here, so hopefully it can be handled that way."

But others said they believe following and enforcing the rule would become a logistical headache.

Councilman Kevin Coyne called the measure a "political gotcha" and questioned how officials can be expected to remember each donor and the amount they contributed. And regardless of intent, how would they be held accountable if they fail to disclose that information before a vote or discussion?

Chirico said he disagreed "with the entire premise of why we're doing this."

"I look at this as a classic example of a solution in search of a problem," he said.