Ethics Reform in Niles (IL): Don't Try This at Home

Almost two years ago, I wrote about the self-serving nature of attempts at ethics reform in the village of Niles, outside Chicago. A lot has happened since then, but in terms of an ethics program, not much.

According to an article in the Niles Patch, in early October the village's board of ethics agreed, in a 3-2 vote, to send its draft ethics code to the village board, which could make changes to it or reject it entirely. We have to take the Patch's word for this, because the board of ethics' minutes are not yet available on its webpage. The article summarizes the draft code, which is also not available online.

Getting to this point is very confusing. There is a board of ethics, two ethics sub-committees (which haven't met in a year, according to their webpage), a citizens compliance plan committee (which was large and made of citizens, but is also referred to as a subcommittee of the board of ethics), an ethics committee (which has a news page, but apparently no reality), an active village attorney and, of course, the village board and mayor. A lot of chefs, and no meal.

According to another article in the Niles Patch, the ethics board approved a draft ethics code in July, but the mayor and others amended it, and the ethics board approved its original draft on October 5. The mayor appears to have disagreed especially with the requirement that officials disclose their real estate holdings in town. The ethics board chair, who is a member of the village board, is quoted as saying about this requirement, "You'll never get anyone to run for public office."

When an ethics board chair says something that not only shows little understanding of government ethics, but is also patently false, considering the many hundreds of jurisdictions that require this and have somehow managed not to turn into ghost towns, you know ethics reform is in trouble.

After the chair lost the vote, he insisted that the draft code be sent to an independent outside attorney for review, according to an article in the Trib Local. The mayor says that the chair has the authority to do this, despite the board's vote to send the draft code directly to the village board.

At least three of the five ethics board members are attorneys. One wonders why another attorney's review would be helpful, especially if that attorney is not a specialist in local government ethics, and there aren't very many of those. An attorney without this knowledge is not going to bring the proper perspective to such a review. This is important because the attorney is being called independent, which will give his recommendations extra value, even though he will be chosen by someone who is (i) apparently close to the mayor, (ii) a member of the village board himself, that is, someone who will be subject to the ethics code, and (iii) is apparently responsible, as ethics chair, for the failure to make the draft code easily accessible to citizens, not to mention the failure to put minutes online on a timely basis.

Here is another example where elected officials turn ethics reform into a political battlefield, provide too little transparency, and appear to be self-serving. This is not the way to get ethics reform going, and it does not form the basis for a successful, independent ethics program that will be trusted by citizens.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---