You are here
The Wrong Kind of Ethics Reform in Park Ridge, IL
Tuesday, May 6th, 2014
Robert Wechsler
Ethics reform can take the oddest forms, especially when those doing
it put on blinders and consider nothing but the situation before
them, thereby failing to consider best practices or, in fact, the
practices of any other jurisdiction.
This is the kind of ethics reform that recently happened in Park Ridge, IL, a suburb of Chicago with 37,000 inhabitants. According to an article in the Chicago Tribune, someone filing an ethics complaint must henceforth cite a law that the respondent has violated. This is a good change. In the past, apparently, one need only say that certain conduct created an appearance of impropriety.
However, the other part of the ethics reform took the enforcement program from bad to worse. Simply focusing ethics reform on enforcement — rather than training, advice, and disclosure — is a problem. But giving high-level officials more involvement in enforcement is seriously problematic.
In the past, a complainant could either (1) file an affidavit, which required the city attorney to hire an "independent reviewer" to investigate the allegations, after which, if the reviewer found that the complaint should not be dismissed, the city manager would have to hire an attorney to pursue the complaint in court; or (2) file a complaint with the city attorney, who would review it and advise the council, which would make a determination.
Under the revised ethics code, high-level officials act as gatekeeper, rather than giving the choice of approach to the complainant. A complaint is to be filed with the city attorney, who makes a determination of whether the complaint "sets forth a violation." If he finds that it does, then the matter goes to an independent reviewer. If he finds that it does not, and both the mayor and the city manager agree, then a finding of "no violation" goes to the council. If any of these disagree with the city attorney's finding of "no violation," then the matter is given to an independent reviewer. If the independent reviewer finds probable cause, he prosecutes the matter before the city's administrative law judge or in court. This is a long, expensive enforcement process with too much involvement by high-level officials.
A city attorney should not be involved in a government ethics program, and certainly should have no say in whether a violation is found or not. In Park Ridge, the city attorney is not only the ethics enforcement gatekeeper, but the ethics adviser, as well. Thus, the city attorney, also representing the high-level officials and the interests of the community and subject to the ethics code, wears numerous hats and has all the legal conflicts of interest that come with such hats.
While the Park Ridge ethics code has some good provisions (and some not so good), it should reconsider, in light of best practices, not only its ethics enforcement process, but its entire government ethics program, so that it can be both independent and professional.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
This is the kind of ethics reform that recently happened in Park Ridge, IL, a suburb of Chicago with 37,000 inhabitants. According to an article in the Chicago Tribune, someone filing an ethics complaint must henceforth cite a law that the respondent has violated. This is a good change. In the past, apparently, one need only say that certain conduct created an appearance of impropriety.
However, the other part of the ethics reform took the enforcement program from bad to worse. Simply focusing ethics reform on enforcement — rather than training, advice, and disclosure — is a problem. But giving high-level officials more involvement in enforcement is seriously problematic.
In the past, a complainant could either (1) file an affidavit, which required the city attorney to hire an "independent reviewer" to investigate the allegations, after which, if the reviewer found that the complaint should not be dismissed, the city manager would have to hire an attorney to pursue the complaint in court; or (2) file a complaint with the city attorney, who would review it and advise the council, which would make a determination.
Under the revised ethics code, high-level officials act as gatekeeper, rather than giving the choice of approach to the complainant. A complaint is to be filed with the city attorney, who makes a determination of whether the complaint "sets forth a violation." If he finds that it does, then the matter goes to an independent reviewer. If he finds that it does not, and both the mayor and the city manager agree, then a finding of "no violation" goes to the council. If any of these disagree with the city attorney's finding of "no violation," then the matter is given to an independent reviewer. If the independent reviewer finds probable cause, he prosecutes the matter before the city's administrative law judge or in court. This is a long, expensive enforcement process with too much involvement by high-level officials.
A city attorney should not be involved in a government ethics program, and certainly should have no say in whether a violation is found or not. In Park Ridge, the city attorney is not only the ethics enforcement gatekeeper, but the ethics adviser, as well. Thus, the city attorney, also representing the high-level officials and the interests of the community and subject to the ethics code, wears numerous hats and has all the legal conflicts of interest that come with such hats.
While the Park Ridge ethics code has some good provisions (and some not so good), it should reconsider, in light of best practices, not only its ethics enforcement process, but its entire government ethics program, so that it can be both independent and professional.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
