Two days ago, I wrote [1] about a Chicago Heights (IL) situation where two council members who work under a third council member were in a position to vote for their boss to be the city's mayor. A suit brought by a group of local ministers to prevent this from happening was dismissed, according to an article [2] in yesterday's Neighborhood Star.

Apparently, the city argued that no conflict had been alleged in the past, that there's never been a problem. Of course, the council members' boss has never been up for mayor, either.

The judge said that how the council members would vote was the "ultimate speculation." But how they will vote is completely irrelevant to whether they have a conflict of interest. One might think his boss is unqualified to be mayor, but feel obliged to vote for him, or afraid not to. The other might think the boss would be a great mayor, but might not want to show favoritism or influence. Whatever they feel, and whatever they would do, they have a conflict, people perceive that they have a conflict, and the only question is how to deal responsibly with this situation.

But the judge found that there were no laws on the books governing this situation, so the court could not act.

More evidence that ethics can be enforced only as part of an ethics program. Good ethics training, a good ethics code, and ethical leadership in the city would mean that this situation would be handled responsibly and that no outside intervention would have been necessary.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research, City Ethics

203-230-2548