You are here
Juggling Two Types of Ethics Reform in DuPage County (IL)
Thursday, September 10th, 2009
Robert Wechsler
DuPage County, IL, a county of
nearly a million people just outside Chicago (its largest town is
Naperville), is juggling two ethics ordinance revision processes, one
for the county, the other for the county election commission. Both
appear to have attracted some controversy.
County Ethics Ordinance
The county board is not seeking major ethics reforms. The principal proposed changes in the county's ethics ordinance are a whistleblower provision, reporting of allowed gifts from prohibited sources, reporting by county vendors of contributions in toto (that is, to all candidates put together) of $1,000 a year, a prohibited employment provision, and no statute of limitations on ethics complaints (the current ethics code requires filing of a complaint within 30 days of learning of a violation, and within two years of the violation).
But according to an article this week in the Daily Herald, some county board members want to make more changes to the ethics code. For example, one wants to limit campaign contributions from county vendors and unions, although another county board member feels that this should be dealt with in the county's procurement policy.
One odd thing about the ethics code that doesn't seem to bother people is that the code applies only to county board members and county employees. Other elected officials have, pursuant to §2-404 of the code, the right to adopt the ethics code or something more restrictive. But if they choose not to adopt either, the ethics commission has no jurisdiction over them. I've never seen this before.
I assume that the reason for such a rule is that these officials are separately elected and, therefore, it is felt that their conflicts are their own business or, at least, not the business of the county board or the county ethics commission. But their conflicts are the public's business, the same public that elected the county board. Separate ethics codes for each elected official is, I believe, a really stupid idea. It says to me that elected officials put their power ahead of their obligations to the public.
County Election Commission Ethics Ordinance
One would think that county ethics reform would be attracting more attention than a draft ethics code for election commission members and staff, but that isn't the case. One reason is that, according to an article in the Daily Herald, the commission's executive director had developed election software that he was purportedly promoting through his position. Also, he had a business relationship with a commission vendor.
Another reason is that, according to an article in the Chicago Observer, the commission was cited by the Illinois Attorney General for long-term transparency problems, and it was not posting its ethics ordinance so that people could make comments about it.
A third reason, according to the Observer article, is that the commission "spent millions of federal dollars on Diebold electronic touch screen voting machines that most DuPage voters do not trust and refuse to use."
For these reasons, DuPage citizens want to be sure that the election commission's ethics are well scrutinized and that there is an opportunity for a lot of citizen input. Besides this, the League of Women Voters, in a letter to the editor, wants to add financial disclosure statements and a duty to report ethics violations and to cooperate in investigations.
The DuPage chapter of the Illinois Ballot Integrity Project, in another letter to the editor, calls for a truly independent ethics commission, not one selected by the election commission; whistleblower protection; no statute of limitations; and strict prohibitions of business ties with vendors and of reimbursement of travel expenses for personal financial gain.
And according to an article in the Trib Local, the county Democrats are up in arms about the fact that a Republican party man was named Ethics Officer, that the ordinance does not have a revolving door provision, and that its fundraising and gift provisions have too many loopholes.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
County Ethics Ordinance
The county board is not seeking major ethics reforms. The principal proposed changes in the county's ethics ordinance are a whistleblower provision, reporting of allowed gifts from prohibited sources, reporting by county vendors of contributions in toto (that is, to all candidates put together) of $1,000 a year, a prohibited employment provision, and no statute of limitations on ethics complaints (the current ethics code requires filing of a complaint within 30 days of learning of a violation, and within two years of the violation).
But according to an article this week in the Daily Herald, some county board members want to make more changes to the ethics code. For example, one wants to limit campaign contributions from county vendors and unions, although another county board member feels that this should be dealt with in the county's procurement policy.
One odd thing about the ethics code that doesn't seem to bother people is that the code applies only to county board members and county employees. Other elected officials have, pursuant to §2-404 of the code, the right to adopt the ethics code or something more restrictive. But if they choose not to adopt either, the ethics commission has no jurisdiction over them. I've never seen this before.
I assume that the reason for such a rule is that these officials are separately elected and, therefore, it is felt that their conflicts are their own business or, at least, not the business of the county board or the county ethics commission. But their conflicts are the public's business, the same public that elected the county board. Separate ethics codes for each elected official is, I believe, a really stupid idea. It says to me that elected officials put their power ahead of their obligations to the public.
County Election Commission Ethics Ordinance
One would think that county ethics reform would be attracting more attention than a draft ethics code for election commission members and staff, but that isn't the case. One reason is that, according to an article in the Daily Herald, the commission's executive director had developed election software that he was purportedly promoting through his position. Also, he had a business relationship with a commission vendor.
Another reason is that, according to an article in the Chicago Observer, the commission was cited by the Illinois Attorney General for long-term transparency problems, and it was not posting its ethics ordinance so that people could make comments about it.
A third reason, according to the Observer article, is that the commission "spent millions of federal dollars on Diebold electronic touch screen voting machines that most DuPage voters do not trust and refuse to use."
For these reasons, DuPage citizens want to be sure that the election commission's ethics are well scrutinized and that there is an opportunity for a lot of citizen input. Besides this, the League of Women Voters, in a letter to the editor, wants to add financial disclosure statements and a duty to report ethics violations and to cooperate in investigations.
The DuPage chapter of the Illinois Ballot Integrity Project, in another letter to the editor, calls for a truly independent ethics commission, not one selected by the election commission; whistleblower protection; no statute of limitations; and strict prohibitions of business ties with vendors and of reimbursement of travel expenses for personal financial gain.
And according to an article in the Trib Local, the county Democrats are up in arms about the fact that a Republican party man was named Ethics Officer, that the ordinance does not have a revolving door provision, and that its fundraising and gift provisions have too many loopholes.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
