You are here
A Miscellany
Wednesday, September 15th, 2010
Robert Wechsler
Targeting Ethics Reform
In May, I wrote a blog post about ethics reforms proposed by a Cook County (IL) commissioner. I felt they didn't have much chance of passing.
Lo and behold, according to an article in the Chicago Tribune this week, these reforms passed the Board's finance committee unanimously, and they'll be voted on by the Board today.
Did I give the Cook County Board too little credit, or was I simply too naive?
Luckily, I wasn't alone in wondering this. A Chicago Tribune editorial dated yesterday evening says, "The phrases 'Cook County Board' and 'ethics reform' don't trip off the tongue … or often share a sentence in this newspaper. So we wondered, what happened?"
The answer is two words: Joe Berrios, a lobbyist, county Democratic chair, county tax appeals commissioner, and candidate for county assessor, whose opponent is a member of the Cook County Board and is supported by most Democrats on the Board. "At least two of the ethics reform measures were directly aimed at the Berrios," according to the editorial.
The editorial points out some serious ethical issues involving Berrios, and it isn't surprising that his fellow Democrats are trying to distance themselves from him. But ethics reform should not be targeted at one individual, nor should focused stabs at particular ethics problems be considered true reform. As the editorial says, "There's still a lot more to do to curb corruption in the county and enhance transparency."
Elected Officials With Outstanding Campaign Loans
Necessity is the mother of invention in government ethics, just as it is everywhere. According to a column in the Contra Costa Times last Saturday, when a Richmond (CA) council member asks for a contribution, he sends a list of six, soon to be seven, campaign accounts, and someone who wants to influence him (or someone he wants to pay to play) can give the maximum amount ($2,500) to each of the accounts, at once.
And that's not all. What is owed from past campaigns is almost totally loans made to the campaigns by the council member and his mother. In the past five to seven years, depending on the campaign committee, the council member has collected a combined $157,600 in contributions and repaid himself and his mother $145,978 of that. And there's still another $194,739 to go, as of June 30.
The columnist recommends that the council member pay back his mother, forgive his own loans, and close the old accounts. If this is legal, that sounds like a good idea.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
In May, I wrote a blog post about ethics reforms proposed by a Cook County (IL) commissioner. I felt they didn't have much chance of passing.
Lo and behold, according to an article in the Chicago Tribune this week, these reforms passed the Board's finance committee unanimously, and they'll be voted on by the Board today.
Did I give the Cook County Board too little credit, or was I simply too naive?
Luckily, I wasn't alone in wondering this. A Chicago Tribune editorial dated yesterday evening says, "The phrases 'Cook County Board' and 'ethics reform' don't trip off the tongue … or often share a sentence in this newspaper. So we wondered, what happened?"
The answer is two words: Joe Berrios, a lobbyist, county Democratic chair, county tax appeals commissioner, and candidate for county assessor, whose opponent is a member of the Cook County Board and is supported by most Democrats on the Board. "At least two of the ethics reform measures were directly aimed at the Berrios," according to the editorial.
The editorial points out some serious ethical issues involving Berrios, and it isn't surprising that his fellow Democrats are trying to distance themselves from him. But ethics reform should not be targeted at one individual, nor should focused stabs at particular ethics problems be considered true reform. As the editorial says, "There's still a lot more to do to curb corruption in the county and enhance transparency."
Elected Officials With Outstanding Campaign Loans
Necessity is the mother of invention in government ethics, just as it is everywhere. According to a column in the Contra Costa Times last Saturday, when a Richmond (CA) council member asks for a contribution, he sends a list of six, soon to be seven, campaign accounts, and someone who wants to influence him (or someone he wants to pay to play) can give the maximum amount ($2,500) to each of the accounts, at once.
And that's not all. What is owed from past campaigns is almost totally loans made to the campaigns by the council member and his mother. In the past five to seven years, depending on the campaign committee, the council member has collected a combined $157,600 in contributions and repaid himself and his mother $145,978 of that. And there's still another $194,739 to go, as of June 30.
The columnist recommends that the council member pay back his mother, forgive his own loans, and close the old accounts. If this is legal, that sounds like a good idea.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
Visitor (not verified) says:
Thu, 2010-09-16 03:34
Permalink
It's not so much that these ethics reforms are "targeted" at an individual, but it's more that an individual has demonstrated that the reforms are needed. Kind of like how there was a push for the ability to recall the governor after the Blagojevich saga.