A Cook County Ethics Reform Proposal
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.cdobs.com/archive/syndicated/peraica-introduces-new-ethics-o…; target="”_blank”">an
article in yesterday's Chicago <i>Daily Observer</i></a>, Cook County
commissioner Tony Peraica has proposed <a href="http://www.commissionerperaica.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Peraica_E…; target="”_blank”">a
series of improvements to the ethics code</a>. Here's a summary of the
proposed amendments, taken from <a href="http://www.commissionerperaica.com/2010/05/peraica-introduces-new-ethic…; target="”_blank”">the
commissioner's website</a> (there's also a video on the topic):<br>
<ul>
<li>No Cook County employee or elected official may serve as a
lobbyist for any entity other than Cook County. (Sec. 2-573)<br>
<br>
</li>
<li>No Cook County elected official or employee may sell property to
the county under the guise of eminent domain. (Sec. 2-581)<br>
<br>
</li>
<li>The limitations on campaign contributions which apply to entities
doing business or seeking to do business with Cook County will also
apply to individuals holding a financial interest in any such entity.
The entity doing (or seeking to do) business with the county, and
anyone holding a financial interest in such entity, shall be combined
and counted as an aggregate towards a single maximum. (Sec. 2-585 (b))<br>
<br>
</li>
<li>Campaign contributions to a county elected official or candidate
for county office shall include non-county political funds under the
candidate or elected official’s name, meaning that contributions to all
funds under an official's name will be combined and counted as an
aggregate towards a single maximum. (Sec. 2-585 (g))</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>No current or former Cook County elected official, nor any
business or firm in which they have a financial interest, may receive
business from the county for a period of two years after employment is
severed with the county. (Sec. 2-580)
</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>No current or former Cook County elected official or employee may
have a financial interest in any entity doing business with the county
for a period of two years after termination of employment with the
county. (Sec. 2-581)</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>The threshold for being considered a county vendor will be
lowered from $10,000 over 12 months to $5,000. (Sec. 2-585 (d))</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>The term “seeking to do business” with the county will mean
taking action within the past 12 months to obtain a contract or
business with the county, instead of the current 6 months. (Sec. 2-585
(f))<br>
</li>
</ul>
The proposed reform that struck me as most special, and most indicative
of what
goes on in Cook County, is the prohibition of officials and employees
selling property to their government "under the guise of eminent
domain." People aren't supposed to make money from eminent domain. But
if it's an inside job, the sky's the limit.<br>
<br>
It's also worth noting that Cook County appears to have a problem with officials
serving as lobbyists (see <span></span><a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/revolving-door-or-merry-go-round" target="”_blank”">a
recent blog post</a> on Chicago-area officials lobbying other
officials). There's no better way to rub each other's backs.<br>
<br>
Also important is the addition of those with a financial interest in
firms doing business with the county. Too often, ethics codes refer
only to the firms themselves, allowing their principals to make
contributions, or to be forced to do so in a pay-to-play scheme.<br>
<br>
Peraica, who has had ethics problems of his own according to <a href="http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2008/10/peraica-cuts-it.ht…; target="”_blank”">a
Chicago <i>Tribune</i> article</a>, seems to be on an ethics warpath. He even
has a website <a href="http://www.reformcookcounty.com/" target="”_blank”">Reform Cook
County</a>. I wonder what odds the Chicago bookies are giving these
reforms.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---