You are here
An Ethics Board Chair Who Should Not Have Been on the Board Refuses to Discuss His Own Conflict
Monday, January 24th, 2011
Robert Wechsler
The most underrated aspect of accountability is the need for government
officials to honestly and publicly explain why they do what they do.
This need is strongest for two groups of officials: elected representatives
and their watchdogs.
It is, therefore, painful to see the chair of a major county board of ethics refusing to even speak to the press about his own possible conflict of interest. You can see it, too, in a video at the WGN-TV website.
This January 17 video is part of a a joint investigation of the newly elected assessor, Joseph Berrios, by WGN-TV, Chicago magazine and the Better Government Association (BGA), one of BGA's many joint investigations of ethical misconduct in the Chicago area and Illinois. Chicago magazine ran a long article about Berrios in October.
What was WGN asking the Cook County (IL) ethics board chair about? According to the WGN report, over the last two decades, the law firm in which the ethics board chair, John Pikarski, Jr, is one of the two name partners (and four of the firm's six lawyer have the name Pikarski), has donated thousands of dollars to the campaigns of Joseph Berrios, who is up before the board of ethics on allegations of nepotism. Pikarski is a property tax attorney, whose firm does substantial business before the Board of Review, where Berrios served as commissioner for 22 years, until just elected county assessor. His firm's clients got back millions in property tax reductions from the Board of Review.
The appearance of a conflict here is extremely strong, certainly strong enough to require Pikarski either to recuse himself or to answer questions about his relationship with Berrios. But Pikarski apparently refused to even look at the press, not to mention answer their questions.
And then, according to a Chicago Tribune article last week, he resigned not only from his chairmanship, but from the board of ethics. His explanation? His decision had "nothing whatsoever" to do with the WGN/Chicago/BGA investigation. "I had intended, when the new president [of the county board of commissioners] was sworn in and the dust settled a little bit, to resign."
Who is going to believe this, especially from an ethics board chair who refused to deal publicly with his own possible conflict of interest? This sort of disdain for the public and refusal to deal responsibly with conflicts has no place on a government ethics body.
Who Should Sit on an Ethics Commission, and Who Should Nominate Them?
The underlying question is whether Pikarski had any place on the board of ethics. Should an attorney who argues before county bodies, and whose livelihood depends on his relationship with county officials, sit on a board that provides oversight over those same county officials? How can the decisions of such a body be trusted by the public? After all, this is not a rural county, where every lawyer is somehow involved in county affairs. This is the second most populous county in the United States. Few lawyers there have anything to do with the county government.
The ethics ordinance (§4.1(b)) prohibits ethics board members from having "a financial interest in any work or business of or official action by the County," but this does not seem to cover those representing people who have such interests. This could be taken care of by adding the words "direct or indirect" after the word "interest." This would keep off the ethics board lawyers whose clients have business with the county. The lawyer's livelihood depends on county action just as much as the client.
In addition, ethics board members, their immediate family, and their businesses should not be permitted to make contributions to any county candidate. The ethics ordinance prohibits an ethics board member only from managing a political campaign, but appearances of impropriety hardly stop at the line of managing a campaign.
Third, the county board of commissioners should relinquish its role in nominating ethics board members. As in Atlanta and other jurisdictions, community groups should nominate ethics board members. And there should be clear guidelines about possible conflicts to look for in considering candidates.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
It is, therefore, painful to see the chair of a major county board of ethics refusing to even speak to the press about his own possible conflict of interest. You can see it, too, in a video at the WGN-TV website.
This January 17 video is part of a a joint investigation of the newly elected assessor, Joseph Berrios, by WGN-TV, Chicago magazine and the Better Government Association (BGA), one of BGA's many joint investigations of ethical misconduct in the Chicago area and Illinois. Chicago magazine ran a long article about Berrios in October.
What was WGN asking the Cook County (IL) ethics board chair about? According to the WGN report, over the last two decades, the law firm in which the ethics board chair, John Pikarski, Jr, is one of the two name partners (and four of the firm's six lawyer have the name Pikarski), has donated thousands of dollars to the campaigns of Joseph Berrios, who is up before the board of ethics on allegations of nepotism. Pikarski is a property tax attorney, whose firm does substantial business before the Board of Review, where Berrios served as commissioner for 22 years, until just elected county assessor. His firm's clients got back millions in property tax reductions from the Board of Review.
The appearance of a conflict here is extremely strong, certainly strong enough to require Pikarski either to recuse himself or to answer questions about his relationship with Berrios. But Pikarski apparently refused to even look at the press, not to mention answer their questions.
And then, according to a Chicago Tribune article last week, he resigned not only from his chairmanship, but from the board of ethics. His explanation? His decision had "nothing whatsoever" to do with the WGN/Chicago/BGA investigation. "I had intended, when the new president [of the county board of commissioners] was sworn in and the dust settled a little bit, to resign."
Who is going to believe this, especially from an ethics board chair who refused to deal publicly with his own possible conflict of interest? This sort of disdain for the public and refusal to deal responsibly with conflicts has no place on a government ethics body.
Who Should Sit on an Ethics Commission, and Who Should Nominate Them?
The underlying question is whether Pikarski had any place on the board of ethics. Should an attorney who argues before county bodies, and whose livelihood depends on his relationship with county officials, sit on a board that provides oversight over those same county officials? How can the decisions of such a body be trusted by the public? After all, this is not a rural county, where every lawyer is somehow involved in county affairs. This is the second most populous county in the United States. Few lawyers there have anything to do with the county government.
The ethics ordinance (§4.1(b)) prohibits ethics board members from having "a financial interest in any work or business of or official action by the County," but this does not seem to cover those representing people who have such interests. This could be taken care of by adding the words "direct or indirect" after the word "interest." This would keep off the ethics board lawyers whose clients have business with the county. The lawyer's livelihood depends on county action just as much as the client.
In addition, ethics board members, their immediate family, and their businesses should not be permitted to make contributions to any county candidate. The ethics ordinance prohibits an ethics board member only from managing a political campaign, but appearances of impropriety hardly stop at the line of managing a campaign.
Third, the county board of commissioners should relinquish its role in nominating ethics board members. As in Atlanta and other jurisdictions, community groups should nominate ethics board members. And there should be clear guidelines about possible conflicts to look for in considering candidates.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
