An Ethics Board Chair Who Should Not Have Been on the Board Refuses to Discuss His Own Conflict
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.<br>
<br>
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 href="http://www.wgntv.com/news/coverstory/wgntv-berrios-investigation-jan17,…; target="”_blank”">a
video at the WGN-TV website</a>.<br>
<br>
This January 17 video is part of a <a href="http://www.bettergov.org/ethical_questions_arise_about_cook_county_ethi…; target="”_blank”">a
joint investigation</a> of the newly elected assessor, Joseph Berrios,
by WGN-TV, <i>Chicago</i> magazine and the<a href="http://www.bettergov.org" target="”_blank”">
Better Government Association</a> (BGA), one of BGA's many joint
investigations of ethical misconduct in the Chicago area and Illinois.
<i>Chicago</i> magazine ran <a href="http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/October-2010/Joseph-Berrios-…; target="”_blank”">a
long article</a> about Berrios in October.<br>
<br>
What was WGN asking the <a href="http://www.co.cook.il.us/portal/server.pt/community/board_of_ethics/293…; target="”_blank”">Cook
County (IL) ethics board</a> chair about? According to the WGN report,
over the last two decades, <a href="http://www.gordonpikarski.com/" target="”_blank”">the
law firm</a> 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 <a href="http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/politics&id=7879356" target="”_blank”">up
before the board of ethics on allegations of nepotism</a>. 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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
And then, according to <a href="http://www.co.cook.il.us/portal/server.pt/community/board_of_ethics/293…; target="”_blank”">a
Chicago <i>Tribune</i> article</a> 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."<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<b>Who Should Sit on an Ethics Commission, and Who Should Nominate Them?</b><br>
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.<br>
<br>
The <a href="http://www.cookcountygov.com/Agencies/cc_ethics_ord_051804.pdf" target="”_blank”">ethics ordinance</a> (§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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Third, the county board of commissioners should relinquish its role in
nominating ethics board members. <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/770" target="”_blank”">As in Atlanta and other
jurisdictions</a>, community groups should nominate ethics board
members. And there should be clear guidelines about possible conflicts
to look for in considering candidates.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---