A Miscellany
<b>Targeting Ethics Reform</b><br>
In May, I wrote <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/cook-county-ethics-reform-proposal&qu…; target="”_blank”">a
blog post</a> about ethics reforms proposed by a Cook County (IL)
commissioner. I felt they didn't have much chance of passing.<br>
<br>
Lo and behold, according to <a href="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-09-13/news/ct-met-cook-county-b…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the Chicago <i>Tribune</i> this week</a>, these reforms passed the
Board's finance committee unanimously, and they'll be voted on by the
Board today.<br>
<br>
Did I give the Cook County Board too little credit, or was I simply too
naive?<br>
<br>
Luckily, I wasn't alone in wondering this. <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-ethics-20…; target="”_blank”">A
Chicago <i>Tribune</i> editorial</a>
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?"<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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."<br>
<br>
<b>Elected Officials With Outstanding Campaign Loans</b><br>
Necessity is the mother of invention in government ethics, just as it
is everywhere. According to <a href="http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_15987710?nclick_check=1" target="”_blank”">a
column
in the Contra Costa <i>Times</i> last Saturday</a>, 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.<br>
<br>
And that's not all. <span id="default"><span id="CCT_Article">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 </span></span><span id="default"><span id="CCT_Article">$194,739 to go, as of June 30.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---