Ethics Reform in Niles (IL): Don't Try This at Home
Almost two years ago, <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/614">I
wrote about</a> the self-serving nature of attempts at ethics reform in
the village of Niles, outside Chicago. A lot has happened since then,
but in terms of an ethics program, not much.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://niles.patch.com/articles/ethics-code-prohibits-gifts-requires-di…
article in the Niles <i>Patch</i></a>, in early October the village's board of
ethics agreed, in a 3-2 vote, to send its draft ethics code to the
village board, which could make changes to it or reject it entirely. We have to take the
<i>Patch</i>'s word for this, because the board of ethics' minutes are not yet
available on <a href="http://www.vniles.com/Content/templates/?a=2974">its
webpage</a>. The article summarizes the draft code, which is also not
available online.<br>
<br>
Getting to this point is very confusing. There is a board of ethics,
two ethics sub-committees (which haven't met in a year, according to <a href="http://www.vniles.com/Content/templates/?a=2991">their webpage</a>),
a citizens compliance plan committee (which was large and made of
citizens, but is also referred to as a subcommittee of the board of
ethics), an ethics committee (which has <a href="http://www.vniles.com/Content/templates/?a=207&cat=63">a news
page</a>, but apparently no reality), an
active village attorney and, of course, the village board and mayor. A
lot of chefs, and no meal.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://triblocal.com/niles/2010/11/02/outside-attorney-to-review-niles-… article in the Niles <i>Patch</i></a>, the ethics board
approved a draft ethics code in July, but the mayor and others amended
it, and the ethics board approved its original draft on October 5. The
mayor appears to have disagreed especially with the requirement that
officials disclose their real estate holdings in town. The ethics board
chair, who is a member of the village board, is quoted as saying about
this requirement, "You'll never get anyone to run for public office."<br>
<br>
When an ethics board chair says something that not only shows little
understanding of government ethics, but is also patently false,
considering the many hundreds of jurisdictions that require this and
have somehow managed not to turn into ghost towns, you know ethics
reform is in trouble.<br>
<br>
After the chair lost the vote, he insisted that the draft code be sent
to an independent outside attorney for review, according to <a href="http://triblocal.com/niles/2010/11/02/outside-attorney-to-review-niles-…
article in the <i>Trib Local</i></a>. The mayor says that the chair has the
authority to do this, despite the board's vote to send the draft code
directly to the village board.<br>
<br>
At least three of the five ethics board members are attorneys. One
wonders why another attorney's review would be helpful, especially if
that attorney is not a specialist in local government ethics, and there
aren't very many of those. An attorney without this knowledge is not
going to bring the proper perspective to such a review. This is
important because the attorney is being called independent, which will
give his recommendations extra value, even though he will be chosen by
someone who is (i) apparently close to the mayor, (ii) a member of the village board
himself, that is, someone who will be subject to the ethics code, and (iii) is apparently responsible, as ethics chair, for the failure to make the
draft code easily accessible to citizens, not to mention the failure to put
minutes online on a timely basis.<br>
<br>
Here is another example where elected officials turn ethics reform into
a political battlefield, provide too little transparency, and appear to
be self-serving. This is not the way to get ethics reform going, and it
does not form the basis for a successful, independent ethics program that will be trusted by citizens.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---