Board of Ethics

“Where People Count” 1000 Civic Center Drive, Niles, Illinois 60714 Telephone (847) 588-8000 ● Fax (847) 588-8051 ● TDD (847) 588-8059 Mayor Robert M. Callero Trustees Chris Hanusiak MINUTES James T. Hynes BOARD OF ETHICS Joe LoVerde Village Hall, Council Chambers Louella B. Preston Andrew Przybylo February 16, 2010 – 6:00 p.m. Alan Weel The Board of Ethics meeting was held on Tuesday, February 16, 2010, at the Village Village Manager George R. Van Geem Hall. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Acting Chair Preston. Village Clerk Present: Also Present: Marlene J. Victorine Acting Chair Trustee Louella Preston Rob Kurfirst, CCPC Chairman Attorney Joseph Annunzio Mike Cielinski Attorney Mike Siegel Doug Bressler Michael Fries Karen Amato Citizens Compliance Plan Comm. Absent: George Van Geem, Village Manager Trustee Joe LoVerde, Chairman Chris Hanusiak, Trustee Approval of Minutes Attorney Siegel made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fries, to approve the minutes of the January 19, 2010, meeting; on voice vote all concurred. Mr. Fries made a motion, seconded by Attorney Annunzio, to approve the minutes of the February 6, 2010, special meeting; on voice vote all concurred. Review of Comments from Citizens Compliance Plan Committee (CCPC) regarding Sections 6-12 of Proposed Ethics Code Acting Chair Preston went on to read questions submitted by the Board of Ethics and answers from the CCPC. There was discussion under section 8, Rob Kurfirst stated that the CCPC were unable to distinguish what is ethical and non-ethical, that is why a zero tolerance policy would be the best solution. Rob Kurfirst stated that training under section 9, in the third level should not be eliminated. Discussion was continued under section 10, Rob Kurfirst stated that the CCPC is only an advisory body, but they have also been given responsibility to review and request documents involving putting together the compliance plan. On behalf of the CCPC, Rob Kurfirst mentioned, we are responsible for compliance until such has been put in place. Acting Chair Preston stated that the CCPC has not been given any authority as far as being a compliance officer, that individual is the Village Attorney. Rob Kurfirst stated that the CCPC understands that they have no binding authority, but if the CCPC will come across something that needed attention it will be brought to the Board of Ethics attention. Attorney Siegel mentioned that any citizen has the ability to file a complaint. Rob www.vniles.com  Board of Ethics Meeting, February 16, 2010 Kurfirst responded with a concern that if we are going to send a message that the CCPC has no authority, we might be met with resistance when asking for documents from various departments, Boards or Commissions. Rob Kurfirst stated that the CCPC’s responsibility is to review documents and bring it to the Board of Ethics with certain conditions of authority. Discussions led to the agreement to dispense with the “Kappy Clause,” under section 10. Acting Chair Preston questioned the bad faith element in section 11. Rob Kurfirst responded that Attorneys Annunzio and Siegel advised the CCPC to keep this provision in as it is standard. Rob Kurfirst stated that under section 12, as it pertains to enforcement and penalties, the CCPC would like to see a blend of the Attorney Generals Model Ethics Ordinance and the Niles Code of Ethics. This would create a nuance as to handling certain situations in-house rather than publicly. The first review of the Niles Code of Ethics has come to an end; Attorney Annunzio would like to thank the CCPC for their time and effort in this first draft. Acting Chair Preston would like to express her thanks to the CCPC for their immense time and heart that was put into this document, by all the different components. Public comment was made by Trustee Hanusiak that more members are needed for the CCPC. Rob Kurfirst extended this comment as well as thanked Trustee Hanusiak for contributing to the first draft. As a note Trustee Hanusiak has since been appointed Trustee to the Village Board as of January 26, 2010. The next meeting date will be set in the near future pending a compiled version of the Niles Code of Ethics with questions and answers, which have been discussed for the last couple of months. Executive Session Motion made by Mr. Fries to move into executive session, to discuss a complaint received and the pending investigation, seconded by Attorney Siegel; on voice vote all concurred. Motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Fries, seconded by Attorney Annunzio, all concurred and the meeting adjourned at 7:32 p.m. Kathy M. Thake Board of Ethics Secretary 2  Attachment A DATE: February 5, 2010 TO: Niles Citizens Compliance Plan Committee SUBJECT: Comments/Questions related to Sections 6-12 of the Proposed Code of Ethics Section 6 - Whistle Blowers Protection  Pages 15-16: How is an alleged violation initiated? How is it adjudicated? Will an administrative law judge be appointed? Do the rules of evidence and civil procedure apply? Section 7 – Additional Ethical Principles for All Elected Officials and Appointed Officials  Page 17, C: what is a “close economic association”? Section 8 – Ethical Principles for Persons with Legislative Interest or Who are Close Economic Associates of Elected Officials, Appointed Officials, or Employees  Page 17, A, last sentence: How can this Code bind the conduct of a non elected/appointed official or employee?  Page 17, B: Is there not any situation where a direct or indirect economic opportunity or economic benefit is earned, meritorious or otherwise legal? Section 9 – Ethics Training  Page 18: Who decides if more training or in-service training is required?  Page 18: Is a third level of training by department director’s necessary? Could this lead to inconsistent interpretations and applications of the Code? Section 10 – Miscellaneous Provisions  Page 18, A: Is this section necessary? Doesn’t every citizen have the authority and every elected/appointed official and employee have the responsibility to identify non- compliance? Hasn’t a procedure already been adopted?  Page 18, B: Is this section necessary? In what circumstances would the Village Attorney give “notice” of a “possible” Code violation?  Sec 6-12 Code of Ethics Comments  Page 18, C: By implementation does the committee mean training given? Implementation seems to be more related to the enactment of an ordinance adopting the Code.  Page 19, D: Can sections C and D be combined?  Page 19, E: If this is already state law does it need to be included in the Code? Section 11 – Abuse of the Code of Ethics  Page 19, A 1 & 2: Why is there a need for a bad faith element? Isn’t it enough that a false report was intentionally made? Section 12 – Enforcement and Penalties  Pages 19 – 20: Would the committee consider using section 25 of the Illinois Attorney General’s Model Ethics Ordinance?  Page 19, A 2: Remove any reporting mechanism to the Citizens Compliance Committee. The Committee is advisory and has no binding authority whatever. 2 DATE: February 11, 2010 TO: Board of Ethics FROM: Citizen Compliance Plan Committee SUBJECT: Sections 6-12 of the Citizens’ Draft of the Ethics Code / CCPC Replies Our responses to your inquiries are presented below: Sect. 6 – Defer to Illinois statutes re: whistle-blower protection and adjudication. An alternative would be to expand the Board of Ethics’ responsibilities to include adjudication of whistle- blower cases. Sect. 7 – Re: the adjective “close” before “economic association”, we already have determined earlier in this document that this adjective is imprecise and should be eliminated or made more specific. Sect. 8 – Re: 17A – language is specific – “soliciting’, “accepting”, and “retaining” all refer to the receiver of unethical benefits. Nothing here implicates the giver, i.e. the non-employee offering such benefits. Re: 17B – We agree that legal opportunities for gain are likely to arise, but still maintain our posture of recommending “zero tolerance” to minimize opportunities for unethical behavior. Standard of “reasonable person” is available in the language of this section of the ordinance. Sect. 9 Training: – Decisions about training should be made by Board of Ethics and/or Village Manager. – Third level of training defended as follows: 1st level trains in the local ordinance; 2nd level is training in state and federal statutes; 3rd level is department-specific training, which we feel should be preserved. Sect. 10 – Misc. 18A – CCPC authority to identify ethical violations and Sect. 12 (Enforcement/Penalties) 19A. CCPC reporting mechanism. Objections cite CCPC’s “advisory” authority as “non-binding authority”, however the CCPC also has responsibility to review relevant compliance documents and to advise about their possible revision and about their coordination into a broader compliance plan. In the process we may identify ethical “grey areas” or areas of outright non-compliance and, until the appointment of a village compliance officer, we as a committee assume the duty of reporting such difficulties to the Board of Ethics. We recommend the village begin to plan for the creation of an office of compliance and the appointment of a compliance officer, even though completion of the compliance plan is still many months away. Re: 18B: Village attorney gives notice of possible Code violations every time the Board of Ethics goes into executive session to receive Hotline updates. Re: 18C – More than training involved in “implementation”: also includes regular/annual updates of employee manual and departmental operating procedures. R: 19 C and D: they can be combined Re: 19E: Redundancy here in the “Kappy Clause” can probably be dispensed with Re: Section 11 (Abuse of Ethics Code) “Bad Faith” inclusions – both lawyers present at our meeting indicated that this should stay because it can be used to differentiate retaliatory and/or politically-motivated actions from more benign violations Re: 19-20 (Enforcement/Penalties) The CCPC defends its own schedule of enforcement options against Section 2 of the AG’s model ordinance because it (a) differentiates public and non- public disciplinary procedures and (b) coordinates different levels of ethical transgression with different levels of punishment. Compiled by Rob Kurfirst