It was beyond exasperating that Ald. Edward Burke, 14th, was fined a feeble $2,000 for exerting “improper influence” to help win a $5.5 million taxpayer subsidy for a client of his private law firm.
You know what was worse? Learning that the Chicago Board of Ethics had thrown the book at him.
That $2,000, announced May 1, was the maximum penalty the board could levy. Why bother?
Of course, Burke is in much hotter water with federal prosecutors, who slapped him May 30 with a 14-count racketeering indictment, alleging multiple ways in which he’d abused his position to steer business to his law firm. That’s on top of a January charge that he tried to extort the owners of a Burger King in his ward by holding up a driveway permit. If convicted, he could go to prison for decades.
But ethical violations ought to carry meaningful consequences too. And now is the time to see that they do, with Burke’s troubles unfolding before an increasingly angry public and a new mayor who promised to end self-dealing by public servants.
With that in mind, the Board of Ethics drafted dozens of proposed changes to the city’s ethics laws and sent them last week to Mayor Lori Lightfoot and all 50 aldermen.
The headliner: Ethics scofflaws could now draw a fine of up to $20,000 — or higher if the board could put a price tag on the financial benefit gained from the violation.
The board noted that Chicago’s fines are “among the lowest of its big city peers.” New York can impose fines of $25,000, and Honolulu, Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco can levy up to three times the financial benefit.
Curiously, a short list of proposed ethics reforms released Wednesday by Lightfoot calls for a maximum $5,000 fine. That still feels like a rap on the knuckles.
Lightfoot also wants to give the city inspector general authority to audit City Council committees, eliminating a carve-out that allowed Burke’s Finance Committee to run the $100 million-a-year disability program without oversight. Aldermen will have a hard time arguing with that.
Both the mayor and the ethics board propose limiting aldermen from holding outside jobs that conflict with city interests. High on that list: tax appeals attorney.
The board’s draft is broader than the mayor's, meant not just to curb corruption, but to address the everyday questions raised by city officials and employees seeking to stay within ethical boundaries.
It includes explicit language about what constitutes a conflict of interest, and what to do if you have one. For aldermen, this means disclosing the conflict publicly, refraining from discussing or debating the measure and leaving the room during committee hearings on the matter. (Looking at you again, Ald. Burke.)
Another proposed amendment would prohibit elected officials and employees from leveraging public clout for private gain, monetary or otherwise — by threatening to block approval of an admission fee increase at the Field Museum, say, to secure an internship for a friend’s daughter.
These are all things you might have heard about and wondered, why isn’t that against the law? But the proposal also includes some lesser (still important) items.
Remember when the Chicago Cubs were headed to the World Series and the team offered aldermen face-value tickets while the rest of us were looking at four digits on StubHub? The ethics board eventually explained that there’s a problem with accepting a perk like that from an organization with a lot of unfinished business before the City Council. The board’s proposal would codify that ruling, in case some people didn’t get the message.
The draft also addresses the awkward question of how much an employee can contribute toward a boss’ birthday present (with emphasis on the word “voluntary”). This doesn’t stem from complaints about the sort of pass-the-hat culture for which Cook County Clerk of Courts Dorothy Brown is famous, said Steve Berlin, the ethics board’s executive director. It’s just that gift-giving is high on the ethics board’s FAQ list, and policing office parties really shouldn’t be so complicated.
There are also some housekeeping matters — making it clear that candidates for office are subject to the same rules as incumbents running for reelection, for example — and some hard sells, such as limiting campaign contributions by labor unions.
And there’s this friendly reminder, in writing: City workers can’t accept tips for doing their jobs.
In a telling acknowledgment that enough is finally enough, the draft proposal features a bright red line through the “aspirational” code of conduct contained in the current ethics ordinance. That code reminds city officials and employees to do a full day’s work for a full day’s pay, to do their jobs without preferential treatment to anyone or benefit to themselves, to protect taxpayer money and property, and to report those who don’t.
Delete it, the ethics board says.
“Board members felt it weakens the perception that ethics are taken seriously,” Berlin said. “The substantive parts are elsewhere in the ordinance. The thought was, make it enforceable or take it out.”
That makes sense. A new-and-improved ethics ordinance has to be clear about the rules and sternly unforgiving about the penalties.
It’s time Chicago stopped acting like ethical behavior is just a suggestion.
Marie Dillon is director of policy for the Better Government Association.