Ethics Board Suggests Aldermen Shouldn't Vote To Exonerate Selves

EVANSTON, IL — The Evanston Board of Ethics plans to respond to a decision by the senior aldermen on the City Council to cast the deciding vote not to censure herself in response to the board's finding that she violated the city's code of ethics. All five members of the appointed advisory board appeared to agree Tuesday it was unethical for Ald. Ann Rainey to have taken part in a 5-4 vote at a Dec. 3 Rules Committee meeting on a finding that the 8th Ward aldermen abused her power and violated the code's requirements of impartiality.

Chair Jennifer Billingsly said she found Ald. Rainey's decision to cast a vote finding that the senior aldermen herself had violated the code of ethics was a "per se violation." Billingsly said it was a clear example of a prohibited conflict of interest, citing the ethics code.

"I believe the code of ethics prohibits voting on a matter concerning yourself, so if an alderman votes on a matter relating to herself she has violated the code of ethics," Billingsly said. "Our board ought to state to the City Council that voting on a matter relating to yourself is a violation of the Code of Ethics as it's currently written. We ought to put them on notice that any time such a vote happens we're going to find that's a per se violation of the code of ethics and that we're recommending censure."

Rainey was found to have abused her power and failed to maintain impartiality in connection with her advocacy on behalf of the Evanston Lighthouse Dunes group, which sought to donate $400,000 of private funds in exchange for the demolition of the Harley Clarke mansion. Aldermen voted unanimously Dec. 10 to give up on the plan when they decided not to appeal the Historic Preservation Commission's decision to reject a certificate allowing the landmark to be razed.

In a Nov. 28 memo, City Manager Wally Bobkieiwcz and Corporation Counsel Michelle Masoncup told aldermen the only sanction allowed by City Council rules is a censure.

"Censure is the only option provided for in the Council Rules. The Board of Ethics issued an advisory opinion, which has no legal effect and cannot be enforced by the City Council," they said. The board's findings, including that Rainey should be recused from further votes on the subject, were merely advice for aldermen, according to staff. The memo cited rules saying any aldermen in violation of the code of ethics "may be censured" at any meeting by a majority vote. Unlike the "Rules and Organization of the City Council," the "Sanctions and Penalties" portion of the Evanston City Code's ethics section provides for multiple potential penalties for ethics violations that could be pursued by the law department and City Council.

"If there's an ethics complaint about any of us up here, there's nothing in the rules that prohibit us from voting on a complaint that is filed against us?" Hagerty asked the city attorney after Rainey effectively voted not to censure herself. Masoncup said there was not. "Alright, well if we're going to look at all the ethics rules we should look at that one too," the mayor said.

Rainey told Patch she has never financially gained in any way from her decades of service to the city and never violated any provision of the city's ethics ordinance.

"Why would I not vote in the rules committee? There were no issues regarding conflicts having to do with my outside employment or investments I've made or activities my relatives are invested in where a pecuniary interest could be claimed," Rainey said.

"I am able to vote on placing myself on a committee, I am able to vote on any matter having to do with my ward that would affect me very personally. I am able to vote on the Robert Crown project and give money to the cause as well as ask other for money to contribute to the construction of that project," she said. "If anyone is upset about my voting in the rules committee they should first read the code of ethics and Council rules."

RELATED: Evanston Ethics Board Rules Alderman Abused Power, Violated Code

Deputy City Attorney Mario Treto provided ethics board members with an update on the Rules Committee's response to its finding at the board's Dec. 18 meeting.

"At this point, the Rules Committee asked the staff to place on the Jan. 22 Rules Committee agenda a review of the Code of Ethics and Board of Ethics processes and procedures and we will be doing so accordingly," Treto said. "It'll be a comprehensive review."

Treto pointed out that the committee had not approved its minutes from the meeting, which would become the official report of action taken.

"We're not really responding to the report. We're responding to the fact," board member Karena Bierman.

Vincent Thomas said there was no reason to wait for the minutes to be approved.

"We're not voting on their minutes, we're voting on the action of the vote taken by the alderwoman," Thomas said. "We're making a comment about the action taken in public at a public meeting. I don't see how one has anything to do with the other."

Board member L.J. Ellul said she was there when the vote was taken and the room was "shocked and appalled" when Rainey voted.

Treto, the staff liaison for the ethics board, said it would be a violation of the Illinois Open Meetings Act for there to be a vote on any action in response to the item, since the agenda for the meeting only said "Update on the December 3, 2018 City Council Rules Committee Meeting,"

Bierman said she did not mind waiting until after the rules committee's next meeting Jan. 22, when its previous meeting's minutes due to be approved.

"I think everybody with two brain cells knows that you shouldn't be able to vote on an issue that pertains directly to them," she said. "I don't know that they need the board of ethics to tell them that."

Billingsly asked Treto to put the discussion and possible action of the rules committee's actions on the next agenda for the next meeting of the ethics board, which was then set for Jan. 29.

"Maybe by then someone will file a complaint about it," Bierman said.