Evanston Ethics Board Rules Alderman Abused Power, Violated Code

EVANSTON, IL — The Board of Ethics found Evanston's senior alderman abused her power in violation of the city's ethics code. Ald. Ann Rainey, 8th Ward, also violated the code's requirement that city officials be impartial and should be recused from voting on the future of the Harley Clarke mansion, according to unanimous votes from the Board of Ethics.

The board also found Rainey did not engage in any prohibited fundraising or lobbying activities, did not represent private interests before a city body and did not use city property for prohibited political activity. City staff will prepare the board's non-binding findings containing three counts of ethics violations for presentation to the City Council's Rules Committee, chaired by 1st Ward Ald. Judy Fiske, which may choose to recommend sanctions or ignore the findings altogether.

"When are you representing a private interest versus just taking a position as an alderman?" asked board Chair Jennifer Billingsly. "And that's where I wasn't willing to say that this has gone so far that she is basically a lobbyist, but I am willing to say that the whole gestalt of it is that she is no longer impartial."

Rainey faced two ethics complaints related to her advocacy on behalf of the Evanston Lighthouse Dunes group, which has contracted with the city to donate $400,000 in exchange for the city's pursuit of the demolition of the Harley Clarke mansion and coach house, a vacant landmark owned by the city whose future has been the subject of years of debate.

The City Council approved the deal with the group in July, it was signed in August and the city subsequently sought a certificate from the Preservation Commission to allow for the building to be demolished. Advocates of demolition argue keeping the building is too costly, while supporters of preservation suggest the landmark is more of an asset than a liability.

In the first complaint filed against the alderman, Nancy Sreenan objected to Rainey's forwarding of an email to members of the City Council to members of the Dunes group, who she said proceeded "denigrate" her. The board found Rainey did not violate the code by merely forwarding the email but acted impartially by disparaging Sreenan in subsequent email conversations with a leading Dunes group member.

In the second complaint, Clare Kelly and Lori Keenan contended that Rainey violated provisions in the ethics code regarding "prohibited political activities," in addition to abuse of power and not acting impartially.

Read full ethics complaints against Ald. Ann Rainey »

At an Oct. 16 jurisdictional hearing, the ethics board decided it did not have jurisdictions over the portions of Kelly and Keenan's complaint alleging violations of state law, including "intimidation by a public official" for approaching Keenan during a public hearing and telling her, "F--- you," and later warning, "Don't mess with me," in the hallway. During that meeting, which cleared an advisory referendum on Harley Clarke for the Nov. 6 ballot, Rainey refused to recuse herself from hearing an objection from her former campaign manager, pointing out she could be replaced by Fiske, who she described as an "even bigger advocate" of demolition than herself.

"The mocking of a constituent, the use of a city email for fundraising, the use of city email to advocate, the use of profanity and aggressive language, the releasing of information otherwise requiring a FOIA request, the actively and disruptively avoiding alternate viewpoints while in a voting position and maintaining a voting position in light of the above described activities, all combined, give the appearance of a conflict of interest and lack of impartiality that we expect under the City of Evanston Code of Ethics relating to pending legislative issues, and find that Ald. Rainey has violated," the code's requirement of impartiality, said ethics board member Karena Bierman in a motion. It was approved by a vote of 4-0, with member Vincent Thomas absent. Rainey was found to have failed to remain impartial in both cases, and a motion finding an abuse of power in the second complaint was also approved unanimously.

During the hearing, Rainey explained why she forwarded Sreenan's June 4 email, which described demolition efforts as a "wealth-fueled, uninspired and likely self serving proposal." It was sent to Mayor Steve Hagerty, City Manager Wally Bobkiewicz, every Evanston alderman and copies to Evanston Lakehouse and Gardens, a nonprofit group whose efforts to lease the mansion had been opposed by demolition advocates.

"When I read that letter, I was so astonished at how vehemently anti-[Evanston Lighthouse Dunes] the person writing the letter displayed her anger and just nastiness," Rainey said. "I thought, 'Oh my God, these people need to know what people are saying about them,' because I didn't realize there was such hatred or disgust out there."

Rainey described demolition supporters as a "rag-tag group of people" with "no organizational structure." She said she was the most only non-homeowner on the City Council and wanted to support the city's philanthropic class, which is responsible for so much good work in Evanston. She said she only raised $300 on behalf of the effort, $100 of which was her own, and only sent one email soliciting donations for the group.

"I wish I could have gotten more," she said. "But I had other things to do."

In response to the ruling, Sreenen said it appeared the board was more concerned with Rainey's form that her conduct. She said even though her email may have been a public record under the Freedom of Information Act, it would not have been accessible to the Dunes group without a request.

"I'm glad they found that she lacked impartiality because she was disrespectful, but I'm disappointed that they failed to recognize the collusion Rainey exhibited with the demolition group by forwarding my email," Sreenan said. "I believe that the ethics code itself failed us. It is written with the intent of preventing direct personal gain by an official or an employee, and it does not anticipate the corrosive role of money in politics that has befallen us nationally and locally – that the wealthy donors of the teardown are weaponizing their philanthropy" by warning aldermen to vote for the group's demolition proposal under threat of withdrawing contributions to the Robert Crown Community Center, Youth Opportunity United or other groups, she said, citing an email from philanthropist and demolition financier Chuck Lewis.

Lewis, who lives about 500 yards north of the mansion, previously told Patch the City Council "did its job" by approving the agreement to demolish the building.

"It's time for the City Council to move beyond what is a frivolous matter, relative to the other major issues in the city," Lewis said. "It's actually embarrassing."

Rainey was represented by Elmhurt Alderman Scott Levin at the meeting. He said rudeness was not an ethical violation and it is normal for politicians to advocate for different policy positions.

"You cannot stop people from doing their legislative work. Otherwise, it's not going to happen," Levin said. "This board shouldn't place itself in the mode of superseding council and decide the merits of the underlying issue of whether a mansion should be torn town or not."

Levin was the second lawyer and current or former municipal representative retained by Rainey at an ethics board meeting. Former Evanston Ald. Art Newman earlier argued on her behalf the board did not have jurisdiction over the matter. City Attorney Michelle Masoncup last month informed Rainey the city will cover all associated fees and costs associated with the complaints because it "implicates" the alderman's legislative duties and it would be a conflict of interest for the law department, which must advise the ethics board. Masoncup said the decision to pay for an attorney was "not discretionary." (According to public records obtained by Patch, the only alderman to charge the city for a lawyer in order to answer charges before the ethics board in the past decade is Fiske, who billed $3,150 from December 2011 to June 2012. Several other aldermen have faced ethics complaints during this period. Ald. Rue Simmons also retained counsel for the ethics board proceedings, according to Masoncup, but there are no records Rue Simmons billed the city any attorney fees.)

Jeff Smith, representing Kelly before the board, said Rainey had crossed the line by becoming an agent for the Dunes group.

"It's the difference between raising money for an established charity that's not yet formed and using the office in a way that's partial. The informal lobbying is evident throughout the emails," Smith said, suggesting that Rainey was seeking to undermine lease negotiations with the Lakehouse and Gardens group before the demolition offer was made public. He said a judge who behaved as Rainey did at the electoral board hearing would be suspended, at the very least.

"When an alderman leans on you for money or an alderman tries to get a citizen to back off and forfeit their constitutional rights to speak up, there's an implicit or else when you say 'Don't mess with me,'" Smith argued.

Rainey has declined repeated interview requests regarding the allegations. She said previously she was unable to comment on the allegations until after the hearings and has not responded to a request for an interview or provided any further comment after the completion of the hearings.

Kelly said she would have preferred a ruling that found the agreement with the demolition supportors be voided, given the “abundant evidence of partiality and abuse of power from at least one” City Council member. She described the ruling as “long overdue” and said the entire process with the Dunes group had been “tainted with improprieties.”

“I am especially pleased that the Board of Ethics is recommending that Anne Rainey be recused from any further participation as an alderman in the decision making and voting on the Harley Clarke mansion,” Kelly said. “I believe this ethics ruling, if followed by council, will help to restore the public’s faith in government and process.”

Ethics board member Elizabeth Gustafson said there was a difference between ethics and the letter of the law.

"While maybe the behavior isn't considered illegal, I find under these cases of [Sreenan, Kelly and Keenan's complaints] that the behavior was unethical," Gustafson said. “So I have to stand by that."

Related:

• Evanston Alderman Accused Of Multiple Ethics Violations
• Preservation Commission Rejects Harley Clarke Demolition Request
• Harley Clarke Referendum Cleared To Appear On November Ballot
• Harley Clarke Mansion Demolition Donation Deal Signed
• Aldermen Approve Amended Harley Clarke Demolition Agreement