The River Forest Ethics Commission Jan. 5 took steps toward dismissing conflict of interest charges made in a complaint by a resident against four members of the village Development Review Board (DRB) stemming from a controversial request by the River Forest Tennis Club to install lights.
The complaint, by resident Paul Harding, was the first to be filed after the village board revised the ethics ordinance in July. That action followed filing of a conflict-of-interest complaint against a member of the village’s Economic Development Commission in January.
However, in announcing their decision Jan. 5, Ethics Commission members Rebecca DeGroff and Ross Lissuzzo suggested fine-tuning the conflict-of-interest section of the revised ethics ordinance. The third member, Greg Ignoffo, who is chair, did not attend the meeting.
The committee’s decision will be forwarded as a recommendation to the village board for consideration, which is expected at the Jan. 12 meeting, according to Matt Walsh, village administrator.
Per the ordinance, the decision announced Jan. 5 will not be considered to be final until the announcement is transcribed and signed by DeGroff and Lissuzzo, Lance Malina, village attorney, said.
The Jan. 5 meeting was the second meeting held by the Ethics Commission on Harding’s filing, which contained four separate complaints and was made in November.
At the first meeting, held Dec. 2, two of those complaints were determined to be subject to further review. Dismissed as not being under the jurisdiction of the commission were complaints relating to the truthfulness of the Tennis Club’s application and whether the DRB was the appropriate body to review the application.
In his complaint, Harding said four of the seven members of the DRB, Elias Yanaki, Maryanne Fishman, Jane McCole and Ron Lucchesi, were in violation of the ethics ordinance because they also are tennis club members. As such, they are part-owners of the club and have a financial conflict of interest, he said.
On Jan. 5 Malina explained his interpretation of the conflict-of-interest section of the ethics code.
“Members of a control group are not the same as members,” he said. “Membership does not create a conflict of interest per se.”
DeGroff questioned why DRB members were not advised of the wording of the ethics ordinance as it applies to conflict of interest.
“It smells bad,” she said. “It doesn’t seem right.”
Following an executive session that lasted 45 minutes, the ethics commission, however, dismissed the complaint against Fishman, McCole and Lucchesi, “based on the village attorney’s interpretation of the ethics code and related advice given to the DRB.”
In his complaint, Harding singled out Yanaki for serving as the proposal’s applicant and giving a 30-minute presentation at the November DRB public hearing, which he said is a “clear violation” of the ethics ordinance.
On Jan. 5, Yanaki defended himself from the accusation in a detailed statement. Citing multiple communications with various village staff members, he contended that he was never told until after the November DRB public hearing that he should not have made the presentation. He also pointed out that he had recused himself to avoid a conflict of interest.
“I recused myself from the very beginning,” he said. “Ethics is critically important to me.”
Malina acknowledged not advising Yanaki against giving the presentation at the public hearing saying he was “under the impression” that somebody else would act as the club representative.
The ethics commission ruled that Yanaki’s presentation at the DRB public hearing was “inconsistent” with the ethics ordinance but did not sustain the complaint “based on the full record of this case including … his communications with village staff.”
DeGroff and Lissuzzo suggested that the ethics ordinance be fine-tuned regarding conflict of interest.
“Going forward we believe our community wants village-covered individuals to err on the side of caution and recuse themselves in the future in this type of situation,” they said. “To the extent the ethics code is not clear, we want to explore whether such changes can be added legally if at all and, if so, amend the code to provide such clarity.”
After the meeting, Harding accepted the findings.
“I think it’s a reasonable outcome,” he said. “They did acknowledge that the ethics ordinance needs improvement.
“In my opinion, it’s a moral victory. In other words, I was happy.”
The controversy began at a DRB public hearing in November on the Tennis Club’s request, filed in September, to install lights on the courts at 615 Lathrop Ave. That hearing had such a large turnout, it was scheduled for continuation. However, tennis club officials first revised their application, then later withdrew it, leaving the proposal in limbo.
