River Forest board set to approve ethics bill

After more than a year of debate, Dudek-sponsored bill to be tossed out

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

By Ben Meyerson

Chicago Journal Editor

River Forest's village board was set to approve a new ethics ordinance Tuesday night, creating a new set of rules and guidelines to operate under.

But like many issues in the village, it's likely to be a contentious battle. Minority board member Steve Dudek was charged for more than a year with creating an ethics bill. And every few months he would briefly discuss his progress — first in the health and legal committee meetings he headed, then before the board itself this summer.

His efforts to get a bill passed, though, came to a head and failed at the board's last meeting in September. There, he forced the issue, presenting a slightly altered version of the same bill he'd been pushing since the beginning of the process, based off of northwest suburban Park Ridge's lengthy ethics ordinance.

Dudek asked for a straight up-or-down vote on his bill, but was shot down by everyone else on the board, save for Trustee Steve Hoke, Dudek's fellow minority board member.

Instead, the board's majority decided to go with a proposal from Trustee Susan Conti: A simpler, more straightforward set of ethics rules adopted from the town of Wendell, N.C., but which needed to be rewritten with some legalese from a legally unbinding policy into an ordinance.

Tuesday night, Conti's gussied-up ordinance was on the agenda for discussion and vote, and discussions with board members before the meeting suggested that her bill was set to be passed. The meeting occurred after this paper went to press on Tuesday, since it was delayed from Monday because of the Columbus Day holiday.

"As far as I'm concerned, it should be passable as it's written," Conti said in an interview Monday.

She originally suggested the Wendell bill because the Park Ridge ordinance was overly complex. While that was partially a factor of it being a non-binding policy, the village attorney's rewriting of the bill into a legally-binding ordinance hasn't made it less clear, she said.

"The beauty of this bill is that we can all read it and understand it," Conti said. "What has to happen with an ethics ordinance is that the board members and the committee members — as well as the citizens — have to understand what it says, because it applies to them."

But Hoke said he wasn't sold on the new bill, and hoped it wasn't passed Tuesday night.

"If it got rushed through with limited debate, I'd be very disappointed, after ours got held up for two years," Hoke said.

Hoke and Dudek have both said they're hoping to have an ethics ordinance on the books before the end of this year, before the controversial Lake and Lathrop development comes before the board looking for TIF dollars. But it's also important to have the right bill, Hoke said.

"I think it's important that we have something, but I think it's something we have to live with for a long time," he said. "I think we need to spend more time going over it in detail, but my first impression is that it's ethics lite. During the last campaign cycle, everyone said they wanted a stronger bill, and this isn't it."

Trustee Jim Winikates, though, was the only majority trustee on Dudek's legal committee when it was tasked with creating an ethics bill, and has been one of the few trustees to provide feedback on the ordinance at every turn.

Having seen Dudek's set of ethics rules since its inception, he said he likes Conti's bill better.

"I think it's more comprehensive — I think it covers a lot of things that the Steve Dudek version did not," Winikates said Monday. "As a member of the health and legal committee, I don't think it ever got the attention to detail it needed."

And since the bill is shorter and more readable, Winikates said he simply doesn't think Conti's bill needs the same kind of scrutiny that Dudek's longer proposal did.

"It really covers everything in the Steve Dudek ordinance," he said. "It's three pages long. Discussion on something like this tomorrow night, I'm sure can be handled in depth."

Love the Journal?

Become our partner in independent community journalism

Thanks for turning to Wednesday Journal and OakPark.com. We love our thousands of digital-only readers. Now though we're asking you to partner up in paying for our reporters and photographers who report this news. It had to happen, right?

On the plus side, we're giving you a simple way, and a better reason, to join in. We're now a non-profit -- Growing Community Media -- so your donation is tax deductible. And signing up for a monthly donation, or making a one-time donation, is fast and easy.

No threats from us. The news will be here. No paywalls or article countdowns. We're counting on an exquisite mix of civic enlightenment and mild shaming. Sort of like public radio.

Claim your bragging rights. Become a digital member.

Donate Now

Reader Comments

2 Comments - Add Your Comment

Note: This page requires you to login with Facebook to comment.

Comment Policy

Ben Meyerson  

Posted: October 13th, 2010 12:40 PM

Mr. Serpico, I invite you to read my last article on the ethics bill: http://oakpark.com/News/Articles/09-28-2010/River_Forest_ethics_bill_shot_down_in_flames

Ronald Serpico  

Posted: October 13th, 2010 7:27 AM

Hey Ben Meyerson, did a tingle run up your leg while Susan Conti was proposing her ordinance? Your bias is obvious.

Facebook Connect

Answer Book 2019

To view the full print edition of the Wednesday Journal 2019 Answer Book, please click here.

Quick Links

Sign-up to get the latest news updates for Oak Park and River Forest.

MultimediaContact us
Submit Letter To The Editor
Place a Classified Ad