Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1989MINUTES BOARD OF ETHICS Meeting of April 27, 1989 Members Present: Dona Gerson, David Saunders, Joyce Schrager, Robert Shonk Members Absent: Bruce Hopple Presiding Official: Dona Gerson, Chair Staff Present: Joel M. Asprooth, City Manager Summary of Action: The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. in the Aldermanic Library of the Civic Center. Minutes - The Board reviewed the draft minutes of the meeting of March 2, 1989. Ms. Schrager moved, seconded by Mr. Saunders, to approve the minutes as submitted. Upon call for a voice vote - all ayes. Request from the Rules Committee for Further Revision to the Proposed Code of Ethics Amendment - The Chair called the attention of the Board to a memorandum she had sent to the Board dated April 19, 1989 concerning the reaction of the Rules Committee to the Report of the Board of Ethics concerning a comprehensive revision to the Code. She also noted that a legal opinion had been provided concerning certain questions raised and suggestions made during the discussion with the Rules Committee. The Chair noted that the Committee had suggested that the Code of Ethics be modified further to provide that nothing in the Code should be construed to preclude an elected official, who is an attorney, from representing a party in a quasi -criminal or criminal proceeding against the City in the Circuit Court of Cook County. The Chair noted that Corporation Counsel had :_ted an Illinois Supreme Court Case, as well as the Code of Professional Respersibility of the Legal Profession, in recommending against the suggested amentmerz. After some discussion, Ms. Schraaer *Waved, seconded by Mr. Shonk, to cony,-._ the Opinion of Corporation Counsel and not to recommend the amendment as s.:ogested. Uoon call for a voice vote - all ayes. The Chair again called the attention of the Board to her memora-7-im of April 19, noting that the Rules Committee had also requested that a seoa:ste ordinance be prepared relating to the Board of Trustees and the electe-_ _fficials of the Township, under which a provision would be incoroorated into Approar,at_:n Ordinance for the Townsnip that no funds would be prov;:�_- unless t~ese officials subscribed to the Code of Ethics. The Chair nctec � ct Ccraorat_on Counsel had determined that the Township Board of Trustees was hi:ncut authority to promulgate a Code of Ethics which would apply to the Tow -snip Supervisor, Collector, and Assessor, or their employees. After some discussion, the Board agreed to postpone th_s issue to the 'gay meeting. Board of Ethics Meeting of 4/27/89 -2- Review of Financial Disclosure Forms - The Board reviewed a number of Financial Disclosure Forms, filed by elected and appointed officials of the City of Evanston for 1989. Certain of those were identified as incomplete, and staff was directed to return them to the official for further information. Other Matters - Staff noted that an inquiry had been received from a recently elected Alderman, asking whether her membership on the Board of Directors of Koep Evanston Beautiful (which receives a small amount of funding from the City of Evanston each year) was a conflict with her Aldermanic office. After some discussion, the Board agreed that there was no conflict of interest involved in these two offices, but that the Alderman should abstain on any vote concerning an allocation to Keep Evanston Beautiful. Staff also noted that, in discussion at the first meeting of the Mayoral Task Force on the Commonwealth Edison electric franchise renewal, three members of the Task Force indicated that they personally, their spouse, or trusts to which they were beneficiaries and of which they were in control, held stock in the Commonwealth Edison Company. Staff reported that the members of the Task Force had been asked to complete the Financial Disclosure and Affiliation Statement, and asked whether there was any reason for the Board to review this matter. All members of the Board agreed that this matter presented a serious question for review by the Board. Mr. Saunders noted that the Evanston electric franchise is material to the Commonwealth Edison Company, in and of itself and in terms of the precedent it establishes for other such municipal franchises. He indicated that the ownership of stock in Commonwealth Edison by members of this Task Force, which was to advise the City on strategies and courses of action in negotiating a new franchise agreement, could present a serious conflict of interest. After some discussion with the staff, the Chair noted that there were varying degrees of stock ownership among these members of the Task Force, and wondered whether the ownership of one or two shares was to be considered of equal weight as someone who owned several thousand dollars worth of stock, Mr. Saunders suggested that it is difficult 4o draw the line between the ownership of one share and multiDle shares of stock. After some additional discussion, the Board agreed to hold this issue for further discussion at the May meeting when all members were present and when Disclosure Forms from members of the Task Force were available. Mr. Saunders, noting that this was the last meeting at which Dona Gerson would hold a position on the Board of Ethics, made a motion ty which the Board commended Dona Gerson for her long and faithful service to t-e ?earc of Et-:cs and to the City of Evanston, and expressed appreciation f-. "e7 cautious and enlightened guidance, her patience, and her wisdom in aoc_ess:ng the !ss..es brought before the Board. Ms. Schrager seconded the mot: and the Ec:,rd adopted the motion by acclamation. There being no further business, the Board adjourned at 9:20 p.m. The next meeting of the Board of Ethics is scheduled for May 18, 1989. RespVy ly submitted, MIanaaer DRAFT - Not Approved MINUTES BOARD OF ETHICS Meeting of July 18, 1989 Members Present: Bruce Hopple, Eleanor Revelle, David Saunders, Robert Shonk Members Absent: Joyce Schrager Presiding Official: David Saunders, Chair Staff Present: Joel M. Asprooth, City Manager Summary of Action: The Chair called the meeting of the Board of Ethics to order at 7:40 P.M. Minutes - The Board reviewed and approved by unanimous vote the minutes of the July 6, 1989 meeting as submitted. Reference to Consider Application of Ethics Ordinance to Polltzcal Campaigns - The Chair noted that this was a reference resulting from discussion at the Rules Committee meeting following the Board's previous action on the request from former Alderman Summers. The Chair suggested that the Board pass on this item and hold it for the next Agenda. The Board agreed. Reference to Consider Revision of Financial Disclosure Statement to Require Disclosure of Relatives Living Outside the Respondent's Hcme 'Who Have Dealinqs with the City - The Chair requested that this matter ne held for a later meeting, and the Board agreed. Request for Advisory Opinions - Ms. Revelle moved, seconced 5y Mr. Hopple, to adjourn to executive session for the purpose of consideration of matters of professional ethics or performance. Upon call for a voice vote - all ayes. The Board adjourned to executive session at 7:45 p.m. The Board reconvened in public session at 9:50 p.m. Review of Financial Disclosure 8 Affiliation Statements - '-�e Board reviewed a number of such Statements, submitted by members of =_cvisory Boards and Commissions. Other Matters - The Board agreed to adjust the Auaus= meeting schedule to establish a meeting on August 3, 1989 and a meeting or - ;Ls. 24. 1989, aith August 23 as an alternative date. The Board of Ethics adjourned at 10:10 p.m. RespeFt7Nlly s:tm.tteo City Manec�r JMA:ct MINUTES Draft - Not Approved BOARD OF ETHICS Meeting of August 3, 1989 Members Present: Bruce Hopple, Eleanor Revelle, David Saunders, Robert Shonk Members Absent: Joyce Schrager Also Present: Aldermen Brady, Paden, and Warshaw Presiding Official: David Saunders, Chair Staff Present: Joel M. Asprooth, City Manager Summary of Action: The Chair called the meeting of the Board of Ethics to order at 7:35 P.M. Minutes - The Board reviewed and approved by unanimous vote the minutes of the meeting of July 18, 1989, as submitted. Request for Advisory Opinions - The Chair noted that, at the invitation of the Board, Alderman Brady was present that evening to discuss her request for an advisory opinion from the Board of Ethics. In response to a question from the Chair, Alderman Brady stated that she had no objection to the discussion of her request being conducted in public session under which circumstances the Chair noted that the normal practice of conducting such discussion in executive session would be waived. The Chair noted that Alderman Brady's request for an advisory opinion involved her relationship with persons on the staff and Board of Directors of Evanston Hospital, and the potential conflict or interest that those relationships presented for her as an Alderman. He asked the Alderman to explain her relationships. Alderman Brady explained that her brother, :j`)o is a psychiatrist, is a Director of the Alcohol & Substance Abuse Unit at Evanston Hospital. She noted that he is one of nineteen doctors permitted, under the Evanston Zoning Ordinance, C I)ave CFf ice soac" 7.7d see ; *C pCt icnl = '_`'n Hasoi tar . She noted that orovision of the Ordinance had recently been the nub7ect of a petition for a Zonino Ordinance amendment by the Hospital, and that sne ha❑ abstained when the recommendation in that matter came to the Council from -ne Zoning Amendment Committee. She noted that she intended to continue to aostain on any zoning question involving the Ordinance provisions pertaining to acctors seeing o,ivate patients ,n Evanston Hospital- offices. Alderman 5rjc, also noted ..hat ner sister-_- :'.j c ail: __ C at Evanston Hospital and, as such, is a mender ❑t tale 13ca f O,re==c: She stated her concern that, if a relationship as distant as ^,'s s,steT-In-law was going to be considered in determining whether a conflict interest existed, then the Board might also have to take into consideration r=•lationships oetween elected and appointed officials of the City and aunts, u*•c,es, and ev, more distant relatives. She also questioned whether her relat,:nsnlp to her "other or her sister-in-law created a conflict of interest for Infrequent minor issues or issues of less sensitivity which came to the Counc,: involving Evanston Hospital. 'Board of Ethics Meeting of 8/3/89 -2- In that connection, she cited such things as tent permits or the relatively non- controversial hospital use permit granted for the construction of the Maternal & Child Health Center at Evanston Hospital. She stated that she found it hard to believe that she should abstain on such issues, given that her relationship to an Evanston Hospital Board Member is a relationship to a sister-in-law. She asked whether, if her sister-in-law was not an the Board, her brother's position as a doctor and director of a Hospital unit would prevent her from voting on such things as a tent permit. The Chair noted that Evanston Hospital was a not -for -profit corporation, and that financial involvement by any Board Member in the Hospital affairs was indirect at best. There was general discussion among the Board members regarding this request. The Chair noted that the Board could discuss and render a decision now or discuss the matter later. After further discussion, the Board agreed to render a decision on this request for an advisory opinion at a later date. At that point Alderman Brady left the Board meeting. The Chair then noted that Alderman Paden was present for the discussion of a request for an advisory opinion from Mr. Clarence Elliott involving the Alderman. The Chair first apologized to the Alderman for the fact that she had not received a complete copy of the request for an advisory opinion in this matter due to a clerical error. He then advised the Board that the Board should consider whether this matter was appropriately discussed in executive session. He stated he believed that the Board could discuss the matter in public, contrary to the normal practice, if the Alderman who was the subject of the request made such a request herself. Alderman Rainey arrived at the meeting at 7:55 p.m. There was a general discussion among the Board members regarding the question. The Chair asked Alderman Paden whether she had any objection to the discussion being conducted in public session. She stated she did not. There was a general discussion among the Chair and Aldermen present regarding the inclusion of Aldermen in executive session conducted by an advisory boars cr commission. The Chair noted that a _enal c _on in this matter 'lad previ-ol . tec^ o+otained. The Chair then asked for a notion to go into executive sessicr for the purpose of discussing a request for an advisory opinion. There was nc such —otion, so the Board•,remained an public session. The Chair then noted t`iat he !gad received a request. for an advisory opinion from Mr. Clarence Elliott, Datec July 18, 101B9, in which IMr. El'_lott stated his desire to file a complaint c a_nst �lcerman Betty Burns paaen "7cr her _nterference .with my nusaness cn `eel demcnst_,.te ,. nreec'i or '.miss on her part." The Chair notes that, while the letter referred to a set of af:�_avats, ,hose affidavits were not attached to the original letter, but we__e later prov!ced by Mr. Elliott's attorney. Mr. Saunders circulated copies c-- t7ose affidavits at the meetinq that evenina. Mr. Shonk noted that neither Mr. Elliott nor his attar^e-' are officers or employees of the City, and asked whether that affected t'-eir stancing to firing such a complaint or request. The Chair noted that it did n-t, :,nc - _t the Scard "_-cness tc ccns_r e. an. c'_' - ^T- --- - fir {1ht before it. He stated that the issue is 'whether the alle�:a"_cr this letter would constitute a violation of the Ethics Ordinance, if it ::ere pr ven true. Board of Ethics !I II "PI II I i , ii ! 1 l I I I I"I ' 1I "I I+,' I I' 1!I 'ill II "I I "''I'I IP T19I -1i 1l in, 1I III I �"'R '�'�' �q� Ili III �I Ilgll � 1 III P III �� �� � � I I 91 Board of Ethics -3- Meeting of 8/3/B9 Mr. Hopple asked whether the attorney for Mr. Elliott had provided any additional information than what was contained in Mr. Elliott's letter. Mr. Saunders stated that the attorney started to provide additional information, but that Mr. Saunders told him that he would be asked to provide any additional information if the Board of Ethics determined that this matter as within the jurisdiction of the Board and covered by the Code of Ethics. Ms. Revelle stated that she read Mr. Elliott's letter to construe the term "ethics" in a very broad sense, as opposed to the narrower application of that term in the Evanston Code of Ethics. She asked why this matter should be considered to be within the jurisdiction of the Board of Ethics since it appeared to her to be parallel to a request received previously by the Board involving campaign practices, in which case the person requesting the opinion was applying the term "ethics" in a much broader sense than does the Evanston Code of Ethics. Mr. Hopple and Mr. Shonk troth stated that they were unclear as to what the grievance of Mr. Elliott was since neither his letter nor the attached affidavits were informative. The Chair noted that he had read the affidavits, and that it appeared that Mr. Elliott was alleging that the Alderman had prepared certain affidavits which were signed by people who he suggested were misled by the Alderman, and that the execution of those affidavits affected Mr. Elliott's application for relocation assistance associated with his move from the N.U./Evanston Research Park. He stated that, even if the Board were to assume that the alleged interference with Mr. Elliott's business was true, and that everything thattheAlderman is alleged to have done was true, he still could find no violation of the Code of Ethics. Mr, Hopple asked whether Mr, Elliott was denied relocation benefits. The Aldermen present advised the Board that Mr. Elliott eventually received all relocation benefits for which he had applied. Mr. Saunders then suggested that the Board, for the purposes of discussion, assume that Mr. Ellictt was denied his benefits, and then consider, even under those circumstances, ~nether there was a violation of the Code of Ethics. Mr. Hopple noted that _�.ernan Paden had notarized certain affidavits, and wondered whether the ?-erd should ask Mr. Elliott or his attorney to make specific citations of the :uce of Ethics and alleging a violation. The Chair askeo i'•1r. Hopple wnicn ci_a_iDns mignt be 'jade from the Code in this case. Mr. Hopple responded that, f.: example, if the Alderman was compensated for the preparation of aff,_davi: :here coulc be a question of incompatible employment. He also suggested that i_ -,ioht be possible that there was a question of abuse of the power of aublic _-`ice or a lack of impartiality in this matter. He suggested that the Soar c - ,, to ci.. e ►•1r. Elliott a chance to come oefore the Board and say his p:e.' _ is nc'===• Alderman Paden .:skec the _carc to advise ner as to might apply in this matter. Mr. Hopple stated that true coulc be specific at this time, not knowing in detail what the clan f._s, Alderman =aden asked whether the Board was not bound to deal only with the `t__s as cresen;.e� in the letter from Mr. Elliott. Alderman Warshaw asked whether :-e Board woulz not routinely expect the complainant or his/her attorney to cite ewecific violations from the Code rather than have to attempt to determine whicn __::ions of the Code might apply. Board of Ethics Meeting of 8/3/89 -4- The Chair noted that the Board would always hope that such citations would be made by a complainant but can't always expect every complainant to get an attorney, or to otherwise understand the Code in such detail. He stated, however, that, based on what he saw in this complaint, he could not determine that there was any application of the Code of Ethics in this matter. He stated, however, that he would be willing to go back to Mr. Elliott and tell him that, if he had other information to raise with the Board, he was welcome to do so. All the other members of the Board agreed with this statement. Alderman Rainey then provided the Board with some historical information on Mr. Elliott's claim for relocation assistance. She noted that the City Council's Relocation Committee was initially split on this matter, but expressed the opinion that those who read all the materials and information made available to the Committee would agree that Mr. Elliott was not deserving of any relocation assistance. However, she noted that he eventually received everything he had asked for. Both Alderman Rainey and Alderman Warshaw expressed surprise that Mr. Elliott's attorney would raise such a complaint as that contained in Mr. Elliott's letter, and questioned the motivation of Mr. Elliott and his attorney in this matter. Alderman Rainey also expressed concern that the stationery of Mr. Saunders law firm had been used in transmitting the complaint to Alderman Paden. She expressed concern that this gave the impression that there was a private law firm involved in the matter, and that such impression was inappropriate. The Chair expressed his apology for doing so, and explained again that his intent was to get the material to her as quickly as possible. Alderman Warshaw and Rainey also expressed concern that the address ..jhich appeared on Mr. Elliott's letter was the same address at which (he had contended) he was not living at the time his eligibility for relocation assistance was determined. They suggested that this matter needed to be investigated further, and agreed with the Chair that such an investigation was appropriate for another committee or another forum. After some additional discussion, the Chair asked for a notion regarding the disposition of the Clarence Elliott complaint. Mr. Hopple made a motion that the Board respond to Mr. Elliott acknowledging receipt of his complaint, explaining that it had been r evie.-ied, and canc:Lf, i-g that, based . D37 hE-nfDrmation he provided, they satin no item that came within the jurisdiction of the Board of Ethics. Mr. Hopple suggested that the letter also include a statement that, if Mr. Elliott or his attorney had further information to prcv_Ce, he was welcome to do so. Ms. Revelle secondeo this motion. Upon call for a voice vote: all eyes. The Chair asked the staff to prepare this letter and circulate -t to the Board before the next meeting. The Board also discussed the =ficentlality cf Mr. Ellint 's :ecL�est. It was agreed that, s,.rce t,7e C±scuss-_ - ---is mat_ _ :ras connected _--ublic session, the response ,•could also be ^ac=_ = There was some discussion regarding other matters perta-r:.rc to Alderman Paden that had been raised previously. After some discussion itr. the City staff, it was agreed that the matter previously raised conce_^-ng the potential participation of Alderman Paden or her relative in the facace rebate program was not an Ethics Code issue, and was withdrawn. It was noted t there was another matter referre❑ to the Board in which Alderman Paden raz 8n• interest, and Alderman Paden agreed to attend a subsequent meeting. Board of Ethics Meeting of 8/3/89 -5- Finally, the Board agreed to cancel the meeting scheduled for August 24, 1989 and to conduct a special meeting at 7:30 A.M. on August 9, 1989 to review the draft letter to Mr. Elliott. The Board of Ethics adjourned to executive session at 8:55 p.m. upon motion by Mr. Hopple, seconded by Ms. Revelle, to discuss the matter of professional ethics or performance. The Board reconvened in public session at 9:10 p.m. Mr. Saunders noted that, since the Board had not taken any action in executive session, there would be no action required in public session on the matter discussed. Mr. Saunders asked if it was the view of the Board of Ethics that all matters involving a request for an advisory opinion should be handled in executive session initially, or whether the Board felt that such a requirement could be waived. Mr. Hopple stated his opinion that, if such executive session were not required by statute, then the question would be what the Board of Ethics Rules and Procedures required. He noted that Section 5 of the Rules and Procedures require that the Board maintain a request for advisory opinion in confidence until the opinion is rendered or until the Board determines that it need no longer be kept in confidence. Mr. Hopple asked whether the Board of Ethics could exclude a parson from executive session who is the subject. of Board deliberations. It was agreed that this was a matter to be addressed to Corporation Counsel. Upon the motion of Mr. Hopple, seconded by his. Revelle, the Board of Ethics adjourned to executive session at 9:58 p.m. to discuss a matter of professional ethics and performance. The Board reconvened in public session at 10:24 p.m. The Board of Ethics adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Resp f ly submitted, Joel . Asproo h City Manager JMA:ct DRAFT - Not Approved MINUTES BOARD OF ETHICS Meeting of August 9, 1989 Members Present: Bruce Hopple, David Saunders, Robert Shonk Members Absent: Eleanor Revelle, Joyce Schrager Presiding Official: David Saunders, Chair Summary of Action: The Chair called the meeting of the Board of Ethics to order at 7:30 A.M. The Board met to review and approve the draft of the written response to the complaint filed by Mr. Clarence Elliott against Alderman Betty Burns Paden. The response was prepared by the Chair, David Saunders. The Chair announced that Ms. Revelle had recommended to him that �-^e sentence in the response reading "We find nothing in those materials "nigh would suggest that this matter falls within the scope of the Code of Ethics" be changed to read "We concluded that the issues that you raised C:) not fall within the scope of the Code of Ethics." After discussion, the Bcz-ra members present unanimously agreed to this change. The members further reviewed the response. Mr. Hopple sugges_ec ~nat the letter response to Mr. Elliott should show that a copy was being sent to Mr. Elliott's attorney, Mr. Steven J. Bernstein. It was also sugces-z-:: that the letter should show that a copy was sent to Alderman Paden. further discussion, the Board members present unanimously agreed to these changes. The Chair called for further discussion or comments on the let'�_r. Hearing none, he called for action. Mr. Shonk moved that the written resconse, as changed to substitute the sentence provided by his. Revelle anc show the distribution of copies Lo sir. Bernstein and alderman Paden, Uc _.:,rived for issuance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hopple and unan-mous:, _Do:oved by the members present. There being no further business to consider, the meeting was a _'.rned at 7:50 A.M. Ro�7 G Finance Director RAS:ct cc: Joel M. Asprootn Draft - Not Approved MINUTES BOARD OF ETHICS Meeting of October 12, 1989 Members Present: David Saunders, Bruce Hopple, Eleanor Revelle, Joyce Schrager, Robert Shank Members Absent: None Presiding Official: David Saunders, Chair Staff Present: Joel M. Asprooth, City Manager Summary of Action: The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Minutes - It was moved by Ms. Revelle, seconded by Mr. Shonk, to approve the minutes of the August 3, 1989 meeting, as submitted. Upon call for a voice vote - all ayes. It was moved by Mr. Shank, seconded by Mr. Saunders, to approve the minutes of the August 9, 1989 meeting, as submitted. Upon call for 4 voice vote - all ayes. The Chair noted that the Board had previously discussed a reference to consider the application of the Code of Ethics to campaign procedures in local election campaigns. He noted that the Governor had signed the Illinois Fair Campaign Practices Act, and stated that the Act would be circulated in advance of the next meeting so that the Board could discuss it at that time. Request for Advisory Opinions -- The Chair noted that there gore two outstanding requests for advisory opinion with which the Board must deal. Those include the request of Alderman Brady for an advisory opinicn concerning the application of the Code of Ethics to her in her relations-'-,:. 4 th officers of Evanston Hospital; and a reference concerning Alderman Paden and her involvement in matters pertainina to the develoament of the Research Par.. The Chair noted that, with respect to the latter reference, the next step wo!i-- oe to meet with Alderman Paden, and the Board identified a number or potential times for a meeting with Alderman Paden to discuss this reference with her. At that time, the Board also agreed that there would be no meeting on OctonG_ 19. 1989. Staff was directed to contact Alderman Paden to attempt to arrange a -'utually agreeable meeting time. The Chair then asked the Board to consider again the reiouec" --_ _cerTnarn Brady for :in Advisory Opinion. In accordance with the Rules anc --_cceCires or the Board of Ethics and in conformity with the Illinois Open "e_tinas Act, it was moved by Ms. Schrager, seconded by Ms. Revelle, to convene -n an executive session to discuss a matter of professional ethics and perf__mance. Upon call for a voice vote - all ayes. The Board of Ethics convcned intc executive session at 7:52 p.m. At 8:30 p.m., the Board reconvened in public session. There being no further matters, the Board of Ethics adjourned a- a.m. R ect u:!. JMA:ct Joel . Aspreoth City Manager 111 9I 11! 1 I '' 1 . 11 M, I I I I 'I it h ' M" , , III i . I I i Members Present: Members Absent: Draft - Not Approved MINUTES BOARD OF ETHICS Meeting of December 21, 1989 Bruce Hopple, Eleanor Revelle, Robert Shank, David Saunders (arrived 8:06 p.m.) Joyce Schrager Presiding Officials: Eleanor Revelle (Acting Chair; David Saunders, Chair) Staff Present: Joel M. Asprooth, City Manager Summary of Action: Ms. Revelle called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m., noting that Mr. Saunders had informed her that he would be arriving later. Minutes - There was a motion by Mr. Hopple, seconded by Mr. Shank, to approve the minutes of October 12, 1989 as submitted. Upon call for a voice vote - all ayes. Fair Campaign Practices Act - Ms. Revelle noted that both former Alderman Michael Summers and Alderman Lorraine Morton had asked the Board to consider whether the Code of Ethics should be applied to political campaigns for City government offices. Ms. Revelle noted further that, following a previous discussion of this matter, the Chair had circulated to the Committee a copy of the Illinois Fair Campaign Practices Act, which had recently been signed by the Governor. Ms. Revelle asked whether the other members of the Board believed that it was necessary for the Board of Ethics to go further with this matter, beyond the provisions of the Illinois Fair Campaign Practices Act. Mr. Hopple stated his opinion that, if there was a local code of conduct needed to govern political campaigns, it was not the role of the Board of Ethics to make that determination. He stated his opinion that, if the City Council wished to do something in this area, the Council members should undertake to do it themselves. Ms. Revelle stated that Evanston residents with whom she had spoken did not believe that there was a need at the local level for a code of campaign conduct in Evanston. She stated she believed that local campaigns were run fairly well, and she noted that all campaign conduct legislation the Board had found (in Illinois and elsewhere) was voluntary in nature. She stated that, since Illinois now had a Statute (which is not mandatory) to govern campaign practices, there was no need for local legislation. Ms. Revelle did ask, however, what the role of the City Clerk would be in promulgating this Statute, and staff was directed to consult with the Clerk in this matter. Board of Ethics Meeting of 12/21/89 ,-2- Mr. Hopple made a motion to respond to former Alderman Summers and Alderman Morton that the Board of Ethics had examined this matter, and had determined that, quite clearly, candidates for public office did not come under the purview of the Board of Ethics as the legislation is presently written. Furthermore, the Board has examined the question further, and has determined that the State of Illinois now has a Statute governing local campaign practices. Finally, if the Council wishes to enact legislation in this matter, it would be appropriate for the Council to develop that legislation itself. This motion was seconded by Mr. Shank. Upon call for a voice vote - all ayes. 1990 Meeting Schedule - The Board adopted a meeting schedule for 1990, designating the third Thursday of each month as the regular meeting date. Mr. Saunders arrived at 8:06 p.m. Mr. Hopple moved, seconded by Mr. Shank, to convene in an executive session to discuss a matter of professional ethics and performance. Upon call for a voice vote - all ayes. The Board of Ethics then convened into executive session at 8:08 p.m. to discuss requests for advisory opinions. At 9:02 p.m., the Board reconvened in public session. It was moved by Mr. Hopple, seconded by Ms. Revelle, that the Board of Ethics send a letter of advisory opinion in response to the request of Alderman Sue Brady, explaining that the Board found that the presence of her sister-in-law on the Board of Directors of Evanston Hospital created a potential personal interest on her part, and the outcome of issues involving Evanston Hospital which are presented to the City Council. Furthermore, the Board found that such personal interest might be perceived as impairing her independence of action or judgment. While it was the opinion of the Board of Ethics that issues of a ministerial nature may not require her abstention from discussion and voting, the Board advised that she abstain from all discussion of her vote taken on matters of a more substantive nature. Upon call for a voice vote - all ayes. There being no further business, the Board of Ethics adjourned at 9:04 p.m. Res lly suomiwted, Joel . Asprootn City Manager JMA:ct