[BCNnet] Park District Assn code of conduct

[Randi Doeker - Chicago]

There are interesting details in the middle of this editorial that could
apply state wide.

 

Randi Doeker

Chicago

 

-----Original Message-----
 

Code of conduct' limits board's right to speak openly 

Friday, October 7, 2005

THE ISSUE: Oak Lawn Park District's new 'ethics guidelines' are viewed by
one commissioner as a 'gag order.'
WE SAY: Board should reconsider provisions that discourage officials from
dissenting from the majority or speaking freely with their constituents. 

A new code of conduct adopted this week by the Oak Lawn Park District board
is a mixed bag that includes both reasonable guidelines for elected
officials and rules that, in our view, would inappropriately limit debate
and discourage park board members from speaking openly about their personal
views. 

One member, Commissioner Mary Wallace, said some portions of the code amount
to a "gag order" intended to stifle dissenting opinions - specifically,
hers. 

"Gag order" may be an overstatement. The rules, proposed by a statewide
association created to advise and assist park district officials, appear to
be designed to help park officials do their jobs ethically and effectively.
But they also seem designed to put a good public-relations face on park
district actions, in part by giving a public impression that all decisions
are unanimous and the private impression that there is something unethical
about a park commissioner disagreeing with his colleagues. 

Wallace said she believes the code of conduct is a slap at her, prompted by
her outspoken disagreement with other commissioners over budget issues, the
future of the Oak Lawn Family Days festival and her proposal that the park
district consider opening a dog park for residents and their pets. 

Park board president Terry Vorderer said he introduced the code for adoption
by the board because he thinks it will help board members do a better job,
not to rein in Wallace. Maybe so, but the park board has used the code as a
general reference for perhaps 10 years and never saw a need to formally
adopt it until Wallace joined the board last spring. 

Wallace said she agrees with the majority of the code's points. But she
objects specifically to a number of provisions, including rules that board
members should not make public statements about issues that the board has
not yet decided upon; that they must support majority decisions after they
have been made; and that members should not promise in advance how they will
vote on an issue. We agree with her on these points. Elected officials have
a responsibility to talk about issues publicly before they are decided so
their constituents can have a chance to respond, debate or disagree. The
idea that a dissenting official must support the majority's position may be
intended to discourage dissenters from bringing up old arguments after
they've been settled, but it also could mislead the public about the degree
of support for a particular position. 

As for officials not promising what position they will take on an issue,
that strikes us as a way to give political cover to officials who don't want
to or can't defend their positions, to insulate them from the public. Harry
Truman said if you can't stand the heat you should get out of the kitchen,
and that principle applies to park districts as it does to any other level
of government. 

Most of the code is perfectly reasonable, in our view. It urges officials
not to vote on matters if they have a conflict of interests, not to use
their positions for personal gain, to comply with Open Meetings Act and to
treat their fellow officials with respect. These provisions and most of the
rest of the code are reasonable guidelines or simple restatements of state
law. 

But the provisions aimed at muzzling dissenting board members and
discouraging elected officials from communicating with their constituents
outside board meetings are inappropriate, in our view. At best they are
intended to keep elected officials from rocking the boat; at worst they
could have the effect of misleading the public or keeping the public in the
dark about matters it has every right to be informed about. 

The Oak Lawn park commissioners ought to take another look at the new code
of conduct and reconsider the provisions that set limits on their rights and
responsibilities to speak openly and honestly about the public's business.
Whether the new rules are aimed at one particular commissioner or not, their
effects are to deprive the public of information it has a right to have, and
to limit the free speech of the entire board. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://screamer.ece.iit.edu/pipermail/bcnnet/attachments/20051007/1e0a5b14/attachment.htm