* Mark Maxwell…

The push to clean up a culture of corruption in Illinois could have the unintended short term consequence of flooding farm fields after all of the drainage experts in one local unit of government quit their jobs, leaving the office that monitors and manages flood risks vacant.

Larry Skinner, Dale Ewing, and Randy Mayhall informed the Douglas County Circuit Clerk’s office that they would rather step down from their unpaid government duties than submit to “intrusive” transparency laws.

The Newman Murdock Union Drainage District has a meager budget. It collects $10,579.80 in property taxes each year, and sets aside funds to upgrade or install new drainage tiles to prevent backed up water from flooding farm fields. […]

Skinner and Ewing both submitted letters of resignation, though county officials said Ewing was considering potentially rescinding his resignation and complying with the new ethics law. Mayhall verbally resigned, but had not yet submitted his letter in writing at the time of this report.

“All three of us have resigned because they’re asking us to list our wives, they’re involving our spouses, trying to get us to list things that we owe on or we buy together,” Skinner said. “It’s just stuff that’s totally nobody’s business.”

Skinner’s resignation letter noted it’s an unpaid position and he doesn’t personally handle any government funds. […]

Their resignations are the first reported cases of local officials who fulfill mundane tasks in unpaid government jobs who ditched their posts before a May 1st deadline to fill out the more stringent forms.

Skinner, a local farmer in Newman, Illinois, said he’d rather quit the job than reveal his personal financial information to the government.

“I prefer to resign,” he said in a March 17th letter. “The questions being asked by the Statement of Economic Interest and the potential liability it places on someone just trying to do what is right and helpful is just a problem I don’t need.”

In a March 4th letter to Governor Pritzker and legislative leaders, the Illinois Municipal League warned that hundreds more local officials were “considering resigning their positions” because the new disclosure law was “too intrusive and personal.”

* The requirements…

* I asked Alisa Kaplan at Reform for Illinois if she had any comments…

Hi Rich,

Overall we are in favor of more transparency and support the legislature’s moves in that direction. Some officials are not going to like it — that’s inevitable with just about any serious ethics reform. These forms are well in line with what other state legislatures require and are by no means the most detailed out there. And there are some ways in which the new forms require less information than the old forms, by raising the dollar thresholds that trigger reporting, for example.

If this truly becomes a problem, however, it might be worth revisiting the types of office-holders required to disclose certain kinds of information. We may need different information from a state legislator than from an unpaid local official, though we shouldn’t underplay the possibilities for corruption at any level of government.

Finally, there seems to be some confusion that needs to be cleared up about what is actually required in the new forms and how much of a departure it is from the old forms.

* The Question: Should ethics disclosures be loosened for unpaid local board members? Explain.

       

35 Comments - Ok - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 2:50 pm: If he decides how to spend the public’s money, we should know whether there is a conflict of interest, whether the position is paid or unpaid. - Thomas Paine - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 2:51 pm: Nope. Economic Development Boards wield a lot of power. Why do we need this local drainage district? - Bruce( no not him) - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 2:54 pm: There are always unintended consequences. - the Edge - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 2:55 pm: No. More training on what actually needs to be disclosed should be undertaken. - Tom - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 3:02 pm: The issue is that it is worded poorly: the statute clarifies it but the form is bad and confusing. The Statute: For the purposes of Sections 4A-102 and 4A-103, assets do not include: personal residences; personal vehicles; savings or checking accounts; bonds, notes, or securities issued by any branch of federal, state, or local government; Medicare benefits; inheritances or bequests, other than beneficial interests in trusts; diversified funds; annuities; pensions (including government pensions); retirement accounts; college savings plans that are qualified tuition plans; qualified tax-advantaged savings programs that allow individuals to save for disability-related expenses; or tangible personal property. - allknowingmasterofraccoondom - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 3:12 pm: The reforms should be better explained on the form. This form, and all previous forms are worded horribly. I was in local unpaid office for 12 years until recently and it was always a joke that no one really knew how to fill out these forms because they were worded so terribly. In fact I sought out specialized legal advice on the forms and was basically told that if in doubt, just disclose everything. They need to fix these forms. - Aaron B - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 3:14 pm: Don’t let the door hit them on the way out. If Illinois ever hopes to get rid of the idea that we’re one of the most crooked states in the country then more transparency is a good thing. The last 6+ years has shown us that people cannot be trusted to avoid conflicts of interest so it is necessary to codify these sort of things. Just a price people should have to pay if they want to decide how taxpayer money is spent. - JS Mill - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 3:17 pm: I just completed mine. It isn’t just for unpaid Board members. What would make more sense would be for the ILGA members to take the lead here and apply not only the most stringent requirements but also FOIA. Since they will not, it is always somewhat of a joke when they require more from everyone else. - Unpaid State Board Member - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 3:19 pm: There should be different forms for different levels of governmental involvement. The fact that an unpaid advisory board member (like myself) - who can do no more than ask a question about a policy and has no binding authority - has to disclose personal financial information is excessive and unnecessary. I’m considering resigning my appointment myself for that very reason. - watchdog - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 3:25 pm: Absolutely NOT-Information given on the Statement if Economic interests form is still very minimal. These local elected officials vote on policy related matters that involve tax dollars. It is not relevant whether or not the office holder is paid or unpaid. It all comes down to transparency and accountability. - Facts Matter - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 3:25 pm: My response to the question is no, as long as the unpaid positions are involved in any way in the expenditure of public funds. The summary of what has to be reported should be clarified. - Arsenal - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 3:27 pm: I’m going to say “yes”- with a pretty generous definition of “loosened”. I think these folks still need to be accountable to the voters and the taxpayers. But I’m open to some kind of way to streamline the process. - Homebody - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 3:31 pm: If someone doesn’t like the disclosures, they are more than free to leave those positions. - Give Me A Break - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 3:31 pm: Just last Saturday morning members of the House GOP were screaming the end of Illinois was at hand without more reforms to combat corrupt officials who seem to number in the thousands. So, Mr. Skinner and Mr. Ewing clearly are up to something and need more reporting regulations and information to make public. Maybe they should call Leader Durkin. - Excitable Boy - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 3:33 pm: No. If you spend public money we deserve to know you’re not lining your own pockets. - Merica - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 3:44 pm: No one conducts any real investigation or cross reference of the information entered into these forms, it’s paperwork CYA. The law doesn’t require a large number of real conflicts of interests to be disclosed. Keep the form, get rid of it, either way it doesn’t matter. It’s like taking your shoes off before you get on a plane - Bruce( no not him) - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 3:44 pm: == warned that hundreds more local officials were “considering resigning their positions”== If people leave these volunteer posts, who will refill the spots? Is losing the experience, and knowledge of these folks worth it? - JLW - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 3:49 pm: Folks are right who have said the problem is the wording of the form that implies your house, car, boat would have to be disclosed. However, the wording of the form is in the Statute as mandatory and those administering the program have no authority to clarify it. - Publius - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 3:50 pm: No, I would also ask why there is a very specific unit of govenment. It should be consolidated to the local county. How do we know if that person is gving a friend a contract and then getting a kickback. Same for a spouse. Look at the trouble Irvin just got in with his wife. - The OW Show - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 3:55 pm: ==Why do we need this local drainage district?== The rural ones primarily serve to maintain levees on smaller rivers. It is a local issue IMO because keeping the rivers in their banks helps farmers who own thousands of acres in river bottoms produce more crops. I believe the Metro East Drainage District officials became in legal trouble over no-show jobs, but in rural areas they are primarily farmers with their own interests to have enough motive to serve. - TheInvisibleMan - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 3:57 pm: Nope. Tighten them more. Civilization costs money. Civilization takes effort. It’s not a channel you can switch on and off depending if you are bored on that particular day or not. If the majority of people in an area don’t want to participate in their civilization, then they can accept the consequences for that. “he’d rather quit the job than reveal his personal financial information to the government.” Bye then. This guy should not be making any decisions that affect the public. - Wonky Kong - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 4:07 pm: = Bye then. This guy should not be making any decisions that affect the public.= Remember that when they shut off your water because there was no one left to serve on the water board. I’ve gotten advice on the form from a caucus lawyer, State’s attorney, and the IML, and none of them were willing to express much certainty that how they advised me to fill it out was correct. Not everyone has a simple financial situation. How many $10k assets does it take to run a construction company, warehouse or even a farm? Enjoy your zoning board’s decisions along with your school board’s when the only people left to serve are those who have the time on their hands to do deal with one more legal issue. - TheInvisibleMan - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 4:16 pm: ==Remember that when they shut off your water== Someone is going to come on my property and shut off my well? I live the life I preach, friend. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 4:19 pm: I’ve received gifts of over $500 from my parents before. I had to disclose that on this form. Why is that anyone’s business? - Demoralized - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 4:20 pm: But, to the question, no I don’t think you should get rid of it. But, as others have said, it needs to be better explained. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 4:28 pm: Vote no. Why? When is transparency bad? Voted no. - JJJJJJJJJJ - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 4:59 pm: Based on Rich’s chart it seems like most of this stems from folks not filling out the old forms. Or not filling them out correctly… Also it’s not as if local government has been immune from corruption in this state. If you can spend public money you can be corrupt. - Eyeball - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 5:11 pm: Timing is the problem. The disclosure should be made at the time of any vote on expenditure. Example: I vote to approve this project and I represent that I don’t have any conflicts of interest and here are my ownership interests… - sal-says - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 5:30 pm: We’all gots dudes running fo governor that have no problem ’stretching’ de truth. But wanna hold some schlubs actually trying to do some ‘public service’ and unpaid at that, to a level of disclosure that’s truly incredible. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 6:34 pm: I fill this out for two Boards that I sit on. This year, it is a little more extensive. However, if you don’t have anything to hide, what’s the problem? This is all about transparency in government and I believe that’s a good thing. Regardless of what they might believe, Douglas County is still part of the State of Illinois… Come on in boys, the water is fine, - Bicycling Bureaucrat - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 6:36 pm: I don’t mind having to report all this detailed, private information to be confidentially reviewed. I deeply resent having my detailed personal financial information available on a public database. - Candy Dogood - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 8:50 pm: ===Should ethics disclosures be loosened for unpaid local board members? Explain. === No. If someone is resigning from a board position on account of these new disclosure requirements it should beg more questions about what they do not want to disclose or why. It is standard in application for basic federal appointments or anything regarding security clearance to disclose and declare all meaningful debts. In spy craft debt is seen as an easy means to create an opportunity to exploit someone and people should expect the public to be aware of what debts they have. No one’s student loans or mortgages would be scandalous and at a certain and if someone had to go into debt to get where they are, well that’s good to know. If someone has more than 10,000 in credit card debt that’s something that would likely be in the public’s interest and so should where your spouse is working. If they want them changed, I think we are at least owed knowing who is suggesting they would resign and specifically why they want to resign over these new disclosure requirements. The IML is also voicing concerns that “bad” officials will not follow these new requirements, so perhaps we should be looking at active enforcement rather than passive. Say 10% each year are randomly selected for audit? If issues are identified with one’s disclosure the disclosure is audited for the next 5 years. Some of this is as easy as running a credit check, others would just be examining federal tax records. Credit checks are common in private sector employment. Not a thing requested is “too intrusive” for a position of public trust. Illinois deserves transparency. - RNUG - Wednesday, Apr 13, 22 @ 8:51 pm: I had to fill out multiple disclosure forms for 15 or 20 of the years I worked for the State. Always thought they were overly intrusive. Plus the State never was consistent on which of the forms I had to fill out … some years only 1 form, other years 2 or 3. My feeling was as long as I didn’t have a conflict, what I did on my own time with my own money was none of their business … but I filled out the blankety blank forms with the minimum that would keep me out of hot water. I did understand the public’s interest in the expenditure of public funds, and I did regularly recommend expending millions, but I was just one of a committee, and no way a final decision maker; those level decisions only got signed off by the agency director. So yeah, I get where these guys are coming from. Reading it, the new statute needs to be clarified. And while the legislature is doing so, they could consider some threshold of expenditure by a board (or whatever) below which no reporting is required. - Peter Parker - Thursday, Apr 14, 22 @ 8:26 am: The form itself is poorly worded. Reading the explanation that also comes with the form indicates that most people will have N/A as a response on all the questions since the form is not seeking info on personal property, etc. Tom included the wording above. Here it is again… The Statute: For the purposes of Sections 4A-102 and 4A-103, assets do not include: personal residences; personal vehicles; savings or checking accounts; bonds, notes, or securities issued by any branch of federal, state, or local government; Medicare benefits; inheritances or bequests, other than beneficial interests in trusts; diversified funds; annuities; pensions (including government pensions); retirement accounts; college savings plans that are qualified tuition plans; qualified tax-advantaged savings programs that allow individuals to save for disability-related expenses; or tangible personal property. - low level - Thursday, Apr 14, 22 @ 8:30 am: == though we shouldn’t underplay the possibilities for corruption at any level of government.== And thats the problem. The underlying assumption that all public officials are bad. Good for them for resigning. I’ll tell you this: when Alisa Kaplan and her merry band of reformers decide to meet these disclosure requirements, then perhaps i’ll be in favor. Right now, the requirements should be loosened for all public officials, not just the unpaid ones. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.