oversight will now come to order we have 2 sets of items on
today's agenda. The first is an ordinance seeking to codify
executive order 20112 and the second the appointments of
Sarah Gin And The Honorable bernetta D bush as members of
the Chicago Board of Ethics. We will begin with a roll call
to establish Quorum. Please note that your yes or present
response will be deemed a yes vote when this Quorum call is
used for a reference vote for later items. Chairman. Martin
is present Vice chair Haden.
alderwoman Lee present
uh Alderman O'Shea
alderwoman Taylor alderwoman sabaris
alderwoman Scott
Alderman Talia Pharaoh Alderman waguespack Alderman spaz
alderwoman nent
Alderman Vasquez
Alderman Reilly
Alderman Lawson
okay, we have uh
7 members present we have a quorum.
um, we have uh, uh 3 members Vice chair Haden Alderman spaz
and alderwoman Taylor have requested remote participation
in the committee meeting under rule 59. Is there a motion
to allow these 3 members so moved by Alderman Reilly, uh,
all those in favor signify by saying I all those opposed
say no the eyes have it. All 3 individuals are allowed to
attend this committee meeting remotely at this time. We'll
begin with public comment. You are welcome. The period is
set for 30 minutes out of respect for everyone's Time Each
speaker is limited to 3 minutes of public comment. Uh,
first we will begin with Jessica Jackson Miss Jackson,
please go ahead.
Yeah.
Miss Jackson, you may begin at your convenience.
Good morning. Um.
ethics well
I'm sure it's hard to stay up for what's right?
I'm sure that's difficult.
I'm sure that when you
perceive yourself
as a minority
it's difficult.
To stand for what's right?
But at this day and time that's what's required you have to
stand for. What's right?
It's you know, you can't sit back and watch everybody every
other group every other race every other nationality get
what they want how they want it when they want it.
and being fearful
of not being a part of being accepted.
That you don't stand for your own.
That's unethical.
It's unethical to listen to constituents talk about how
their rights are being violated in court systems.
and ignore it because
alderman
Are the legislative body of the city?
You all are the lawmakers.
of the city
So if we cannot come to you all for support the question
becomes, where do we go?
Where do we go?
Especially as black people. Where do we go?
See, I'm not going to sit here and classify myself as a
person of color because I'm black.
I'm not going to sit here and represent myself as a
minority because I'm black.
I'm not gonna keep hearing us being referred to as people
of a underserved community and marginalized Community. Say
we black.
Don't be ashamed or scared to say we black.
Because that's who we are.
And the country never lets us forget. That's who we are.
Whether we say it or not the treatment shows that's who we
are and that's how we're seeing.
So we got to stand on that even when it's hard.
Don't automatically assume that we don't know what we're
talking about. How can that even be the Assumption when you
know how intelligent black people are when you know that
everything and everybody came from us. We didn't come from
nobody.
Everybody came from us.
So, how can you assume that? We don't know what we talking
about. We got it wrong. We misinterpreted. We don't
understand we understand.
You tell me 1 thing about this country that black people
don't understand.
And the proof that they know we understand it. It's because
everybody uses our our plight everybody uses our leaders.
everybody uses our statistics
everybody uses our everything. So if they understand it
tell me we don't understand it.
So you can't be scared. You got to stand up for what's
right, and for the few of you who have tried to reach out
to me and help me. Thank you, cuz I know it ain't easy. I
know what it is.
But you got to do what's right because all we got to see
each other. They ain't no they ain't thinking about us.
They ain't thinking about us they could care less.
Not in an offensive way in a real way white people know how
evidence land they gonna be. All right, however anything
land y'all gonna be cool.
That's what you know.
They slashing it up now where Hispanics they gonna get
whatever. They want Asians, you know what it is, and it's
not talking.
Racist it's talking. What's real? You can't tell me to be
scared to say who I am and what time it is with me.
Cuz my people paid too much.
For me to be scared.
I look at what my mama and daddy went through. Well, my
grandparents went through and it ain't no it ain't of
course in history and world history that could Trump that
you know it like I know it you know it like I know it it
ain't a story that can be told in here that can outdo any
black story that we would get up here and tell you know it
like I know it.
Don't be scared handle your business handle your black
business handle your black business and that everybody else
carry their own water.
Thank you Mr. Jackson. Thank you. Thank you and searching
at Arms. I just want to make sure that we're good. Um
moving forward with our our 3 minute timer.
We're great. Thank you. Next up. We have Zoe Lee.
that
All right. So this is ethics as you get as you guys know, I
have a city case. Uh, you're a civil rights attorney. You
actually graduated from 1 of the most part prestigious, uh,
universities Harvard University, um the violation of my
civil my my family's civil rights have been violated. Um 1
of the alderman
Uh, you already know if David Moore, uh, he didn't do it. He
was supposed to do as far as the city of Chicago did not do
what they were supposed to do. Um, the issue I have is that
As Miss Jackson says we we have to come to y'all and the
fact that there is 50 Alder people that sit and let me say
the same thing over and over with evidence. I have a
voicemail from the city, uh of Chicago Law Department that
gives the 3 things that that you're supposed to do when it
comes to demolish property the city of Chicago knocked down
the wrong building.
They have a I I have a wrecking permit that says that they
knocked it down for 500 because the owner uh is the city of
Chicago which is the the they've never owned that building
my grand my my godfather bought that building in December
13 1965.
That's that before that it was the Pink Panther before
that. It was um, the Fannie May Chocolate Factory because
back then in Auburn Grisham, that's where the white white
people were a lot that were over there. So it's been in our
family since 1965 and they closed down in 2010 that
building has always been there. It's this old Sandpiper
Lounge. There was no uh liens on there. There was no um,
uh, what do you say, uh reverse mortgages anything? It was
paid off the city of Chicago knocked down the wrong
business.
Building and David Moore told my godfather that so the fact
that I'm still coming in here with all the evidence
including a voicemail from the city of Chicago Law
Department and everybody just looking like yeah.
Chicago is 1 of the most corrupt cities and because of
democratic machine is finally broken. There's only 1 part
that needs to to to to step off and that's Tony pre whoa,
but since the the the Democratic machine is finally broken
now no 1 to do so because new Chicago has came in and you
have this Progressive agenda. I need y'all to progressively
figure out where my mother money at. I need you to
progressively figure out how to make David Alderman more um
accountable for what he did. He's the ultimate over there.
You're his colleagues.
He's he's he's a grown man.
And he needs to hold himself accountable. I'm not going to
continue to come down here and you guys are just going to
sit here and just be like
There's nothing you can do when you when you guys can do
something.
I'm asking for your help and you're a civil rights
attorney. So this is against the law and this is violating
all of my civil rights all of them, and this is 2024. I
would like to continue to go home back to Atlanta and live
my best life. Thank you. Thank you.
Next up we have toan Sims.
Mr Sims
Well, Jessica what Jessica Jackson Miss Jackson said was
beautiful?
Killed y'all you are a civil rights major. What study you
graduated a civil rights College Harvard Law. Your bio is
beautiful Jazz. My mother was in the Jazz. She did now she
died. You know how she died why she died. She was left in
the care of a blind person.
The same individual that's put in the state that that in
which caused her death and I go through hell in my mind
because you know, I grew up I grew up wrong with you grew
up, right.
Yep, Mr. Marty you grew up right I read in your bio you you
have like this illustrious bottom like damn. We got a civil
rights attorney.
Tell me when your study when you studied you studied about
the hardships of black individuals in a time. When man we
had no real rights, Jim Crow all these little different
things that happened.
and you you
took up that manual you said, you know what I'm gonna go
ahead stand in this place take up a mantle or so many other
individuals Martin all these mad girl all these individuals
that you did it. I didn't
I didn't come away from Jazz and music and art to go into
this Arena you did.
But you not standing in your power. So and what she said
is, right? Yeah, we have civil arguments.
Civil rights arguments, you know that our civil rights have
been violated.
Black Americans here in this country right now in your city
where you took up a manual?
civil rights
Harvard Law Harvard 1 of the most prestigious if not the
most prestigious Law School.
In this country you did it not me. You did the hours you
did. You took the bar. You went through hell?
To give us Heaven. That's Jude just like those other
individuals before you they went through hell without
having to go through they went through real hell dragged
with you watched fire holes German Shepherds. Um, yo n****
ass can't go in this motherfuking place right here. Sorry
for the language, but I just feel so so much when I can
imagine what they sitting up there doing.
Think about that. You took up the mantle not me.
I'm in here hurting.
You have to utilize your power.
Not me, and I'm sorry for the language.
However, I'm hurting they've removed me from my children
from my livelihood just like they did so many in them times
past but I'm not the young man who took up the mantle.
you are
You are a civil rights attorney.
You are argued this point.
You defend us in a place where we can't defend ourselves
you did that just like those people that marched in the
streets. That's like those people that was lynched.
chase down persecuted for no reason
but you took up that mantle not me you said I'm I'm gonna
be that champion, not me.
That's the Martin you did it went to the most prestigious
that's on you. So we need your power. Our next public
speaker is George Blakemore and as you come up Mr.
Blakemore, I want to acknowledge Alderman Vasquez
alderwoman nin. Um Alderman OSHA for purposes of quorum.
the miseducation of the black men
When he goes to these prestigious, uh White schools.
He come out a little white wash.
the miseducation of the black men
you have to watch who is teaching your children?
I heard 1 of the Asian people they uh said
that our children of banana children
yellow on the outside and white on the inside the myth
education of the black man. You must be careful who you
send your children to to school with perhaps. They thought
that you will get a a excellent education at Harvard, but
Harvard is racist.
Harvard was built on the back of black labor.
So
we can't give you too much credit as a civil rights
attorney who taught you.
What our children are being miseducated and we should have a
new Black Agenda and a new black curriculum to teach our
children our kind of felt sad seeing these previous
speakers coming up.
Saying these black faces and demanding that they they help
us they can't help us only us.
Can help us. They we don't trust you. We trust us. So Black
Faces in high places mean nothing the myth education of the
black men and the black woman so you don't impress me with
your heart degree.
no, and I'm leading this to up to all of you to read and
and to look at the video of 1 of our prestigious historian
claw Anderson, Dr. Karl Anderson, and if we as black people
will use uh what he said, uh to benefit us nobody like
black people.
nobody
and the country was so evil and doing these egregious act.
They wanted zero, uh, uh, uh, uh bringing in black people
zero.
Zero, they mean the the whites say we don't want them to
come here.
the Mexicans came here
after the the the Civil War
it was just about 50,000 now, it's 50.
Before I knew you were gonna read butker with me. I can
teach you history next up. We have Brian's group trained
our last public comment.
Waiting for me.
family
and uh, thank you for your time today. My name is Brian
zeru, and I'm the policy director at the better government
Association.
We appreciate the effort that chairman Martin his staff and
the Chicago Board of Ethics have gone and to bringing you
this ordinance today.
Which amends the city's ethics ordinance to allow full
enforcement of an already existing prohibition on donations
from registered lobbyists to the mayor of Chicago.
The ordinance also applies to the prohibition that
candidates for mayor to ensure that incumbents and other
candidates are all treated alike.
In addition to the item before you today, I would like to
strongly urge members.
Of this committee to also take up ordinance 7359 which
would Implement a package of recommendations from the board
of Ethics first put forward in August of last year.
among those recommendations is a provision closing a current
campaign Finance loophole that allows the owners and
operators of City contractors to make campaign
contributions unrestricted by the city's pay-to-play
protections a BGA analysis published earlier this year
showed hundreds of thousands of dollars in mayoral campaign
contributions.
In the last election cycle from individuals whose companies
made tens of millions of dollars off City contracts during
those same months.
The BGA has reached out multiple times in the mayor's
office, which has remained silent about this ordinance. If
they're unwilling to engage in voiced their concerns
publicly, then it's time for a Committee hearing where
members of this body can take questions in are any concerns
they have before a vote.
In a city with Chicago's troubled history.
Of avoiding, even the appearance of pay-to-play is critical
for restoring faith in government. We strongly urge passage
of today's ordinance and the prompt consideration of the
passage of the board of Ethics recommendations 7359 as
well. Thank you for your time.
Thank you, Mr. Zuru that concludes public comment. Our
first order of business is the rule 45 report from March
2024, which was sent out to the committee. Can I get a
motion to approve the report Alderman Reilly so moves all
those in favor signify by saying I although suppose in the
opinion of the chair the eyes have it as I mentioned at the
outset. There are 2 substantive items before the committee
the first of which um is substitute ordinance.
6 prohibiting lobbyists from making direct or in-kind
contributions to mayor or mayoral political committees
executive director Steve Berlin from the board of Ethics
will be joining us today and we'll speak to the substitute
ordinance before we open it up to the committee non
committee members for questions before we turn it over to
director Berlin. I would like to start off by setting some
context earlier this year the Chicago Board of Ethics
recommended that Mayor Johnson and the city council codify
an existing executive order EO 22011 dash2, which prohibits
lobbyists from donating to any mayor or mayor's authorized
political committee. This executive order has been on the
books for 13 years after then mayor Rahm Emanuel signed it
on his first day in office in 2011 on the day. He signed
this order mayor Emanuel stated and I quote I want to
reestablish the ties that have been frayed between the
public and those of us in public service part of that is
giving them a sense of confidence that we are conducting
ourselves in the professional and ethical.
Way, this is another building block or Another Brick in that
Foundation end of quote earlier this year in April the
board of Ethics considered allegations that several
registered lobbyists contributed to Mayor Johnson's
Campaign Committee in violation of eo2.
Um director Ben, I'd kindly ask you to hold off for just a
second. We will be um, passing out the substitute ordinance
right now, um for everyone's consideration in advance of
you providing testimony, um, and we will be providing you a
a copy of it as well.
There's it's this is the amended substitute.
The Cure period is attached
and we can make sure we have an opportunity to discuss set
to for everyone's edification. I appreciate your patience.
noted, um
So, um, the the committee is just received a substitute
ordinance. Can I have a motion to accept the substitute
ordinance Alderman Vasquez? So moves, uh, all those in
favor signify by saying I all those opposed the opinion of
the chair the eyes have it. The substitute is now before
the committee director Berlin the floor is yours. Thank you
for your patience.
Go ahead.
Thank you for the clarification. Chairman. Talya Ferro, we
will accept it. Um, will you provide that terminology 1
more time for the record?
Substitute ordinance as amended. Yes. Thank you chairman
and go ahead director Berlin.
Chair Mark. Pardon me chair Martin Vice chair Haden an
honorable members of the committee on ethics and government
oversight. It's my privilege to testify before you this
afternoon and urge you to vote to recommend that the full
city council enact these proposed amendments to the
governmental ethics ordinance into law. These are good
government reforms as the chair mentioned on May 20, Mae
11th, 2011 then
mayor Rahm Emanuel signed 6 Executive Orders 1 of these
barred lobbyists registered with the board of ethics for
making any political contributions to the mayor or to the
mayor's authorized political committee and provided also
that the board quote shall not accept a registration
statement from any lobbyist. It determines to have violated
this order end quote.
The board of Ethics detected no apparent violations of this
order in the 2015 or the 2019 election Cycles, but did
detect 5 during the 2023 election cycle as the chairman
mentioned and has now been widely reported the board
rightly sought the opinion of council as to whether it had
the authority to enforce the order after considering the
opinion that it received the board determined that it does
not have that Authority. So the board voted unanimously to
recommend the ordinance that you have before you in
substance.
The ordinance would codify the executive order and also
expand and slightly contract on it in the following 3 ways
first, it would extend the ban to contributions not only to
an incumbent mayor but out of fairness as our colleague
from the BGA pointed out to all mayoral candidates.
Second it would provide that.
For the first violation a lobbyist would be subject to
fines of 3 times the amount of the contribution unless of
course the lobbyists had sold a refund which is the change
that is before you and then for further violations to a
suspension of their lobbyist registration in other words
the right to lobby for 90 days.
Now the original executive order as enacted in 2011 had no
time limit on a lobbyist's registration suspension. Meaning
that read literally a lobbyist could have been permanently
prohibited from registering as a lobbyist ever again.
So in this sense, it is a contraction not an expansion of
the executive order, but in our view and the board's view a
very reasonable contraction third, it would expand the
prohibition to any business entity for which a lobbyist has
lobbied in the 12 months prior to the contribution if the
lobbyists has an ownership interest in that entity that
exceeds 7.5%
I stress that. This is not a ban on all uh of a particular
lobbyist's clients from making contributions rather. The
goal here is designed to forestall lobbyists from making
contributions through a business entity that they own
contributions that they could not make as an individual.
And that is because we don't have entity registration as
lobbyists in the city of Chicago. We have only individual
lobbyists registrations.
This amendment is not enacted it would roll back. This part
of the city's ethics laws to the way they were up until May
11th, 2011 and thus erase 13 years of Reform. It would
bring the city back to a regime where lobbyists could
contribute up to the 1500 per calendar year limit to any
elected official or candidate for elected city office. But
more importantly it would enroll the spirit of 1 of mayor
Rahm emanuel's key ethics reforms which was to eliminate
lobbyists political contributions to mayors.
It would also enable a company LLC or other entity in which
a lobbyist say has a 1/3 or even a 100% ownership interest
to make contributions up to the limit in the Illinois
election code which are currently higher than in city law
13,700 per election cycle.
Currently note that this amendment is intended to codify
mayoral executive order 20112 and addresses only lobbyists
contributions and only to Mayors or mayoral candidates not
contributions to other elected officials or candidates for
other City elected offices.
In closing I urge you not to roll back the ethics reform
clock but to pass this into law and thereby help bolster
public confidence in the Integrity of Chicago government.
In my 30 plus years with the board of ethics and in this
rarefied field of law government ethics and campaign
financing. I have not seen an Ethics reform walked or
rolled back. I await your questions. Thank you director.
We're going to start with Alderman Reilly, please go ahead.
Thank you chairman. Uh, and thank you director for being
here. Um, just for the Committees edification Who provided
you with the legal opinion that the executive order was on
enforceable. Uh, we saw the opinion from the law department
and uh the Law Department rightly, um assigned it to the
law firm of Jones Day.
So the law firm of Jones Day provided the opinion, which is
actually on our website. So the law department at no time
individually before retaining outside counsel opine that
this would not apply. Oh, I I can't speak to what I cannot
speak to that. All I can speak to is that the board
requested the opinion of the law department and the Law
Department? Um, actually the board the board recommended
that because of the law Department's position within city
government that it assigned the opinion to a special
assistant Corporation Council, which it did good. That's
that's good to hear. Um, and as you mentioned this
ordinance does not apply any new standards to other elected
officials, but uh, those folks pursuing the office of mayor
or those occupying it, is that correct?
Correct. Okay, because there was some confusion among
committee members earlier that perhaps this may have been
an expansion of of a regulatory reach by the bureaucracy on
on members of the council and other City elected officials
know the only expansion really is that as I mentioned, uh
mayor emanuel's executive order covered pan contributions
only to an incumbent mayor whereas this would expand it out
of fairness to candidates who are running for mayor fair
enough. Well, uh, I want to applaud uh, the chairman for
his attempts to work with the administration. I understand
that um, despite as many offers to uh amend this ordinance
and tweak it and make changes those were rejected. Um, it's
a shame that this Administration, uh is not embracing, uh,
a good ethics policy that was put in place by apprentices
or uh, that's I think a missed opportunity, but I certainly
will be enthusiastically supporting this today. Thank you
chairman. Thank you. Alderman.
others ultimately Farrell
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I see was it? Oh, I'm sorry.
Hi el Boulder.
Oh wrestling moved that I picked up in his 70s Ric Flair.
You guys know you guys wouldn't um
yeah, Steve is there um was there at any time of
recommendation from your office, um that this policy be
extended or this ordinance rather, um be extended beyond
the office of the mayor and to other elected officials know
there's been no such recommendation Alderman. Okay. Now, is
there anything um outside of a City Council vote? Is there
any anything that would prohibit extending it to um other
elected officials to include, um, you know, the clerk the
treasurer Alderman and
that's completely within the expression of the city council
as lawmakers. So there's nothing precluding that nothing
precluding it but this is just not address it because the
focus of this particular proposed amendment is simply to
codify that executive order and as I say expand it a little
bit but that executive order Deals Only with contributions
by lobbyists or in this case entities that they have a that
they have an interest in that they Lobby it on behalf of to
Mayor mayoral candidates both incumbents and Challengers.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
chairman.
other questions all the womanly
Thank you chairman.
Hi Steve, how are you? I'm fine. All the woman. Um, I'm
looking at uh, the first paragraph here where it's uh, uh,
what's stricken out is and no lobbyists registered with the
board of Ethics. Why is that being stricken? Oh, that's a
very good question actually because um,
because the laws of the lobbyists law is going to change on
July the 1st in a few weeks and
The change uh is is with the change makes a distinction
between somebody who lobbies which who would be covered by
this particular proposed amendment as opposed to somebody
who is required to register as a lobbyist. And the way that
that will work is that there will be activity and and or
compensation expenditure threshold in other words a person
who engages in lobbying on or after July the 1st.
is still a lobbyist and would be covered by this ban, but
they wouldn't have to register with the board for this
unless unless
no, no, uh know that this would apply but they wouldn't
have to register with the board as a registered lobbyist
until they Lobby 20 or more hours in a calendar quarter or
are paid more than or spend more than 1,250 in a calendar
quarter on lobbying and the goal here is to extend this
contribution ban, not only to registered lobbyists, but
those persons who um should be registered or even have
engaged in lobbying period because they're still lobbyists
as defined in the law. They're just not required to
register until they reach those thresholds.
Got it. Thank you for that explanation. I was just really
confused by this know that's but that's I'm glad you asked
that question because it's a that's exactly the reason why
we recommended
This I got it. Um
that makes a lot of sense and really the the onus really is
on the lobbyists at the end of the day. It's always been on
the lobbyists. The onus has always been on a lobbyist to
register as required.
Okay, um.
So and just so that I'm I'm clear. Um about how this works
in practice. John Smith is a is a lobbyist a registered
lobbyist who meets all of the requirements of time and
money, um spent in uh,
He owns 10% of a restaurant per se. Um, he cannot under
this uh work how to find this and under the executive order
make any contribution to a mayoral candidate or an
incumbent mayor who's running for office. Um, and the
restaurant couldn't make an in-kind contribution only if um
that lobbyists has lobbied on behalf of that restaurant in
the past 12 months if the lobbyists has not lobbied on
behalf of that entity and but still has an ownership
interest in it then um, the contribution could come from
that entity. So it's um, so it's not all lobbyists clients.
Uh, it's not all number 1 it's it's not all entities that a
lobbyist has an ownership interest in it's only those
entities for which the lobbyists has lobbied and secondly,
it's not the all of the lobbyists clients. It's only those
entities that are clients in.
Which the lobbyists has a 7 and a half percent or greater
ownership interest in actually 7.5% another good question
because 1 of uh, mayor emanuel's other executive orders
executive order 20114, which bans City contractors as
defined from making political contributions to the mayor
also includes owners of City contractors and their spouses
and owner is defined as somebody who has more than 7 and a
half percent interest or more in the entity. So this is
consistent with another executive order that's on the
books. Okay?
Uh, that's all I've got chairman. Thank you. Thank you
order woman, uh, next up Alderman Vasquez then lost and
then whack us back.
Thank you. Uh, thank you very much chairman. Um 1 I I
really appreciate you, uh working on moving this forward. I
think a number of us, uh prior to coming in to government
and being elected. Um, really we're trying to find better
ways knowing how much money influences these elections and
making sure that you have balls and Strikes in a way that
allows for fairness across the board. Um, I think a number
of us if we were looking at and and ideal situation and I
want to commend the chairman as well. We'll be looking at
publicly financed elections and I think in the
conversations about how these elections can be competitive
in a way that doesn't tip the scales to those who have more
money. Um, this does move the ball forward, even if it's
not where we'd want it to ultimately be so I I do greatly
appreciate it. I think it's measured in a way. Um, that is
sensible. Um, so I I'm fully in support and but as members
to do the same,
I think the question I have is also in in how it actually
plays out in reality. Um
and I don't mean to be precious by um phrasing it that way
but uh,
candidates sometimes don't know
what funds are being donated into their committees, right
and ultimately find out 1 way or the other. So in in
reality, like how does that play out? Similarly, right if
if someone who would be in violation of this were to
donate? What is a good way to kind of filter for that? If
happen to be a candidate or what is the body that we're
catch that well what we've recommended in the past is that
um candidates and their committee staff know these
restrictions and um as far as lobbyists go, um, our uh, our
lobbyists list is on our website and we updated about every
3 weeks, which is approximately when we have a change, you
know, somebody will terminate a client or we have a new
registration Etc. So we we update those and um, so at any
time somebody can check to see who a registered lobbyist is
but we have tried to educate candidates committees to know
the restricted sources of contributions lobbyists, uh
persons or companies that have had um City contracts that
are worth $10,000 or more or contracts with the sister
agent.
and we've worked diligently in the past couple of years, uh
with the mayor's office and with our computer people, uh,
and the and um, it was then called the department of
innovation and Technology. Now, it's changed its name to
the Department of uh dit. I think it is now, but they have
a very good vendor that has worked with us very carefully
and we have a database where you can search if if a
candidate's committee gets a contribution of dollars from
XYZ company, you can go to the database and you can search
to see what whether XYZ database. Uh, XYZ company has been
doing business with the city or 1 of its sister agencies.
And therefore is subject to a 1500 limit. So, you know, the
best answer is there's no substitute for education and for
having uh, Vigilant campaign staff that knows. Hey, you
know, this might be a restricted Source in which case they
can call us or they can ask the contributor. Um, and there
are other resources that are online that are available to
them as well. Okay. I I appreciate that. I think uh
Something a number of us have learned. Uh, unfortunately is
there is no 1-on-1 course for how to learn government or
any of the Departments or any of the processes when you're
running a ward office for example, and so I think similarly
um, uh, we see stories of contributions in getting returned
and I always think about the campaign staff that may or may
not know how to vet these things properly and rather than
assume, uh bad intent to to understand that so I think
absolutely well be helpful for us is if due to share kind
of send.
Us the information on that portal website any
recommendations on what campaign committees and fundraising
Consultants should know on the front end, uh in a way that
leads to more proactive looking at this stuff because I
don't think obviously most folks are focused on their
government jobs, but making sure that the teams that we are
working with are looking at that so they don't run a file
unintentionally. So, um again, I I am in full support. Um,
I do believe the more we get to this fairness good
government transparency, the things that are necessary it
adds. I believe more confidence in government because folks
are very cynical and sometimes rightfully so about how
money can influence what happens in government. Um, and
yeah the more information you send us the better. That way
we can be better equipped and make sure we're proactive on
this stuff. So thank you so much and thank you chairman.
Thank you Alderman Lawson and then alderman waguespack.
Thank you. Sure. Uh, I'd appreciate it. Hello director
Berlin. Um good to see you. How long is the this database
of doing business with the city? How long has that been
around? Well in its current uh in its current more robust
form about 2 years. Okay, but actually it's kind of
interesting when uh, when the law was amended back in 1997,
uh, the idea, uh, it was like the law was expanded to uh
cover not only persons doing business with the city, but
also with the cities named sister agent, please the public
schools CTA Etc at that time, uh, all good intentions, uh,
it was written into the law that there shall be a database
where candidates
an elected officials and campaign staff can search
and I will tell you that uh having been in this office as
long as I have it's always been a challenge to get a robust
database and so it's been around the database has been on
paper and has actually been in existence since 1998. But
um, I will say that, uh due to the hard work of people in
the mayor's office and the department of innovation and
technology and their vendors, um, and also the cooperation
and hard work of our partners at the city's system
agencies. We have a very robust database. The other thing
I'll point out is that the law has always provided that
anybody who goes to that database and relies upon it, um,
give it you know for the identity of whether somebody is
subject to the 1500 limit if they can show that they went
to the database they search for XYZ company and didn't get
a hit on Hy XYZ company meaning that they reasonably
concluded it's not subject to the 1500 limit because it's
not doing business. That's an absolute defense.
Great, great. Thank you. Um, you mentioned uh City
contractors, uh, which was part of the 2011 1 of the 2011
executive orders. We're not addressing that here. That's
not being addressed here at all. We have done some stuff
with contractors though. Uh, maybe it was in the last term
Correct me if I'm wrong. I have been uh various amendments
to the campaign financing laws, but they really haven't uh,
the last substantive Amendment with respect to contractors.
Um goes back to the late 90s when uh, the expansion was
made from persons doing business with the city, uh, which
is a subset of All City contractors. They have to have ten
thousand dollars or more in business in a 12-month period.
Um, we're a city contractors include people that have
contracts that are less than that, but that was the last
time that uh, aside from mayor emanuel's executive order
which was 2011. The last time contractors were addressed
was goes back to the late 90s, right? Thanks Steve. Um, I I
know uh, mayor Emanuel also never took money from city
employees, which meant I could never get on his political
list. Um, we don't that was never put into an executive
order that isn't an executive order indeed it is it is.
Yes. It's uh, it covered that's executive order number, uh,
2011-3, um, which uh prohibits
uh city employees as well as appointed officials persons
who serve on City boards and commissions appointed by the
mayor and confirmed by the city council, uh from making
contributions to the mayor.
Great. I mean I have a policy. I don't take any money
certainly from anyone who works for me. Um, but it may be
something that if we want to codify that would make sense.
I think that you could avoid a lot of trouble if that was
in the in the code and you know, um, then just 1 other
thing, you know, I I think maybe 1 of the criticisms here
is we're treating people who are lobbying the mayor and the
executive different than their lobbying a city council
member I would say the The Authority is vastly different
and probably the rule should be too but do we do we have
any are any of our peer cities that have uh, similar
restrictions or that have different penalties when you're
lobbying the executive versus a member of the legislature.
I'm not aware of different penalties, but uh just about all
jurisdictions do have some limitations on lobbyists
contributions. Okay? Yeah.
Great, that's it as well. As I should say suspensions, uh,
our colleagues in Miami Dade, um will suspend lobbyists for
90 days for filing violations as a matter of fact, so
So then so then they probably hire somebody to get
everything. Right right. Thank you chair. Thank you
Alderman waguespack. Thanks chairman. Um Steve thanks for
uh doing the work that you do and I just want to give you a
shout out because I know for uh in this last term and I
know before that you had always helped out with um,
new aldermen coming in on a lot of these ethics issues and
I've always made yourself, uh available hour upon hour to
have great discussions about every little potential issue
that pops up you and your staff. I see the other staff here
and I appreciate that. Um, and I think that's uh, you know,
when you look at the way the by the way, is this going to
be on that new ethics test
Wait, but it will.
because we've already got
That's already up and running. Right? So this sort of
dovetails into I think what a lot of whether you're new or
continuing Alderman, you know that, uh, you constantly
update these tests the uh, 1-on-1 and all those um issues
that come up before us and I I just want to say I
appreciate that because if people are thinking and running
whether as a aldermanic or in this case expanding it to all
the mayoral candidates,
It's I think it becomes very clear to them as they're
running what the expectations are. So I just want to say
uh, you know, thank you for that. Um and then quickly on
the um,
You mentioned that the computer people have this database
and they pretty much find this stuff. So.
When you get the information and you start to put the uh
paperwork together for this for the violation. What is the
time frame that you spent on say 1 or those 5 violations
that you noticed?
Oh, um with our with our probable cause procedures
basically what we do is all as you all know, probably, um
all political contributions in the state of Illinois. In
fact around the United States are made public, uh, in this
case in Illinois. It's by our colleagues at the State Board
of Elections. So the um, the board of ethics number 1
reviews lobbyists activity reports, um, and lobbyists are
required to disclose any political contributions that they
have made to any candidates for elected city office in the
past 3 months. So a lobbyist number 1 has to report it. Uh,
if a lobbyist made a contract that's how we caught some of
these I mean, it was kind of a gimme it was a no-brainer
because it was reported on forms that were filed with the
board of Ethics. Uh, but more often than not it's a matter
of looking at the uh database that's collected of all
contributions that are uh reported to
the isbe and it's like a 13 step process where we then have
to figure out um, everybody who contributed more than 1500
in the relevant time period where they subject to the
limitations either because they were a registered lobbyist
which is relatively easy to figure out or where they
seeking to do business with the city or its sister agencies
or doing business with the city or its sister agencies,
which requires uh, a more detailed examination of City
Contracting records. Um seeking to do business has to do
with having matters that are pending before the city
council. So we have to review the the the record the
Journal of council proceedings Etc. Um, and then what we do
then is um, we fare we after doing our due diligence what
we're looking for is hey, this person was subject to the
1500 limit or if it's a lobbyist with subject either to the
1500 limit for non-male contributions or was subject to
zero contributions for the mayor and then we take it from
there. We send out a letter of probable cause affording the
subject.
The right to contest the boards, uh Prime of facie
determination and if they can successfully do that, we
throw the case out, but if not, then there are there are
certainly entitled to come in and meet with the board and
uh present whatever evidence or documents they have uh in
their defense, which is exactly what happened here. I mean,
none of these lobbyists denied making the contributions,
but what we had were arguments such that uh, you know, the
board doesn't have authority to enforce this executive
order. Uh, I the lobbyists didn't make the
contribution my entity did
So so that can take anywhere from a month to 3 to 4 months.
Okay per case. Great. Thank you very much. Sure.
Thank you Alderman, Noe.
Thanks chair.
Good afternoon, Steve alderman.
Steve we
is is I read this ordinance and I know there's been a a
late afternoon change.
Um
we're talking about uh
donations in the amount of 1500 dollars
uh, we're talking well for this purposes of here of this
ordinance and contributions by lobbyists to the mayor or
mayoral candidates. We're talking about uh, a z about an
absolute ban. Okay, so for lobbyists contributions to other
elected officials or candidates for other elected city
offices, other than the mayor then we're looking at the
1500 per calendar year limit.
Is it your opinion that this body? We should be looking at
what other organizations contribute?
2 political candidates or political office holders
organizations that
last year contributed millions and millions of dollars.
Um
That's it's not before us today. But we have the board of
Ethics. Uh, the board of Ethics has done quite a bit of
research on that and um, I will say that 1 of the things
that's uh that our colleague from the better government
Association mentioned before is that uh in a prior package
of proposed amendments. There is a recommendation with
suggested language to um, close off what some people would
term a loophole with respect to all campaign contributions,
which is if a company um has let's say 3 million dollars
300 million dollars in contracts with the city. The company
is is limited to 1500 but its owners and its employees and
its directors and it's um, uh,
I don't know if I'm missing at shareholders, which are its
owners. They are not so limited unless they are reimbursed
by the company and uh, the board has has recommended and
this is in our public recommendations that um,
Other cities have in a sense closed that off and they have
defined the company the same as certain Executives in its
sea suite and the board has recommended that the city
council do the same thing with respect to uh companies. For
example that have City contracts or doing business with the
city or its sister agencies in other words, except
extend the ban not only not the ban the limit the $500 limit
extend it not only to the company but include its C Suite
Executives as all 1 single contributor so that they're
subject to 1 single aggregate dollar ban, New York is done
is done that Los Angeles has done that and the board has
recommended that the city of Chicago do that as well.
And do you think we should expand that to other
organizations that contribute?
that's a larger question when you say other organizations,
I mean there are plenty of um types of organizations that
participate in the political and the campaign contribution
process
um, that's that's a larger question that would uh, we'd
have to talk about
in Greater detail
Pardon me? I think it's something we should look at just a
couple of us here sitting around talking, uh this
afternoon. There's
people in this building elected officials that received 60
70 80 thousand dollars last year.
We're talking about 1500 dollars here. But there's people
that have received eighty thousand dollars from 1
organization.
I think that's something we should all look at.
Thanks.
Thank you Alderman any other questions Alderman Reilly?
Thanks chairman. I just want to put a finer point on what
Alderman J was getting at and that is um, well I do applaud
this ordinance and I plan on voting for it and I think we
all should. Um, we do do need to look at that. Um in some
cases some of our colleagues are wholly owned subsidiaries
of of an organization that is literally bankrolled their
entire campaign.
And if this is really about getting money in the influence
of it out of politics, you know, it seems like we're
nibbling around the edges here. Um, and so certainly if
we're talking about applying these types of Standards to
corporations. We need to make sure they apply to everyone
Um and frankly it's not the lobbyists and they're typically
1500 dollar or $0 contributions that are um, corrupting the
process. It's these these focuses and and make them elected
officials. That's the problem and my by my estimation, um,
the the board actually issued an opinion, uh, during the
2015 election cycle and I can pull it up here.
that addressed uh contributions from labor unions and we
did a
an extensive advisory opinion where we looked at the
history of of uh, the history and the number of other
jurisdictions that limit political contributions from labor
unions and the board.
in that opinion, um stopped short of making a
recommendation to the city council but pointed out the
history of uh, regulation of Union contributions, uh, both,
uh in Chicago as well as other jurisdictions and that I can
send you that opinion not appreciate that if you could and
perhaps through the chair so we could all get a copy. I
think that would be Illuminating. Um, great. Well, thank
you, uh, Steve for answering my questions and thank you
chairman for your Indulgence. Yeah, absolutely and we'll
sit be sure to send you pass. Thank you Alderman Reilly, uh
moves to pass all those in favor signify by saying I I all
those opposed
in the opinion, uh with the exception of aldermen Talya
Ferro the eyes have it, uh, The Substitute ordinance
passes. Thank you director Berlin. Um, and we will now, uh,
take up 2 appointments to the Chicago Board of Ethics. I
want to uh, invite up. Um, uh, The Honorable bernetta Bush
as well as Sarah gin. Thank you both so much for your
patience. We had a late start today and obviously a
livelier than anticipated conversation. Thank you for
sticking with us. I I rest assured that the board of Ethics
is a little bit more sedate than uh, the committee on
ethics and government oversight. Um, but in the interest of
time we're going to take up
Both of your um appointments simultaneously. Um, so we'll
have both of you, uh, prepare your opening or share your
prepared opening statements and then we'll have the
opportunity to ask questions of both of you. By the way.
This is um, uh 2 items on our agenda a uh, uh 2 0202024 D
00000 9553 as well as a 202024 D 0009552. Um
hear uh from Judge Bush and then from Miss Jen Miss push,
go ahead.
Good afternoon.
um to the um
members of the city council Ethics Committee. It is my
pleasure to be here and have this opportunity to uh, speak
to you.
My name is bernetta D bush. I'm a lifelong resident of the
city of Chicago and a product of Chicago Public Schools.
I am a retired judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County.
where I last served in the Chancery division
I ALS served as an Ethics officer for the city colleges of
Chicago and Chicago State University. Additionally I served
on the Illinois attorney registration and disciplinary, um
committee, uh, which um,
uh addressed potential ethical violations by Illinois
attorneys
I am excited about the opportunity, uh to serve on the city
of Chicago ethics board because I believe in an ethical and
transparent government that ensures integrity and increases
the public trust in government.
Also because it will give me an opportunity to give service
to the city has that that has provided me with so many
opportunities. I would appreciate your support and I look
forward to this opportunity and challenge to serve the city
and its capacity.
Thank you. Judge, Miss chin, please. Good afternoon. My
name is Sarah. Gin. I currently live in West Loop though. I
lived in Chicago. Most of my adult life. Um, I grew up in
the Northwest suburb of Chicago and I attended law school
downtown at Loyola. Um, I'm a partner in the Chicago Office
of the law firm Barnes & Thornburg where I focus my
practice on product liability and mass tort litigation and
represent clients in the drug medical device and consumer
goods Industries.
prior to that I practice a different areas of civil
litigation at se several Chicago based law firms doing both
plaintiff side work and defense side work as for my
nomination to the board of Ethics. I'm grateful for the
opportunity to serve my community and believe that I can
serve well in this capacity impartiality is something that
I've long valued dating back to my time in Springfield
working with the general assemblies legislative research
unit before attending Law School.
There I experienced firsthand the importance of impartiality
through the work of a nonpartisan governmental research
agency and that's continued on in my legal career given
that upholding ethical standards and maintaining the right
to a fair and impartial Arbiter are at the core of my
profession.
A key part of my job as a litigator is evaluating evidence
and applying the law. I've spent my career delving into to
into rules and statutes analyzing issues drafting legal
briefs and counseling clients on not only litigation
strategies, but also Regulatory Compliance.
I mean excited to utilize and bring that experience to the
board of Ethics in order to carry out its important
functions such as evaluating evidence of alleged violations
of the governmental ethics ordinance and preparing advisory
opinions to help ensure compliance.
I also understand that the 2 board positions have been
vacant for several months and I'm eager to ensure that the
board can fulfill its statutorily mandated obligations
moving forward without risk of uh failing to meet quorum.
I seek your support from my nomination and I look forward
to serving the people of Chicago on the as a member of the
board of Ethics. Thank you for your time and consideration
and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Thank you very much. We'll now take questions Alderman OSHA
and Alder William nen.
Uh, thank you chairman. No questions. Just uh, thank you
both for your willingness to serve, uh your resume speak
for themselves, and thank you for your service judge. Thank
you. Thank you.
Bye some of the most requested experience dealing with
issues of ethics.
CE
look forward very much to support.
Thank you. Thank you.
Chairman, um just a question for each 1 of you if you could
uh speak to what you think maybe 1 of the most important
issues is will be that you will be addressing.
As you sit on the board.
um
speaking as a um
a prior judge. Um, I believe that ethics is a critical
issue in government.
I cannot speak to.
All of the issues that may come before the ethics board,
but what I can speak to is the responsibility that I I will
assume in making sure that any issue that comes before the
ethics board is properly reviewed based upon the evidence
and the facts and provide an opinion that reflects the the
laws and regulations established by
the ethics board
it's hard to improve on that response. Um, but I will say,
you know, I
I can't weigh on anything, you know specific but I do think
that all the issues that are going to be before the board
are important issues. They impact the people of Chicago the
impact, you know, government employees. Um, and so I look
forward to working with the rest of the board, um, and with
director Berlin on you know those important issues
Thank you. Any other oh Alderman Vasquez followed by
alderwoman Lee. Thank you chairman. Uh, yeah. I I similarly
had a comment. I I really look forward to you all, uh,
getting a point to add to the board. Um,
the fact that we've had meetings that weren't able to move
forward because it wasn't Quorum is embarrassing for
government. And so knowing that you all will be there to
show up, uh is greatly appreciated and I would um,
definitely ask you to challenge us. Um, we really do look
forward to when we get the recommendation from the board as
to what things the council can do. Um, we want to be able
to move those in forward fashion. So as you all look to
what we can do better, please make sure to be extensive and
thorough so we can do the good job of creating better
government for people. So thank you so much, uh for even
stepping up for the opportunity. Uh, thank you. Thank you
Aldo woman lie, uh, thank you chair and thank you both for
your willingness to serve. Um, I think all of us sitting up
here understand the the difficult job. This is and you have
other day jobs. I know that you judge your retired, but you
probably
So this will just be 1 more thing. Right? Um, but a very
important thing I I think I want to just Echo a few of the
sentiments that my colleagues have uh have expressed today.
Um, you know, when I and I'm apologize that we didn't have
an opportunity to get to speak beforehand and I look
forward to getting to know you more. Um, but as I had an
opportunity to talk to uh to speak with Miss Jen, you know,
the the role that you're playing on this ethics board and
the work of the ethics board, uh is is just vitally
important to um, I believe helping to restore, um public
trust in government. I you know, the 2 years that I've been
um in office I I think 1 of the biggest challenges we have
is that there there isn't and we have to earn that back
from the public and this is the way to do it, um, 1 very
important way. So um, I appreciate uh, the the sacrifices
that you're going to make in the process, uh, and and all
of the work that you're taking on. Um, and it's uh, it's
not lost on me Miss Jen that you are Asian-American not
that that is some sort of requirement but from a diversity
perspective. I do think that it is important that um,
It at every opportunity that we have, uh that we be
inclusive and diversity. Um, especially on boards like
this. Uh, so um,
I for sure I'm a fan you both have my uh you both have my S
votes and thank you again for your service. Thank you.
Thank you. Uh any other questions? Oh, I'm sorry Alderman
talifero my apologies.
Thank you chairman. I just want to just quickly Echo the
words of my uh, my colleagues and think think both of you
for your your continued Service. Uh, you've been doing it
for a long time, of course judge, but your continued Public
Service. I certainly appreciate it. And I know both um,
each of you have probably reached out to my office and and
I want to apologize for being so consumed with everything
else that I didn't reach back out to you, but you have my
complete support and I thank you for um your service city
city of Chicago. Thank you.
Thank you chairman any other questions, um seeing none, so
I'll take this, uh, just in in 2 quick Parts. Um, can I
first have a motion to recommend approval of a 202024000000
9552 regarding the honorable bernetta bush.
Alder alderwoman nin so moves all those in favor signify by
saying I all those opposed say no in the opinion of the
chair. The eyes have it and the appointment passes. Can I
next have a motion to recommend approval of a 202400000095
regarding Sergeant alderwoman lie, so moves all those in
favor signify by saying I all those opposed independent of
the chair of the eyes have it and the appointment passes.
Thank you both so much. Thank you.
And there being no further business thankfully before this
committee. Can I get a motion to adjourn Alderman Vasquez?
So moves all those in favor signify by saying I all those
opposed the opinion of the chair the eyes have it the
meeting is adjourned. Thank you all.