To the delight of those well-connected government insiders and to the chagrin of most decent citizens, Illinois has acquired a reputation as a state whose politicians are some of the most ethically-challenged, if not outright corrupt, in this country.  And judging by the number of news stories and criminal convictions, it would be hard to argue against that reputation being justified. 

Despite that reputation, we do have  a number of laws designed to force elected officials to be more forthcoming about their own personal interests which might conflict – or at least interfere – with their honest discharge of the public trust that comes with their offices.  One of those laws is the “Illinois Governmental Ethics Act,” which requires local public officials to annually file a “Statement of Economic Interests” with their county clerk.

The importance of that filing, which is designed to disclose private economic interests of public officials and their spouses that might affect the officials’ decision-making on matters related to their public duties, is underscored by the fact that the intentional filing of “a false or incomplete statement” is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison and a fine of up to $1,000.

We would expect that the public purpose of such disclosures and the penalties involved would promote full compliance.  But apparently not, as the subject of today’s ethics lesson – Park Ridge Mayor Howard Frimark – illustrates. 

Item 5 of the “Statement of Economic Interests” form requires, in connection with the official’s (or his/her spouse’s) interest in any real estate, the listing of:

the name of any entity and the nature of the governmental action requested by any entity which has applied to a unit of local government in relation to which the person must file for any license, franchise or permit for annexation, zoning or rezoning of real estate during the preceding calendar year if the ownership  interest of the person filing [the Statement of Economic Interest] is in excess of $5,000 fair market value at the time of filing or if income or dividends in excess of $1,200 were received by the person filing from the entity during the preceding calendar year. 

To comply with that disclosure requirement, all Mayor Frimark needed to do was (1) identify the legal owner (such as Frimark or his wife personally, a land trust, a partnership, or a limited liability company) of whatever real estate he or his wife had an interest worth at least $5,000, or from which they received at least $1,200 in the preceding year; and (2) identify what action was sought from the City of Park Ridge in connection with that real estate.  Pretty simple, right?

Wrong.  Mayor Frimark’s 2006 ethics disclosure statement [pdf]  identifies two real estate interests – one property at 1300 Touhy Avenue and the other at 444 N. Northwest Hwy.  But by merely listing only their addresses, Frimark failed to make the required identification of the owner of those properties.  And by merely listing only their addresses, he failed to identify what type of official City of Park Ridge action was applied for in connection with those properties. In other words, Frimark’s report as filed satisfies NEITHER OF THE TWO DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS! 

Clearly these requirements are not unreasonably detailed or burdensome, so we have to wonder why Frimark totally disregarded them.  Is it because he just didn’t understand them (and it didn’t dawn on him to ask the City Attorney or his own private attorney)?  Is it because he just didn’t take them seriously?  Or is it because of a desire to keep the information private for a more problematic reason? 

We don’t know, but we sure would like to hear the mayor’s explanation.  Because one thing is certain: these disclosure laws were intended to provide answers, not more questions.  And, worse yet, the mayor’s disregard of his disclosure obligations contributes another mystery to the “Culture of Secrecy” in Park Ridge local government.