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.

Park Ridge-Niles Elementary School District 64 recently issued a press release [pdf] to announce the appointment/re-appointment of 31 members to the District’s expanded “Community Finance Committee” (“CFC”).

The CFC, headed by the triumvirate of Craig Elderkin, Phil Eichman and Diana Stapleton, was formed in 2004, ostensibly to help D-64 manage its finances that were in such bad shape that they were drawing increasing scrutiny from the Illinois State Board of Education (the “ISBE”).  At that time, the District’s fund balance had fallen to a critical level after being depleted by at least five years (1998, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003) of deficit spending following the construction of the new Emerson Middle School.

In 2004, under Supt. Sally Pryor and School Board members Joe Baldi, Rich Brendza, Ares Dalianis, Christina Heyde, Dean Krone, Steve Latreille, Chris Mollett, and Sue Runyon (all of whom were hand-picked by the D-64/D-207 Caucus), the deficit spending reached almost $5 Million while the fund balance dropped to $2.66 Million – it had been over $11 Million as recently as 1999.  As a result, the District landed on the ISBE’s financial “Watch” list, the worst of three undesirable designations which the ISBE applies to school districts whose finances fall below the ISBE’s “Recognition” standard for sound financial management.  A copy of D-64’s 2004 “Financial Profile,” along with the ISBE’s explanation of the financial profile system, can be found by clicking here [pdf].

Since then, however, the CFC has been little more than an enabler and cheerleader for the District’s deceptive financial maneuvers.  It spent its first two years on an orchestrated, Kabuki-like fact-finding and analysis of the District’s finances, before finally reporting its foreordained conclusion that the District needed to go to referendum for a big tax increase – something that should have been apparent to the D-64 Board and Administration without the charade of the CFC.