Aurora Mayor John Laesch’s long-discussed campaign finance ethics reform package is still awaiting final approval from the Aurora City Council, after it did not take a vote Tuesday on the matter and is opting instead to hold a special meeting to debate it further.
The reform package, first proposed by Laesch last October, has faced delay after delay in recent months. It has been debated at a number of different committee meetings, and when it went before the City Council in March, was sent back to a committee for further review.
Under the proposed regulations, those who are doing business with the city or looking to would be prevented from donating more than $1,500 per year to city elected officials or those running for city office.
It would also expand economic interest disclosures required of candidates, elected officials and certain city employees.
Campaign ethics reform was a campaign promise for Laesch, who won the mayoral seat over incumbent Richard Irvin last year.
During the most recent campaign, and in a previous unsuccessful run for mayor, Laesch claimed Irvin prioritized government contracts or incentives to those who donated to his campaign — a claim which Irvin consistently denied.
The ordinance is a compromise from Laesch’s original vision, which was for a full ban on campaign donations from those doing business with the city.
The most recent action taken on the proposal was on May 19 by the Aurora City Council’s Rules, Administration and Procedure Committee, which voted 3-2 to recommend the proposal be approved. In favor of it were Alds. Javier Banuelos, 7th Ward; Edward Bugg, 9th Ward; and Will White, at-large. Alds. Daniel Barreiro, 1st Ward; and Shweta Baid, 10th Ward, voted against it.
At past meetings, more than half of the 12 City Council members had raised at least some issue with the proposed ethics reform package. Some have argued that the rules could make it harder for new candidates to run for office, while others said it would allow the city to closely control local elections.
Some aldermen have said that they’re not against ethics reform in general, but rather just against specific parts of the proposal, while others have argued against the premise of the rules altogether, disputing the assertion that the City Council is being, or could be, corrupted by outside money.
The ethics reform package would prevent anyone who has done business with the city in the last four years, or who is seeking to do business with the city, from making over $1,500 in donations during a single year to any candidate for city office or to a city elected official.
It would place the same restrictions on donations to any city official or employee who is a candidate for another office.
Under the proposal, “doing business” with the city means any sales, purchases, leases or contracts that are collectively over $5,000 within 12 months.
“Seeking to do business” means any action within the last six months to seek a contract or other business with the city, or having specific types of economic matters before City Council in the last or the next six months.
Lobbyists would be fully prevented from making donations to city elected officials, and anonymous or pass-through donations would also be banned.
Those found to have donated more than the allowed amount would be barred from doing business with the city for four years under the proposal.
Counting towards the cap would be donations made by the business itself as well as any made by parent companies or subsidiaries, and in some cases donations made by employees themselves.
The proposed ethics reform package would also require elected officials, candidates and certain city employees to publicly disclose a list of all real estate the person owns, what business entities located within Aurora they own, any city-funded or affiliated organizations they are involved with, and any gifts, loans or services they’ve received from those doing business with the city.
It would also expand existing economic interest disclosures, so that candidates and city officials would need to disclose if their employer is doing business with the city or has received financial assistance from the city. Similar disclosures would also be required of anyone living within a candidate’s or city official’s household, except for minors.
More than four hours into Tuesday’s City Council meeting, when consideration of the ethics reform package was taken up, Laesch suggested that discussion of the ordinance be moved to a new meeting. He said there had been a recommendation from Ald. Mike Saville, 6th Ward, to hold a special Committee of the Whole meeting to further discuss the ethics ordinance.
Recently, Laesch had said the council would be voting on the matter at Tuesday’s meeting “regardless” of what happens.
Laesch acknowledged there has been feedback and amendments to the ordinance “on multiple occasions.”
“Sometimes we’ve gotten them, and sometimes it’s been challenging to work to get those through in committee,” he said.
“I feel like we’re close,” Laesch said of the ordinance on Tuesday.
He also pointed to a proposed amendment by Ald. Ted Mesiacos, 3rd Ward, which the city’s corporate counsel, according to Laesch, has recommended be brought forward as a separate item for consideration.
A special Committee of the Whole meeting could be held to address that proposal and the ethics ordinance, Laesch said at Tuesday’s meeting, and then the ethics reform could be considered for approval at a City Council meeting in the near future.
“As we’re approaching late night, that might be the best way to handle this,” Laesch said.
All 11 City Council members present on Tuesday ultimately voted in favor of holding a special meeting — for which a date was not set Tuesday — to discuss the ethics ordinance and any other ethics-related items.
Mesiacos, at Tuesday’s meeting, said that he “appreciate(s) the opportunity … to present something to colleagues” at a special meeting and said the main purpose of his effort was to focus on “corporate capture.” Corporate capture generally refers to private interests using their influence to control government decision-making, such as when they help draft legislation.
He said he brought this matter up initially, but that “nothing has been ever provided in terms of feedback about why we’re focusing and what we’re focusing on” with the ordinance, “whether it’s corporate capture or regulatory capture.”
Saville suggested council members prepare any amendments they have before the meeting, and Laesch said changes should be put on paper so everyone can see them. And Ald. Patty Smith, 8th Ward, indicated that she had questions about the wording in one of the chapters that would be changed by the ordinance, suggesting it could be discussed before the Committee of the Whole meeting.
Barreiro also suggested it might be helpful for the council to consider the two chapters that would be amended or added to via the ordinance as separate items, with Mesiacos’ proposal considered as a third item.
Bugg asked why they would separate the sections, to which Barreiro said that “some people may be OK with one and not the other.”
“It’s better to have half than nothing,” Barreiro said.
The motion to separate the ethics reform package into its two chapters — for a total of three agenda items, including Mesiacos’ proposal — to be discussed separately at the special Committee of the Whole meeting also passed, with all 11 City Council members voting for it.
The Associated Press contributed.
mmorrow@chicagotribune.com
