An Evanston committee ruled Wednesday that Ald. Cheryl Wollin (1st) did not violate city law when she voted to repave an alley behind her condominium building last year.
The 2-2 vote by the Evanston Board of Ethics came after an 90-minute discussion about whether Wollin should have recused herself from voting on a repavement plan that would benefit her as well as her constituents. Because the vote did not get the support of the majority of the board, the motion failed.
Board members said they felt Wollin showed no intent to violate the city’s ethics code during the June 2005 vote.
“Our understanding is that this is a result of a different understanding of the code,” board member Ruth Lipschutz said. “It isn’t always clear – I think that’s why it wasn’t intentional.”
The movement to pave the alleyway began in 2001, and the initial approval took place in 2003, Wollin said, before she was elected alderman.
“I did not see that my vote would stop or push forward the issue,” Wollin said. “I did not take an active role in (planning the paving).”
Wollin’s lawyer said any benefits fall under the exceptions to the ethics code’s ban on gifts, which allow elected officials to receive benefits that they would also receive as private citizens. Because it falls under the exceptions, he said, the board should not hold Wollin accountable under the section of the code that would require her to disclose her conflict of interest and to excuse herself from voting.
However, resident Jeanne Lindwall, Weinberg ’71, said one problem with Wollin’s actions was that her vote included a provision where the city and residents split the cost of renovations, giving Wollin a financial benefit. Lindwall is a co-plaintiff in a lawsuit against the city and Wollin, alleging voter fraud in last year’s First Ward aldermanic election.
The board also questioned whether aldermen, when elected, have any training in understanding the ethical behavior required of them. If the code is unclear to the board of ethics, said board member Chris Robuck, then it was hard to understand how the aldermen can interpret the meanings of the code accurately.
“It speaks to the need to revise the code,” Lipschutz said. “One part of the code speaks to what is received (by aldermen) and the other part speaks to their voting. There are contradictions.”
City lawyer Ellen Szymanski will prepare a draft opinion on the board’s view on the issue at the board’s May 17 meeting. Once approved, the opinion will be submitted to Evanston City Council for review.
Ald. Edmund Moran (6th) also asked for the board’s opinion on situations when aldermen may advise others about an issue before the city without crossing ethical lines.
The aldermen each have areas of expertise, which could help in decision-making processes but could also influence other council members to vote in a particular way, Moran said.
“We need to separate our professional lives from our city lives,” Moran said. “One way to do that is to recuse yourself.”
Board members said they were open to discussion but admitted that guidelines could never encompass every situation.
“We will never address 100 percent of the areas,” Lipschutz said. “What we can do is to speak more clearly about the continuum.”
The opinion will serve as a guideline for aldermen to prevent ethical complaints. The board will continue discussing Moran’s question at its next meeting.
Reach Laura Olson at [email protected].
