Glen Ellyn board may be banning romance between department heads
—Daily Herald, May 24, 2009

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Ted E.,

I couldn't agree more, it's a small town thing. We all know someone in town and how do we get around it. I mean really. All the news about unemployment and how you have to network, isn't that what networking is, finding someone you know or have met?

While I do feel there should be some sort of ethics policy in Glen Ellyn...complete with an Ethics Czar...I don't believe at all this particular Village Manager should be the one to bring it to the table.

Sadly...once again...it is probably time to part ways with this unusual relationship. It has been defective from the get go. The village will never trust his motives and actions (simply my opinion...and I also realize that it is only 20% or so who actually know who he is and what the controversy is), nor do I believe that there is a warm spot in his heart for the people of the village. It's like a couple staying together for the kids...or perhaps until another paycheck shows up.

1) Is it even possible to legislate human emotions such as who will fall in love with whom, and when?

2) In my experience only unethical people worry about the need for ethics policies. They think everybody is as crooked as they are.

3) in any case, wouldn’t an unethical person simply sign an ethics policy and then ignore it?

4) We had an ethical village manager, but she quit. For ethical reasons.

5) It is my belief that our present VM has already selected an ethics officer. Most likely a niece or nephew. See (3) above.

6) Is it not unethical for a small town government to spend so much finite staff time and (negative) dollars on anything this stupid?

quote:

Originally posted by Gabriel:

3) in any case, wouldn’t an unethical person simply sign an ethics policy and then ignore it?

I have a copy of the proposed ethics policy that was discussed at the meeting. While I am for an ethics policy, I believe the way it is currently written is the most unethical policy I have ever read.

To address some of the comments on this thread:
The ethics officer is assigned to the Village Attorney. So the same person that we all questioned on whether or not the "incident" should have even been investigated and said nothing, will now be in charge of deciding what is ethical or not. When one of the trustees suggested a council, or committee, to turn to to decide if someone was unethical, Thorsell and Jones defended the way it is currently written.

The part of the policy that got the most attention is the "assumption" of conflict of interest. Right now, the policy reads that anyone can make a charge that a trustee has a conflict of interest. If the action of that the person(s) was already taken (i.e. voted), then that trustee is fined $1,000. If the action had not already been taken (i.e. the vote not taken yet), and the trustee does not agree that they are in conflict, so (s)he goes ahead a votes, (s)he can be fined $1,000.

So, if a vote is up at the table, and I know someone is going to vote the opposite of what I want, I can charge conflict of interest. If they do not recuse themselves, they will be fined. This is how the proposed policy is written.

Another chance for being fined is if you are a trustee and your fellow trustees decide they do not like your actions on something, regardless if they are correct in their assumptions of what you have done, they can vote amongst themselves to fine you $1,000.

Finally, the ethics policy has nothing to do with the staff relationships. There are two separate documents. The above refers to the ethics policy. There is also a new personnel policy that is being discussed. That is where the references to relationships, who can and who cannot have them, are addressed.

The personnel policy states that supervisors can date, but managers cannot. Managers are defined as department heads, Personnel Analyst, Village Manager and Village Deputy Manager. The Personnel Analyst is the person that all staff have to report any relationships they have to other staff.

The Personnel Analyst is in charge of documenting and keeping track of who is dating whom, or who is suspected of dating another staff member. There are no penalties or rules mentioned for the Personnel Anaylst keeping this information confidential.

By the way, totally off topic, but has anyone wondered why our Deputy Village Manager, which was suppose to be a short term position, is now being classified as a manager within our staff?

One more thing...Armstrong is mentioned in the paper because when he was asking questions on how the policy would work, he used examples of his votes and actions. He mentioned the montessori school and ambulance contracts, both of which he consulted our Village Attorney for a legal opinion on if he had a conflict. In both instances, the Village Attorney wrote his opinion that Armstrong did NOT have a conflict of interest in either case.

While Armstrong did not vote in the Montessori request, let's assume he did. Let's say the good neighbors do not agree that he should have been allowed to vote. They charge conflict of interest and even though Armstrong has his legal opinion, he can still be fined $1,000.

Put the lawyers in charge of ethics?

Oh, that should go well.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hee hee *choke*

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." --Tacitus (ca. 56 - ca. 117)

I was one of the few who thought Ms. Hulsberg and Chief Norton should have been demoted or even let go. It had nothing to do with their relationship rather it was how they abused their privileges to further their relationship.

I do think this rule is stupid. Having a ban against Department heads dating. What is the harm in that. They don't report to each other etc. OK there maybe a conflict but realistically how often will that come up.

They should clarify what you can and can't do with village equipment for personal use. That to me was the problem I had with this whole issue.

I have no problem with a personnel policy. If you don't like it, don't apply for the position. If it is unusually restrictive, the Village will find it very difficult to fill future positions and see the need to amend it. This personnel policy should not be open for public scrutiny, it is a managerial decision. Let the VM implement it and get ridden out if his policies fail.

An ethics policy is ridiculous at best. Whose ethics and who governs those ethics could never be vetted enough to make them applicable to anyone else. Use common sense and decency in this town. If there is a lapse in judgement or ethics it will be called out by the people or the papers. This is a gargantuan waste of time and energy.

Well said.

"Glen Ellyn remains my No. 1 professional priority, and all indications are that the Village Board wishes for me to remain in Glen Ellyn," he said. "I would expect that a formal discussion regarding my employment agreement would begin in the near future."

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Herbold:
I have no problem with a personnel policy. If you don't like it, don't apply for the position. If it is unusually restrictive, the Village will find it very difficult to fill future positions and see the need to amend it. This personnel policy should not be open for public scrutiny, it is a managerial decision. Let the VM implement it and get ridden out if his policies fail.

An ethics policy is ridiculous at best. Whose ethics and who governs those ethics could never be vetted enough to make them applicable to anyone else. Use common sense and decency in this town. If there is a lapse in judgement or ethics it will be called out by the people or the papers. This is a gargantuan waste of time and energy.

I think an ethics policy is fine the problem is the enforcement of it. Most ethics policies at least for public service officials tend to be self policing. Which is akin to having the Fox guard the Hens.

As for the press and public outcry doubt that will be effective. First public opinion can be manipulated. Second it's limited. Look at Illinois politics we have the most courrupt state in the nation. Has public disapproval or the media done anything to limit it.

You need some form of independent watchdog to enforce an ethics policy, you need clear rules and regulations.

Clam...Is your source for the quote from the meeting last night?

No. From this article.

I have a feeling that his contract will be extended. But I hope that it is only for a year. I don't believe the way he has come out of the gate deserves anything more than a year-to-year deal. Although, as a contract worker, I suppose he is at will in the state of Illinois...though I may be wrong. Again, I don't know anything about his management style other than hearsay...but he seems distracted. My initial support for him...not to mention our Village Attorney...has eroded for obvious reasons.