Monday, August 5, 2013

Why no fair hearing on ethics complaint against Zinke?

To understand how the Ethics Commission failed on July 25, one need only to read the opening paragraphs on the McHenry County website:

"The McHenry County Ethics Commission was created pursuant to the McHenry County Ethics Ordinance, which was promulgated under the Illinois State Officials and Employees Ethics Act, 5 ILCS 430/1-1 et. seq.   The Commission was created to provide a neutral forum for the independent and apolitical review of possible violations of the McHenry County Ethics Ordinance.  The Commission is charged with the obligation to investigate complaints, conduct hearings and deliberations on allegations of violations of the County Ethics Ordinance, and to adjudicate complaints or refer complaints to the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office.

"Under the McHenry County Ethic Ordinance County “officers” cannot:

·        Perform “prohibited political activities” during any “compensated time”
·        Intentionally use County property or resources in connection with any
          “prohibited political activity”
       ·        Require another officer or employee to perform a 'prohibited political activity'”
Taking apart just these two paragraphs, why don't you decide whether the Ethics Commission provided a neutral forum for its independent review of Cal Skinner's complaint against Undersheriff Andy Zinke.

Here we go:

"The Commission is charged with the obligation to investigate complaints, conduct hearings and deliberations on allegations of violations of the County Ethics Ordinance, and to adjudicate complaints or refer complaints to the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office."

The Commission had the obligation to investigate Skinner's complaint.

It had the obligation to conduct a hearing. (That's what the language says.)

It had the obligation to deliberate on allegations of violations. (It did not do so openly.)

It had the obligation to adjudicate complaints.

Zinke wrote his e-mail on "compensated time" and he was alleged to have used "County property or resources". His email was clearly about his bruised feelings related to his political activities.

Had the Ethics Commission conducted a full and fair hearing and then ruled that Zinke had not violated the rules, policy or laws, then all we could do is say we disagree. As it is, we must complain now that Cal Skinner did not get a fair hearing and the cloud over Zinke has not been removed.

4 comments:

Maverick50 said...

Ethics Commission is a bunch of paid cronies doing a half ass job. They don't know what their jobs are, nor do they know the laws. Maybe they should ask?

Curious1 said...

Complaints were made about him to the County board and he responded with his side of the complaint. It just seems a odd that the group that complained about him seems to think he should not have had the right to respond. Or are those who complained saying the complaints had nothing to do with his employment?

Gus said...

Curious1, first of all, who says complaints were made to the County Board about Zinke? Zinke?

If the County Board had questions about Zinke's conduct, it (or they) could have asked Nygren about the questions. But Zinke couldn't wait. So I'm reminded of the phrase, "The best defense is a good offense."

Another question for you: What "group" complained about Zinke?

Cal Skinner registered a complaint with the Ethics Commission about Zinke's improper use of the County email system and compensated time. Cal is not a "group". He is one concerned citizen. I commend him for doing so.

Gus said...

@Maverick50, I think that members of the Ethics Commission are not paid. They might receive reimbursement of travel expense, if they apply for it.

This was their first hearing. If they didn't attempt to learn the rules for the hearing and/or understand the scope of their duties and responsibilities, they should have.