A look at three issues raised by the Village Board as it considers revising Glen Ellyn's ethics policy:

Issue No. 1 — $1,00 fine
The village has been looking at updating Glen Ellyn’s ethics guidelines for public employees and officials since December. This week the Village Board gave its first reaction since the April election to the newest draft of the proposed ordinance. While trustees offered praise of some portions, they were not as supportive of others — such as a clause that says anyone who violates the policy may be fined up to $1,000.

Proposed revision
The fine, like a speeding ticket or any other ordinance violation, provides due process and goes through the DuPage County Circuit Court. Additionally, it would not be mandatory. But some on the board balked at putting a price tag on ethical behavior. “That’s more important to me than any fee or anything else: my own ethics,” said Trustee Phil Hartweg. Some proposed instead removing officials who break the rules.

Possible problems
The Village Board might not have the authority by itself to remove elected officeholders from power. “That would require a criminal charge brought by the state’s attorney,” said village attorney Stewart Diamond. Voters also could recall elected officials with a referendum vote, he said.

Issue No. 2 — "Appearance" of conflict of interest
In addition to barring conflicts of interest — situations where personal or business concerns conflict with the job — the proposed policy addresses the appearance of a conflict of interest. It requires village officials to disclose any issues that might “have the appearance” of a conflict of interest.

Proposed revision
Trustee Jim Comerford suggested changing the terminology to “potential” conflict of interest, making it less subjective, he said. Trustee Peter Cooper went a step further. He suggested barring any village official from seeking discretion from the Village Board. A trustee who is also a lawyer, for instance, would not be able to work on a project that needs Village Board approval, even if she were to recuse herself.

Possible Problem
The idea did not sit well with many on the board. Their concern was that the ban would rule out gray areas — such as an official working for a charity group that is a seeking an event permit. And what happens to multi-year projects once someone is elected to office? “Once they decide to run do they all of a sudden say, ‘You have to take the project somewhere else?’ said Trustee Michelle Thorsell.

Issue No. 3 — Gifts
The section of policy that trustees looked at this week — which deals with elected and appointed officials, not personnel —  also had a zero-tolerance ban on receiving gifts from anyone involved in business dealings with the village.

Proposed revision
A universal ban on gifts might be tough to enforce and just as hard to follow. Would a cup of coffee be considered a transgression, Cooper asked. He instead suggested a tough maximum limit on the value of gifts. “I believe I could not be bought off for $25, nor could anyone else on the board either,” Cooper said.

Possible Problem
None, at first blush. The village’s minimum standard for its ordinance is the statewide public official ethics policy. That policy allows gifts up to $100 per year and meals of up to $75 per person per day.