Council Ordinance to Ban Dual Employment
9 February 2025
On Januray 15th I submitted an ordinance in City Council to prohibit any Mayor of Chicago and appointed staff from having conflicts of interest with sister agencies and to avoid the appearance of impropriety. The ordinance was thrown into the Rules Committee by Ald. Hall, where it will have to sit for a couple of months until we can schedule a hearing.
It is now known that the Mayor has been serving as our Mayor while simultaneously being on official leave with CPS and directing negotiations with the CTU contract talks. Whether in government or private sectors, there are clear definitive lines that should not be crossed and this is one of them.
Mayor Johnson cannot objectively carry out his responsibilities to the taxpayers while he takes advantage of the discussions and financial benefits of the CPS/CTU negotiations.
His present positions are problematic for the City and he should pick one position or the other. The Mayor misrepresenting the public about an opinion from the Board of Ethics that he is in a legally sound position furthers the distrust the public has in his statements. This ordinance, like others in the past, would put an end to any conflict by requiring the Mayor and other mayoral appointees to end their leaves of absence and work wholly on the behalf of taxpayers and not their own financial self interests.
There is nothing that prevents the Mayor from returning to a classroom when he is finished as Mayor. The Mayor’s comment about council members who held police and fire positions is also misleading. These members vote on a contract that may affect them but they have no authority in negotiations of these contracts which are all undertaken by the mayor and his handpicked legal team, much like the CPS-CTU negotiations. And, unlike the aldermen, the Mayor has direct influence and control in the negotiations. Aldermen are required to publicly disclose any conflicts in voting, often recusing themselves from votes, and should recuse themselves from any discussion in which they have a potential financial benefit. i.e. on a zoning matter, contracts, investments by family, etc. It took us years to pass these council rules to end the type of self benefiting that was happening on votes.
Like in many other jurisdictions, an official with a disqualifying conflict of interest may not make, participate in making, or use his or her position to influence a governmental decision. A Mayor, or any appointed staff or others, should not be using his or her position to influence a decision beneficial to themselves including directing a decision, voting, providing inside information or double dealing with a sister agency such as CPS.
Several aldermen have signed onto the ordinance and we look forward to having a hearing in the near future.
2-156-080 Conflicts of interest; appearance of impropriety. (d) The Mayor and all appointed, non-employee executive officials shall not serve as an official, contractor, or employee of any Sister Agency, including maintaining employment status through taking a leave of absence; provided, however, that this subsection shall not apply to any such individual serving as an ex officio member of any quasi-governmental or intergovernmental board by virtue of their position as a City official pursuant to applicable law. Nothing in this subsection shall limit the Mayor’s authority under applicable State law. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect 10 days after passage and publication.
A couple of City Ethics Rules also give us good guidance on passing this ordinance to hold a mayor accountable:
City elected officials and employees may not represent, or receive anything of value from the representation of, any person in any judicial, quasijudicial or administrative proceeding in which the City is an adverse party or that may adversely affect City revenue, financial, or the health, safety, welfare or relative tax burden of City residents.
City elected officials and employees may not contact other City officials or employees regarding any matter involving a person or organization with whom they have a business relationship that creates a financial interest for them, or involving a person from whom or which they, their spouse/domestic partner, or a business either of them own, have derived or expect to derive compensation or income with 12 months before or after the contact.
Board of Ethics said it did not give Mayor Brandon Johnson an opinion about CPS leave