Naperville repeals campaign disclosure ordinance: ‘Naperville city hall isn’t for sale’
Naperville’s contested campaign disclosure ordinance is no more.
Elected leaders struck down the statute at Tuesday’s Naperville City Council meeting, putting an end to rules that, when established almost three years ago, sought to define when officials should publicly divulge political donations for the sake of transparency.
In action, the ordinance just didn’t serve its intended purpose, at least according to a majority council members this week.
“I believe how this ordinance has been written and implemented is profoundly flawed and has the opposite effect of its supposed reason for being in existence,” Naperville Mayor Scott Wehrli said. “Simply calling something a conflict of interest, disclosure or invoking transparency doesn’t mean it’s actually a good policy that promotes confidence in our City Council’s decision making.”
Wehrli, joined by council members Jennifer Bruzan Taylor, Josh McBroom, Paul Leong and Nate Wilson, voted in favor of repealing. Members Ian Holzauer, Patrick Kelly, Allison Longenbaugh and Benny White voted against.
Though the 5-4 split was no surprise, foreshadowed at a workshop meeting on the ordinance last week, proponents urged the council to find a compromise rather than scrapping the rules completely.
“We should have nothing to hide,” Longenbaugh said. “And it is really not a good look to repeal (this ordinance).”
Put in place in December 2020, Naperville’s now annulled campaign disclosure ordinance required that council members publicly announce campaign donations of $750 or more when voting on a topic in which one of their donors has an expressed interest. Petitioners, or those who bring forward agenda items, and public participants — including anyone who speaks at or submits written comments in regards to a council issue — fell under the interested party umbrella.
The statute was meant to be a safeguard for good-faith decision making.
Though questioned from its inception, the ordinance survived two consolidated elections before council members, and particularly former Naperville Mayor Steve Chirico, raised issues and incited a new round of scrutiny. In April, Chirico proposed a full revocation of the ordinance, arguing their attempts to make municipal races more transparent had done the opposite, similar to remarks made by Wehrli this week.
However, back in the spring, the council was divided on the matter and not ready to make any formal decisions. With four lame duck members on the dais and just weeks to go until their successors assumed their positions, the discussion was tabled.
But the rules proved as difficult for the new council to get behind this week as the previously seated council.
A few recurring critiques of the ordinance circulated Tuesday. First was that it simply fell short. Members pointed out there were a lot of donations and donors the ordinance didn’t cover, including political action committees. The result was a weak ordinance, critics said.
“As it stands right now, it has no teeth,” Bruzan Taylor said. “So why would we keep it?”
Some members, like McBroom, argued the ordinance discouraged small donations.
“It doesn’t expose real conflicts, like real conflicts that we should be concerned about. Not the small business owner that has a preferred candidate who may be discouraged now because he or she doesn’t want to be the focal point of a public discussion or maybe they don’t want to participate because they may get called out in a public forum,” he said.
By extension, McBroom argued the ordinance pushed people toward political action committees, which insulate their contributors.
Wehrli balked at the idea that Naperville was subject to influence at all.
“To be clear, Naperville City Hall isn’t for sale — never has been and never will be,” he said. “Regardless of your wealth, stature, connections or supposed political power, anybody with pending business before our City Council are subject to the same fair, open, transparent and rigorous decision making process aided by what many consider to be the best and most professional municipal staff in Illinois, if not the country.”
But good practices aren’t without reassurances, proponents maintained.
“I know it’s been mentioned that we all take oaths when we get sworn in, but let’s be real: every elected official takes an oath, and where has that gotten us?” White said. “We’ve got a lot of honest people obviously, but you just look around our country, around our state. We all take oaths, but we need something else or you need a process in place that keeps everyone honest.”
Speaking after Tuesday’s meeting, White said, “I think we missed an opportunity. I hope it doesn’t affect our residents’ trust in our city government. But you know, we’ll see.”
