Kane State's Atty: No violation in ethics complaint against Rickert

KANE COUNTY – The Kane County State’s Attorney’s Office determined that Kane County Treasurer David Rickert did not violate the county’s ethics ordinance as asserted by Corinne Pierog, his opponent in the Nov. 3 race for Kane County Board Chairman.

Pierog is a Democrat and Rickert is a Republican.

A Sept. 21 letter from Joe Lulves, chief of the Civil Division for the Kane County State’s Attorney, states that any contribution to a campaign that is legal under the state election code is not an ethics violation.

“I’m shocked that my opponent would make such a false and baseless accusation,” Rickert said. “She disparaged my character and distinguished members of the community, people who are not public. I did nothing wrong. They did nothing wrong. This is a reckless disregard for truth and astonishingly poor judgment on Ms. Pierog’s part.”

According to Lulves' letter: “The dollar amounts in question in your complaint are lawfully within the permissible amounts established by the Illinois Election Code, and therefore are not in violation of the Kane County Ethics Ordinance. As there is no violation presented by the supporting documents, we are closing our file on this matter.”

The complaint had alleged that Citizens for Rickert accepted $2,500 on Aug. 4 from Ted Koch, vice president of commercial banking for Old Second National Bank, and $2,500 donation on Aug. 13 from Alarm Detection Systems Inc., Aurora.

The county ethics ordinance limits contributions to $1,000 for an individual and $2,000 for a vendor.

But the county ethics code also lists exceptions, stating that limits are not applicable for “Any: (a) contribution that is lawfully made under the Election Code or (b) activities associated with a fundraising event in support of a political organization or candidate.”

Lulves’s letter quotes from the Illinois State Board of Elections’ publication on campaign financing, which “sets contribution limits for this election cycle at $5,800 for individuals and $11,600 for corporations, for contributions to a candidate’s political committee.”

Rickert said if Pierog had taken the time to review the facts before filing the complaint, she would have seen that the limits in the ordinance did not apply.

“The contribution examples cited in the complaint were made in full compliance with the state election code. In addition, they do not violate the county ethics ordinance,” Rickert said.

An email from Pierog stated that the campaign “found what we thought were troubling contributions from vendors who have contracts with Kane County.”

“We investigated the matter and consulted with an expert, and ultimately asked the State’s Attorney to weigh in. The State’s Attorney found no evidence of wrongdoing and I accept that,” the email stated.

“I am deeply concerned about public corruption,” Pierog’s email stated. “I think it exists in the current administration, and I will always look to root it out. I can tell you that I will not be accepting any donations from private companies or individuals who profit from the county, and in my administration the bidding process will be open and thorough."

As to why the 2010 ethics ordinance seems to contradict itself, former Kane County State’s Attorney John Barsanti – now Judge Barsanti – had warned at the time that sections of the ordinance would not stand a court challenge.

Current State’s Attorney Joe McMahon had shared Barsanti’s opinions in 2012.

The objections, provided to County Board members at the time, state that the exceptions listed, which follows a section on gift bans and honoraria, “renders much of Section 3.3 Political Contributions, meaningless. Given this exception, any contribution allowed by the Election Code will not be considered a gift.”