Committee debates vendor disclosure rule; ordinance tabled for redrafting

The Committee of the Whole discussed a proposed ordinance to amend Title 1, Chapter 16 of the municipal code to require vendors to disclose business relationships with elected officials, the village manager and department directors. Trustees debated the scope, lookback period and monetary threshold before tabling the ordinance for further revision.

The proposal would broaden existing ethics disclosures so vendors, as well as officials, would report certain business ties. Under the draft, relationships within the last 10 years that exceed a monetary threshold would be disclosed; the draft threshold was $2,500 but several trustees and staff urged raising it to a higher, more consistent level.

Village staff (George) summarized the draft: the ordinance “strengthens that ordinance by requiring vendors, not just elected appointed officials, but vendors to disclose business relationships that they have with elected officials, the village manager, and department directors,” and that disclosures would cover a 10-year lookback for amounts above the threshold. He added the rule would also require vendors to disclose anticipated relationships in the next 12 months.

Trustees raised confidentiality and practical concerns. Trustee Jesse Healy (self‑employed) said the draft might unduly burden sole‑proprietors and expose private pricing and client details; he asked whether the form would require billing rates or just a yes/no threshold. Staff answered the draft includes a field for “monetary value or benefit received,” but trustees suggested simplifying to a yes/no indicator above the threshold and aligning the threshold with state guidance (a suggested $7,500 or 7.5% figure was discussed).

Trustees also asked about enforcement and consequences. Staff said the disclosure is not intended to bar a vendor from receiving awards; nondisclosure could trigger a later inquiry if an undisclosed relationship is discovered. The ordinance would add reciprocal obligations: vendors file disclosures and named officials would make acknowledgements; officials still have existing statement-of-economic-interest obligations at the state and county level.

After discussion, Trustee Dusty Malani moved to table the ordinance to allow attorneys and staff to redraft the language to clarify thresholds, the form and confidentiality protections; Trustee Josie Lawler seconded. The committee voted to table the item by roll call; the motion passed with all trustees present voting aye. Staff was asked to incorporate suggestions and return the revised draft to the committee for further review before forwarding it to the board.

No ordinance was adopted at the meeting. The committee’s action was procedural: staff will revise the draft language to address trustee concerns about thresholds, form fields, reciprocity and privacy before the next review.