Elmhurst council approves grant‑review committee language after heated recusal debate

The Elmhurst City Council on Oct. 20 approved a report clarifying the membership of review committees for the Improvement and Renovation Business Grant Program after a lengthy debate about perceived conflicts of interest involving an alderman who is also the president of the Elmhurst Chamber of Commerce.

The report (agenda item 5.9) recommends explicit language on the composition of review committees and authorizes the city attorney to prepare documents for council approval; it was signed on the report as submitted by "Alderman Chris Jensen, chair; Alderman Jennifer Grama, vice chair; and Alderman Guido Nardini." Alderman Jensen moved the motion, and Alderman Veramus seconded. The council approved the report by a vote of 10 ayes, 3 nays and 1 absent.

Alderman Hill opened the discussion by urging the council to consider the ethical optics of allowing an alderman who serves as president of the Elmhurst Chamber of Commerce to sit on a grant-review committee. "I feel it's kind of an ethical conflict of interest," Hill said, arguing the city should avoid even perceived conflicts when council members themselves vote to place someone in that role.

Jensen and several colleagues contended the chamber's role on the review committee predates the current council and that the report preserves a longstanding practice. Jensen said, "that position was there before we even reviewed relooked at this in April." Alderman Talutto told the council, "Recusal is an opportunity for a person who has a financial interest in a vote to remove themselves from that," and said the committee role did not meet the statutory standard for mandatory recusal.

Alderman Grama and others said perception matters even if there is no statutory conflict. Grama said, "just because it's legal doesn't make it right," and said she could not support the report because of perceived conflict risks. Alderman Veramus rejected the suggestion that she would improperly influence grants and said she would recuse herself or have a designee if a true conflict arose: "If at any point there was... I would vote present, I would recuse myself and do anything that I needed to do."

The mayor read the council rule that allows aldermen to vote "aye" or "nay" and to vote "present" only when a conflict of interest exists that makes it improper for the alderman to vote. The mayor also said the city attorney had issued an opinion that, in his view, the situation did not create a statutory pecuniary conflict that would require recusal.

Council discussion included appeals to transparency and the need to avoid setups that could create perception problems for future votes. After debate, the council voted to approve the report; the mayor announced the tally as "10 ayes, 3 nays, 1 absent." No amendment or additional direction to staff was recorded in the meeting minutes for item 5.9.