Ald. Burke under ethics board investigation for possible conflict of interest
Burke
City ethics officials  are looking into whether longtime Ald.  Ed Burke   14th  violated ethics rules when  he  sidelined an effort to increase the property taxes paid by the owners of two buildings  his  law firm represents  according to the alderman whose effort  he  blocked.
Ethics board Executive Director Steve Berlin and Chairman William Conlon neither confirmed nor denied the review  in keeping with city regulations. Neither  Burke  nor  his  spokesman responded to questions Friday.
The  Burke  probe comes after 32nd Ward Ald. Scott Waguespack filed a formal request for the ethics board to look into the matter on Thursday  a day after the Tribune published a story raising the question of whether  Burke  had violated city ethics rules at the Jan. 17 City Council meeting.
On Munoz’s list are two properties owned by companies for which Burke’s law firm has saved millions of dollars in property taxes by appealing to lower assessments used to determine tax bills. The lower the assessment  the less paid in taxes.
If Munoz’s proposal passed and the city succeeded in increasing assessments  the owners of the seven buildings  including the two represented by Klafter &  Burke   would pay more in property taxes.
Shortly after Munoz introduced his proposal   Burke  put up a potential roadblock.
Munoz had asked that the measure be assigned to the Housing and Real Estate Committee  led by 49th Ward Ald. Joe Moore  who had planned to give it a hearing.  Burke  intervened  saying the measure instead should be sent to the Finance Committee.
That’s where  Burke  holds great sway as chairman  in part by deciding whether a proposal ever gets a hearing. When there’s a dispute on which committee should consider a measure  the matter automatically goes to the Rules and Ethics Committee  where legislation often withers on the vine.
Munoz and outside ethics experts questioned whether Burke violated city ethics code by “calling Finance.” The code states that “no official or employee shall make or participate in the making of any governmental decision with respect to any matter in which he has any financial interest ” earned money from during the past year or expects to earn money from in the coming year.
“It’s a violation ” said Waguespack of  Burke ’s action  adding that  he  also wants a broader interpretation from the ethics board on what actions violate conflict-of-interest rules. The earlier Tribune story also noted that  Burke  often presides over Finance Committee meetings considering actions that could affect  his  law firm’s clients  but then abstains from voting.
If the ethics board were to find  Burke  violated the city ethics rules   he  could face a fine of between $500 and $1 000  according to the code.
Ald.  Ed Burke  blocks property tax appeals tied to  his  law firm  critics call conflict »
City ethics officials  are looking into whether longtime Ald.  [TGT]14th  violated ethics rules when  [TGT]  sidelined an effort to increase the property taxes paid by the owners of two buildings  [TGT]  law firm represents  according to the alderman whose effort  [TGT]  blocked.
Ethics board Executive Director Steve Berlin and Chairman William Conlon neither confirmed nor denied the review  in keeping with city regulations. Neither  [TGT]nor  [TGT]  spokesman responded to questions Friday.
The  [TGT]probe comes after 32nd Ward Ald. Scott Waguespack filed a formal request for the ethics board to look into the matter on Thursday  a day after the Tribune published a story raising the question of whether  [TGT]had violated city ethics rules at the Jan. 17 City Council meeting.
On Munoz’s list are two properties owned by companies for which Burke’s law firm has saved millions of dollars in property taxes by appealing to lower assessments used to determine tax bills. The lower the assessment  the less paid in taxes.
If Munoz’s proposal passed and the city succeeded in increasing assessments  the owners of the seven buildings  including the two represented by Klafter &  Burke   would pay more in property taxes.
Shortly after Munoz introduced his proposal   [TGT]put up a potential roadblock.
Munoz had asked that the measure be assigned to the Housing and Real Estate Committee  led by 49th Ward Ald. Joe Moore  who had planned to give it a hearing.  [TGT]intervened  saying the measure instead should be sent to the Finance Committee.
That’s where  [TGT]holds great sway as chairman  in part by deciding whether a proposal ever gets a hearing. When there’s a dispute on which committee should consider a measure  the matter automatically goes to the Rules and Ethics Committee  where legislation often withers on the vine.
Munoz and outside ethics experts questioned whether [TGT] violated city ethics code by “calling Finance.” The code states that “no official or employee shall make or participate in the making of any governmental decision with respect to any matter in which he has any financial interest ” earned money from during the past year or expects to earn money from in the coming year.
“It’s a violation ” said Waguespack of  [TGT]adding that  [TGT]  also wants a broader interpretation from the ethics board on what actions violate conflict-of-interest rules. The earlier Tribune story also noted that  [TGT]often presides over Finance Committee meetings considering actions that could affect  [TGT]  law firm’s clients  but then abstains from voting.
If the ethics board were to find  [TGT]violated the city ethics rules   [TGT]  could face a fine of between $500 and $1 000  according to the code.
Ald.  [TGT]blocks property tax appeals tied to  [TGT]  law firm  critics call conflict »