Dupage Policy Journal

Naperville Councilwoman Theresa Sullivan was on the hot seat at the March 21 Naperville City Council meeting. 

After authoring and passing an ordinance in the March 21 meeting requiring council members to disclose if they’d received campaign dollars from anyone related to the votes they took, Sullivan was called out by Mayor Steve Chirico for not disclosing union dollars donated to her Naperville Forward political action committee. 

“Union money went into the PAC, a PAC that you control, and it was not disclosed before a vote and I guess I'm curious what this ordinance is for?” Chirico said. “If it doesn't solve for that problem, what is it for? And to me, it was an unethical ordinance to begin with and now I'm learning or I'm finding that it's also an ineffective ordinance, at least for what its purpose was, which was to improve transparency.” 

Chirico voted against the ordinance because he believes "it puts a chill on local donations because some people don't feel comfortable with having to be called out on votes if they support a candidate.” He also thinks "it gives an advantage to one party over another party. And I think that that's unethical. On an Illinois and statewide basis the Democrats out-raised the Republicans about 9 to 1."

"It's a pretty substantial difference," he said. "So if the local people are unable to compete with that, are unwilling to, because of an ordinance, then what will happen is outside money, union money, PAC money, and state party money will become more and more involved in our local politics, which we are now seeing. I don't think it's right to give a party an unfair influence.” 

Sullivan leads the Naperville Forward PAC which is heavily funded by union interests. 

“That's their right of free speech or political speech is what it does. If you're trying to say that now unions can't give anybody money,” Sullivan said. 

Chirico responded under the ordinance the cash needs to be disclosed. 

“And they can. It just has to be disclosed,” he said. 

“Who does it benefit?” Sulivan asked. 

Chirico said it benefits those providing the cash. 

“PACs, dark money. It benefits union money. It benefits people who can't be tied to an agenda item party money. It's completely unethical,” he said. 

After the discussion, Sullivan finally acquiesced and revealed a PAC donor whose item she had voted on. 

“I would like to say for the record while we're still in session. The Naperville Forward PAC, of which I am a chair, received $5,000 from the Laborers Union and I voted and I didn't think it affected my vote. So now it is. I am being transparent about that,” Sullivan disclosed.

The resolution requiring such disclosures passed back in December with a 5-4 vote. Chirico, Kevin Coyne, Patty Gustin and Paul Hinterlong voted against the change. “This ordinance invites the nine of us to willingly trade our own self-interests to do something for our constituents that nobody — the public, the state or other government bodies — is compelling us to do,” Sullivan said a the time, according to Chicago Tribune.

Sullivan later told the Daily Herald the disclosure had slipped her mind. 

"That's why it didn't occur to me, but I think if we would have gone to that second vote, I would have been happy to say it," she said. "That's why I did say it in the end. I have nothing to hide.”

The clash was the second of the night for Chirico and Sulivan after Chirico opined Sullivan was engaging in “dirty politics” after Naperville Forward created and distributed a mailer. 

Chirico said Sullivan should be censured for the mailer as book bans were clearly not happening in Naperville or being advocated for on a local level. According to the mayor, 'the mailer was inappropriate." Chirico added "It's dirty politics. It was done by a member of a city council. It's a bad reflection on all of us. It's a bad reflection on our city. Doesn't belong in Naperville or any local election. And it's very unfortunate."

Sullivan later told the Daily Herald the mailer was designed and created by a consulting firm and that it should have been worded differently to not make it appear candidates were calling for book bans. No candidates in the targeted races had publicly discussed such bans.