First they grin. Then they laugh and ask, "Are you serious?"

This is the usual response I receive when I tell people I am the Executive Director of the City of Chicago Board of Ethics.

I've now been in this position for sixteen months. There have been, and continue to be, major hurdles to overcome. First is the challenge to be taken seriously.

In January, 1986, Mayor Harold Washington issued an Executive Order on Ethics. Since the Mayor was serious about Ethics, many City employees became concerned about abiding by the new Code of Conduct. However, Executive Orders can't cover aldermen, so there was little need for members of the City Council to be concerned.

Several thousand employees filed Statements of Financial Interests, as required by the Executive Order. The Mayor appointed a seven-member Board of Ethics. Staff was hired and an office was set up. Requests for advisory opinions on the application and interpretation of the Code of Conduct began to arrive. The major issues were: free travel, gifts, employment of relatives, and post-employment restrictions.

At the same time, civic leaders had been drafting and lobbying for an Ethics Ordinance which, as part of the Municipal Code, would cover elected and appointed officials as well as the City workforce. Even the most idealistic had trouble believing it would be possible to get such an Ordinance passed by the Chicago City Council. Cynics just shook their heads.

However, late in January, 1987, the Ordinance was brought before the Committee on Rules. During a grueling eight hour session, fifteen amendments were attched to the Ordinance. Most were bearable. Some horrible amendments were defeated. One amendment changed jurisdiction over aldermen from the Board of Ethics to a City Council Committee. Ironically, four aldermen in the hearing room were under indictment for accepting bribes.

Days later, just before the primary election, the Mayor forced the full City Council to take a vote on this Ethics Ordinance. This Council meeting started four and one half hours late because some aldermen were trying to get the Mayor to hold back the Ordinance. He insisted. Some spoke vehemently against the bill, while others supported it. Finally, there was a vote. An Ethics Ordinance, with an effective date of July 1, 1987, was approved by City Council with a vote of 49-0.

For several months, we continued to work under the Executive Order on Ethics while planning the implementation of the Ethics Ordinance. The staff was gearing up for the change on July 1. But May came first.

With the election over, members of the City Council were now in office for four years. Many began to look at the Ethics Ordinance. They thought Ethics was a good idea for somebody else. For anybody else-but not for themselves.

Some aldermen honestly said they didn't want any Ethics Ordinance. Others argued they didn't need an Ethics Ordinance. Still others just complained about features of the Ordinance. When asked for specific suggestions for changes, the constant refrain was to postpone the effective date and study the issue more. They succeeded in postponing the effective date for one month to August 1, 1987. One alderman had suggested an effective date of 1990.

In this go-round, there were twelve amendments. Some were clarifying amendments offered by the Board of Ethics. The staff of the Board of Ethics was directed to hold seminars for members of City Council to train them on the Code of Conduct contained in the Ordinance. Some aldermen admitted they had never read the Ordinance. Some were seriously interested in how it would affect them.

Again, the staff geared up for an implementation date (August 1). At a July 29 City Council meeting, a parliamentary move was made to change the effective date of the Ordinance from August 1, 1987 to January 1,1988. Because of Council rules, this maneuver needed thirty-four votes. It fell three votes short.

August first came. August first went. The City of Chicago did not cease to operate because there was an Ethics Ordinance in place. City Hall did not cave in.

Business has continued. But not quite as usual. A new Board of Ethics was appointed by the Mayor and approved by the City Council. They began meeting on a monthly basis. More than one hundred cases have been presented to the Executive Order Board and the Ordinance Board so far this year. Investigations are done. Summaries are written. Opinions are rendered by the Board.

Thus, change has occurred in the government of Chicago. Some people stop before they take action or accept something and ask whether the action or activity is legal and appropriate. Now, with a Board of Ethics, they have a place to go with their questions.

But the battle is not over yet. Rumbles can still be heard from Council Chambers in City Hall. Amendments have been suggested which would weaken the Ordinance. There seemed to be a rush to make some changes. And, yet again, the benefit of "timing" in politics came to the rescue of the Ethics Ordinance. Just as the looming presence of the primary election helped in the passage of the Ordinance, the publication of a newspaper series quieted the rumbles. The Chicago Tribune released a major series on corruption among members of City Council.

I do not doubt that the desire to weaken, mutilate, or eliminate the Ethics Ordinance still exists within City Council. But the rush to do so has faded.

We are "not out of the woods yet." Since this is Chicago, a city which has taken a perverse pride in its corrupt history, I am just not willing to guess how long this process will take. And yet, the amazing fact is that the process has begun. I believe there will be a continual struggle. But I also believe that the benefits of having an Ethics Ordinance will ultimately win.

Postscript: This article was completed November 24, 1987, the day before Mayor Harold Washington died.