Sounds crazy, doesn’t it? I mean, the guy got a ton of votes, came in third place, and bested one of the three incumbents. What’s there to contest?

Answer: Whether state law will allow him to serve.

There’s this part of Illinois law called the “Prohibited interest in contracts” clause (50 ILCS 105/3) that says:

No person holding any office, either by election or appointment under the laws or Constitution of this State, may be in any manner financially interested directly in his own name or indirectly in the name of any other person, association, trust, or corporation, in any contract or the performance of any work in the making or letting of which such officer may be called upon to act or vote.

Ryan Spain works for Heartland Partnership, a private company. The City of Peoria has a contract with the Heartland Partnership for $50,000 per year through 2008 (it was passed by the council on 4/19/05). Spain has an indirect interest in that contract since he is an employee of Heartland Partnership.

The Illinois Attorney General’s office published an opinion in 1996 that said employees of contracted organizations benefit indirectly from those contracts, and are thus prohibited from serving on municipal councils. They quote People v. Sperry (1924) as precedent:

If we attach any significance to the words used by the statute, “directly or indirectly interested in the contract,” we think the conclusion cannot be escaped that the officers of the city, who are also employees of the contractor, must be considered as indirectly interested in the contract, without regard to the fact that they derived no direct benefits from the contract itself.

I don’t know if anyone will actually contest it, but one would think it’s likely. I don’t imagine the council wants to take the chance of being in violation of state law. I’ve sent an e-mail to city attorney Randy Ray seeking comment. I’ll post his response as soon as I receive it.

If my interpretation of the law is correct, this situation raises a lot of questions. For instance, could this problem be removed if Heartland Partnership cancels their contract with the city before Spain takes office? I don’t know if that’s even possible, but if it is, I guess we’ll see what is more valuable to the Heartland Partnership — Spain on the council, or $50,000/year from the city.

Another question that arises is what will happen if Spain is found to be disqualified from service. Will the city try to get state law changed to allow him to serve, like they did with George Jacob? Jacob was originally ineligible because he held a liquor license, but state law was changed to allow him to serve as long as he abstained from any liquor-related decisions. If Spain ends up not being able to serve, would the sixth-place finisher (Dan Irving) be installed as a councilman instead?

Interestingly, this is not the first controversy surrounding Spain’s campaign. He set up a campaign teleconference event — a virtual town hall meeting — that took place at the Workforce Development Center at One Technology Plaza. Several people questioned whether tax-payer money was used for the event, but Spain says the meeting was paid for completely by his campaign, and that his forthcoming campaign disclosure reports will show this.

UPDATE: I’d just like to say, as far as communication goes, Randy Ray does a great job. He’s always timely and informative in his responses. Here is what he had to say on this issue:

Thank you for the question. I do my best to answer citizens’ legal questions concerning their city government, and I intend to answer this one. I have always addressed conflicts first with the affected official, and then, if no resolution is reached, with others. Accordingly, I will address this issue first with Mr. Spain, and then with you. Obviously, the time frame is short, so you can expect to hear from me on or before May 1.

I think that’s a fair way to handle the situation. Of course, I will post Mr. Ray’s follow-up when I receive it. As you can see, it may be a few days. Legal stuff always takes a while.