Kim Stone Failed To Meet Her Own Ethical Standards

A lot has been said about “Pavergate”— the controversy over Highland Park Council Member Kim Stone’s vote to install permeable pavers on the alley leading to and facing onto her home.

As a neighbor whose home backs up to the same alley, I objected to the $900,000 expense even though my own home’s value has now been improved by these beautiful pavers. 

As Kim seeks re-election, she is justifying her vote by pointing to the merits of the decision. That misses the bigger point — that she voted when she should have recused herself due to a clear conflict of interest.  

Since the pavers were permanent improvements and increased the value of her home, Kim never should have participated in that vote.   

Kim Stone’s ethics are relevant in this election because she has been so outspoken in demanding the highest ethical standards for other Council members.

Last year, Kim was out front with concerns about conflicts of interest that might face liquor license holders — even though Highland Park voters, less than a year earlier, knowingly elected a liquor license holder to the Council.    

Kim cited these potential conflicts as the basis for blocking the liquor amendment, knowing that would force the elected Council member’s resignation, and essentially overturning the wishes of the voters.   

This was an extreme and disturbing action with serious consequences for our community, as was seen with the public outcry.

Kim should have held herself to the same ethical standards she applied to others.  When faced with a clear conflict of interest, no matter how strongly she believed in the matter at hand, she should have recused herself.   Installation of these pavers conferred a benefit upon her personally and her vote was improper. 

Josh Harris 

Highland Park