Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » Shakman case react
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      Mobile Version     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact
CapitolFax.com
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
Shakman case react

Monday, Aug 8, 2022 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Background is here if you need it. Crain’s

A lawsuit that independent political candidate Michael Shakman filed in 1969 against Cook County set in motion what would become the Shakman decrees, which were placed on the state of Illinois and local governments throughout the state, including the city of Chicago, to outlaw patronage jobs given to political allies rather than qualified applicants.

In 1972, Shakman and the government reached a “mutually agreed-upon and court-approved remedy for the past practices that infected state and local employment decisions,” Scudder said in the decision.

In the [new appellate court] decision, Scudder wrote that after the Illinois inspector general found instances of patronage hiring from 2003-2014, “most especially” in the Illinois Department of Transportation, and an investigator appointed by the magistrate judge overseeing compliance with the decree found similar instances, additional oversight and regular reviews were established to more closely monitor hiring decisions.

The state created a comprehensive hiring plan and recently a “hiring and employment monitoring division” was put in place in the inspector general’s office.

* Tribune

While the governor’s office has been under the decree since 1972, scrutiny of hiring practices ramped up in 2014 after the state’s then-executive inspector general, Ricardo Meza, found improper hiring at IDOT that began under Gov. Rod Blagojevich and continued under his successor, Gov. Pat Quinn.

Meza said his investigation was “unable to conclude” that top officials knew of the illegal hiring, which involved bringing hundreds of people on board as “staff assistants” to bypass anti-patronage personnel rules.

That fall, a federal judge granted a request from Shakman to appoint a monitor to oversee hiring at IDOT.

After Brennan reported in 2017 that Quinn’s office “played a key role in the staff assistant abuse at IDOT,” her purview was expanded to include all hiring under the governor’s authority. By that time, Rauner was well into his single term.

* Sun-Times

“I appreciate the work the judges do, the federal judges. Having said that, I respectfully disagree with their decision today,” Shakman told the Sun-Times.

“We’ve been eager to get people out of the federal court and back in the business of running their own employment systems,” Shakman said.

“We’ve asked that every … government agency have an employment plan, have an enforcement procedure for that plan that’s designed themselves, but actually running and showing that it works. And that’s all we asked from the governor. Unfortunately the governor hasn’t done that yet.”
Michael Shakman in 1970, left, and in 2014, right. […]

“The opinion makes the point that Gov. Pritzker is a person to be trusted, a person who understands the responsibilities of the governor’s office and his constitutional responsibilities. I assume every one of those facts is correct,” Shakman said.

“But none of them really addresses the fact that Gov. Pritzker is not making the hiring in state government. That’s being done by hundreds of people that he has never met. And he never will. Some of those people were hired through the patronage system. Some of them are loyal to the politicians who got them their jobs.”

* Lobbyist Heather Wier Vaught, an attorney whose spouse is involved with the Cook County case [corrected], had this analysis for her clients…

On Friday the Seventh Circuit vacated the Shakman Decree against the Governor, starting the process of ending one of the oldest cases in Illinois. Six different federal judges have overseen the case, more than 1,000 status reports have been filed, and more than 10,000 entries on the federal docket have been filed since the original consent decree took effect in 1972. To understand the effect of this decision, you have to know a bit of the history.

In 1969, Michael Shakman, an independent political candidate for the 1970 state constitutional convention, and a voter named Paul Lurie filed a class action lawsuit against various political organizations and units of government claiming that political patronage violated the rights of independent candidates and voters. In 1972, the parties, including then Governor Richard Ogilvie and various units of local government, mutually agreed to a federal consent decree that made it clear that political reasons and factors could not be used when making certain governmental employment decisions. After the 1972 decree was entered, in two separate cases the U.S. Supreme Court found that governments could not constitutionally base public employment opportunities on political affiliation and may not consider political affiliation in hiring except as to certain exempted political positions. One of those cases was Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62, 79 (1990). Those cases should have, in my opinion, ended the Shakman consent decree since the Court held patronage unconstitutional, despite the fact it had played a prominent role in American political life since the nation’s founding. As a result of these cases, it was made clear that governments couldn’t consider party affiliation or political activities when hiring, with exception for certain policy related positions. However, the Shakman decrees lived on.

Over the past 50 years the various decrees covered the Governor, the City of Chicago (released in 2014), Cook County (released in 2018), and other county offices including the Cook County Recorder, Treasurer, Circuit Clerk, Assessor, Sherriff, Clerk, Forest Preserve, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District, and on and on. The units of government impacted had to work with private attorneys representing the Shakman plaintiffs and federal special masters tasked with monitoring the review of employment related decisions – from employment manuals, to the hiring process, to the staff coordinating hiring, to the types of resumes that were received and reviewed by a state or local agency, even time keeping records. Taxpayers have spent tens of millions of dollars on Plaintiffs’ legal fees, fees charged by the monitors, and fees for outside defense counsel. This doesn’t include the tens of millions more spent by agencies on compliance and their own legal fees, or the costs related to the state and county Inspectors General.

Specific to the Governor, in 2009, following the impeachment of Governor Rod Blagojevich, a bipartisan committee of the Senate and House recommended, and the General Assembly passed, an amendment to the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act that gave the Office of the Inspector General unfettered discretion to investigate allegations of political patronage in State government and “review hiring and employment files of each State agency within [its] jurisdiction to ensure compliance with Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois… and with all applicable employment laws.” 5 ILCS 430/20-20(9). In 2015, the Office created the Division of Hiring & Employment Monitoring to conduct compliance-based reviews of State hiring and employment procedures, file reviews and on-site monitoring of agency hiring decisions, and work with the monitor appointed in the Shakman litigation. (More on the OEIG’s role here.) As a result, employment-related decisions had oversight by agencies, the ultimate jurisdictional authority (i.e. Governor’s Office), lawyers representing the plaintiffs, inspectors general at the individual agencies, the Office of the Inspector General, court monitors, and federal judges.

In November 2019 the Clerk of Cook County filed a motion to vacate the Shakman decrees against that office, but the motion was denied by the magistrate judge then presiding over the case. The Seventh Circuit affirmed when the Clerk appealed, but it cautioned the decrees left the Court with “serious concerns about the duration and seemingly never-ending nature of the Shakman decrees.” The Court said, “Do not let today’s result cloud the grave federalism concerns we have with the fact that the Clerk of Cook County has been under the thumb of a federal consent decree for the last 50 years.” After the Clerk’s decision was handed down, the Governor moved to vacate the decree against the State. The District Court denied the Governor’s motion and the Governor appealed. Friday the Seventh Circuit reversed the District Court and remanded the case back with direction to vacate the decree against the Governor.

The Court stated in its opinion, “What may have started with a federal court’s well-grounded injunction came to look more like indefinite federal judicial supervision of state employment practices.” The Court said “What most concerns us is that the special master’s oversight—which the district court relied on in denying the Governor’s motion to vacate—has drifted beyond any obligation imposed by the decree and, most certainly, the Constitution. Nowhere do we see the special master, the district court, or Shakman and Lurie on appeal relying on the standards articulated in Elrod and Rutan to identify constitutional violations.”

What may have started as a good-faith effort to challenge that patronage practices in effect in the 1960s had crept over the years into a cottage industry for plaintiffs, the court appointed monitors, and outside defense counsel focused on employment minutia rather than the requirements of federal law. (For Office Space fans: It was as though the federal court had appointed many Bill Lumburgs to oversee how well governmental offices filled out their TPS reports.) The Seventh Circuit decided that was too much, holding “leaving the Governor subject to the 1972 decree is no longer warranted or tolerable. Governor Pritzker has demonstrated substantial compliance with the decree and identified and instituted durable remedies to help ensure that compliance sticks. He has earned the right to make employment decisions for the state on his own and not under the terms and conditions of the 1972 decree or the watchful eyes of a special master and federal court. We cannot let perfect be the enemy of the constitutionally adequate.”

Though the decision only affects the Governor, it was written to clearly provide guidance to the other offices still under decrees. In fact, shortly after the Seventh Circuit’s Order was issued Friday, the district judge ordered supplemental briefing on the Cook County Clerk’s pending motion to vacate to discuss the decision. Other offices under the decrees and court appointed monitoring are expected to consider moving to vacate as well.

After 50 years and countless millions of dollars out of state and county coffers and into the pockets of attorneys, the federal court is on track to return control of employment decisions back to the officials elected by the people. It’s actually a very important reminder that elections have consequences. To those that may lament the good government reforms the decrees supposedly stand for, don’t. Governments are still barred from making employment decisions based on politics, and everything required by the decrees is already required by federal, state, or county law or policy. The only difference is taxpayers will no longer bear the burden of annually paying millions to court appointed monitors and attorneys.

       

15 Comments
  1. - halving_fun - Monday, Aug 8, 22 @ 9:29 am:

    oof
    hiring at the state is only going to get worse
    no executive branch met the mandate

    Quinn was the best, imho


  2. - Derek Smalls - Monday, Aug 8, 22 @ 9:35 am:

    Nice summary and excellent Office Space reference. I hope Shakman gets to keep his red stapler.


  3. - Nearly Normal - Monday, Aug 8, 22 @ 9:49 am:

    Thank you for sharing Heather Weir Vaught’s summary of the Shakman Decree. Her assessment that “elections has consequences” has been said on this blog many, many times and is still valid.


  4. - 50 Years - Monday, Aug 8, 22 @ 9:55 am:

    Millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars were expended on this so-called “reform” in which a cottage industry was established where lawyers enriched themselves by setting up their patronage system. Does anyone remember when Shakman objected to paying his fair share of taxes for his taxpayer-funded airplane?


  5. - Friendly Bob Adams - Monday, Aug 8, 22 @ 9:58 am:

    Seems like ending this decree is the right thing to do. You can’t run a state forever on a judge’s opinion. Fifty years should be enough.


  6. - GC - Monday, Aug 8, 22 @ 10:14 am:

    “Everything required by the decrees is already required by federal, state, or county law or policy” - a little bit of a truism given that the policies had to be written this way under Shakman. It is my sincere hope that, post-Shakman, more State agencies move away from antiquated eligibility list hiring practices and behave more like their private sector competitors in the labor market. It is possible to stop patronage and be much more agile in hiring.


  7. - fs - Monday, Aug 8, 22 @ 10:16 am:

    ==hiring at the state is only going to get worse
    no executive branch met the mandate

    Quinn was the best, imho==

    You forgot to attach “/s” at the end. That was snark, right?


  8. - ;) - Monday, Aug 8, 22 @ 10:22 am:

    Shakman has been a detriment to government for years. Good riddens.


  9. - Boone's is Back - Monday, Aug 8, 22 @ 10:43 am:

    ===What may have started as a good-faith effort to challenge that patronage practices in effect in the 1960s had crept over the years into a cottage industry for plaintiffs, the court appointed monitors, and outside defense counsel focused on employment minutia rather than the requirements of federal law. (For Office Space fans: It was as though the federal court had appointed many Bill Lumburgs to oversee how well governmental offices filled out their TPS reports.)===

    Agree with the analysis and also love the office space reference. This is big news.


  10. - Lurker - Monday, Aug 8, 22 @ 11:01 am:

    I will readily admit that a lot of that went over my head, but it was a good read. But one thing I do know, the hiring process, especially outside the union, for non-State workers is overly complicated which is leading to many positions with few or even zero qualified candidates. And it’s getting worse.


  11. - New Day - Monday, Aug 8, 22 @ 11:22 am:

    “Quinn was the best, imho==

    You forgot to attach “/s” at the end. That was snark, right?”

    There has rarely been a bigger disconnect between the hype and the reality on these kinds of issues than during PQ. They were just as bad in most regards as George Ryan or Rod or any of them.


  12. - Original Rambler - Monday, Aug 8, 22 @ 12:42 pm:

    HWV’s summary is very good. My only nit is I don’t believe “unfettered discretion to investigate allegations of political patronage in State government” is anywhere in the Ethics Act or even Personnel Code. The OEIG has made that their own cottage industry, which obviates the need for the Shakman monitors.


  13. - clarification - Monday, Aug 8, 22 @ 12:54 pm:

    == I don’t believe “unfettered discretion to investigate allegations of political patronage in State government” is anywhere in the Ethics Act or even Personnel Code ==

    The Ethics Act reads, “The jurisdiction of each Executive Inspector General is to investigate allegations of fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement, misconduct, nonfeasance, misfeasance, malfeasance, or violations of this Act or violations of other related laws and rules.”

    All of the executive branch Inspectors General have the ability to open and investigate anything, including employment, to determine if an agency is following the law.


  14. - York & Roosevelt Rd. - Monday, Aug 8, 22 @ 4:22 pm:

    Kudos on the Heather Weir Vaught analysis. This is what this blog needs. She also had profound thoughts on the State officials and employees ethics act that were featured in a recent article by the BGA.


  15. - anon2 - Monday, Aug 8, 22 @ 7:37 pm:

    So patronage is illegal. Without federal oversight, however, will enforcement of the law be weakened? Laws that aren’t consistently enforced tend to get ignored.


TrackBack URI

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.


* Debate coverage roundup
* Proft paper, or not?
* Great mystery solved, kinda
* Today's quotable
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today's edition
* Open thread
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
* Debate open thread
* Yesterday's stories

Support CapitolFax.com
Visit our advertisers...

...............

...............

...............

...............

...............


Loading


Main Menu
Home
Illinois
YouTube
Pundit rankings
Obama
Subscriber Content
Durbin
Burris
Blagojevich Trial
Advertising
Updated Posts
Polls

Archives
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005

Syndication

RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0




Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller