Quantcast

COOK COUNTY RECORD

Saturday, April 27, 2024

Cook Assessor asks fed judge to end anti-corruption supervision of hiring, promotions

Reform
Kaegi

Cook County Assessor Fritz Kaegi | cookcountyil.gov

The Cook County Assessor’s Office appears poised to be the latest Illinois government agency to negotiate its release from federal court oversight of hiring and promotion practices, a process that began half a century ago as reformers sought to sideline politically motivated patronage employment through the Assessor and other Democratic power brokers.

Attorneys with the Chicago office of Laner Muchin, representing Assessor Fritz Kaegi, filed a motion in federal court Oct. 13 attempting to show U.S. District Judges Edmond Chang and Gabriel Fuentes the office is meeting the criteria established for it to regain hiring autonomy. The federal government enacted those guidelines under orders collectively known as the Shakman Decrees, which represent the outcome of efforts first launched in 1969 by reform advocates Michael Shakman and Paul Lurie.

The decrees have forbidden governments in Illinois from basing most hiring and promotion decisions on workers’ political allegiances. The orders also empowered courts to appoint so-called “special masters” and administrators to monitor government hiring decisions and policies, and ensure compliance.

The decrees were put in place to combat efforts by Illinois and Chicago politicians to use government hiring to build political patronage fiefdoms, which they can use to exert leverage over state and local government and increase their own power, prestige and personal wealth. The strategy has a long history in Illinois, seen most recently in the cases of former Illinois House Speaker and Democratic Party Chairman Michael Madigan and Chicago Alderman Ed Burke, who have both been indicted on federal political corruption charges.

The Assessor's office has been historically notorious for patronage under prior assessors, including most recently former Assessor Joe Berrios, who ran the office from 2010 through 2018. In addition to patronage issues, Berrios’ tenure was marked by conflict with several other government agencies, such as a protracted mid-decade legal battle in which a Cook County judge, state appellate panel and the Illinois Supreme Court all agreed Berrios didn’t have the right to refuse to give documents to the Cook County Inspector General’s Office as it tried to investigate allegations the office granted one of its employees a special property tax exemption.

Kaegi had never run for political office before defeating Berrios in the 2018 Democratic primary, at a time when the incumbent was chairman of the Cook County Democratic Party. Now, heading toward a re-election bid, Kaegi said multiple compliance reports show his office is not violating federal law in its hiring practices and has taken steps that “are a durable remedy against any possible future violation” of Shakman Decree terms.

Included in that progress is implementation of an employment plan — originally filed in August 2016, under Berrios — along with procedures ensuring compliance and identifying possible shortcomings.

“The (assessor) continued to revise and improve the employment plan to better serve the office’s needs and provide clear direction to employees,” the Assessor's attorneys state in their motion. “These ongoing revisions reflect the (Assessor’s) commitment to an open and transparent hiring process that will prevent unlawful political considerations from affecting employment actions.”

Kaegi said his office’s policies go further than other governmental units under Shakman oversight, highlighting an ethics policy and employee handbook, “an unusually wide-ranging, expansive time and attendance policy” and notice requirements ensuring all steps of any employment action are shared with Shakman monitors inside and outside the office.

Other government agencies have recently made progress in court toward full release from oversight. 

On Oct. 3, Judge Chang formally vacated the Shakman Decree over Gov. JB Pritzker’s office and agencies under its supervision. That opinion followed a 2021 ruling in which Chang rejected Pritzker’s earlier attempt to end oversight, at the time saying the state hadn’t done enough to fix the decades-old problems. A federal appeals court, however, overruled Chang, and said principles of federalism require them to release the governor from the decrees after 40 years.

Cook County Clerk Karen Yarbrough has also argued her office should be released from federal court oversight. She argued federal monitors are now merely looking for reasons to extend their employment overseeing her office.

Shakman and Lurie, along with the court appointed hiring monitors, strongly disagreed with both Pritzker's and Yarbrough's arguments in favor of dissolving the court decrees. They argued corruption-related issues remain in both the state agencies under Pritzker's supervision and the Cook County Clerk's office. They urged the courts to keep the supervision in place.

As for the Assessor, Kaegi’s motion detailed mandated regular employee training processes as well as steps taken on a more frequent basis, including weekly, to ensure compliance with the overall plan.

“There have not been any instances of unlawful political discrimination by the (Assessor) nor any evidence that it has failed to make good faith efforts to remedy or otherwise address non-compliance with the written policies and procedures,” according to the motion. “The absence of any substantiated complaints regarding political discrimination must be viewed in the context of the large number of hirings the (assessor) has done since this administration took office.”

Kaegi said between Dec. 3, 2018, and March 31, 2022, his office hired 172 employees subject to Shakman Decrees, including 97 interns subject to a streamlined process, with no findings of political influence in those decisions. He further said an inspector general’s report earlier this year confirmed that data.

“The Decree should be dissolved because all of the requirements for it to do so have been met,” Kaegi concluded. “All of the procedural and substantive requirements for a determination of substantial compliance have been met, and the parties agree that the (Assessor) is in substantial compliance.”

Jonathan Bilyk contributed to this report.

More News