A group of Chicago lawyers, who for decades have helped lead the effort to combat patronage hiring in Springfield and Chicago, have asked a federal judge to hold off for at least six months on a request by Gov. JB Pritzker to end court oversight of state hiring practices, saying it will allow time to learn the truth of the governor's claims that the state has fixed the decades-old patronage problems.
Late last month, attorney Michael Shakman and his associates in the firm of Miller Shakman Levine & Feldman LLP and Locke Lord LLP, all of Chicago, filed a brief in Chicago federal court, pushing back on Pritzker’s patronage claims.
“Whether a durable remedy is in place cannot be determined in a vacuum or rest on paper plans, sincere promises, or declarations of pure intent,” Shakman and his associates wrote in their brief.
Michael Shakman
| Miller Shakman Levine & Feldman
The brief came about two months after Pritzker, through the Illinois Attorney General’s office, suggested the time had come “after nearly half a century,” for court decrees giving the federal courts and their appointed monitors – known as “special masters” – the authority to scrutinize state hiring decisions and practices.
The court orders have been in place since the first was issued in 1972, three years after Shakman and his associate, Paul Lurie, sued the Democratic Party to fight their system of hiring cronies, friends, donors and political allies. In the years that passed, the court issued further decrees, which collectively came to be known as the Shakman Decrees. The decrees have applied to many state and local government offices and agencies in Chicago and the state capitol.
Early in 2020, special master Noelle C. Brennan told the court she and the Pritzker administration had begun working toward a comprehensive employment plan for the state government. However, she asked U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang to broaden her authority, as she said communication with the Pritzker administration had become strained after she noted the state government had failed to put together guidelines to “address certain current systemic practices” that could sidestep certain safeguards and have allowed for apparent patronage hires of “politically connected” people.
Pritzker responded by asking the judge to not only deny Brennan’s request, but to end the court oversight altogether.
As plans and practices to reform those practices have only begun to be implemented, Brennan said Pritzker’s request came far too soon in the process.
Shakman and his associates then followed with a brief of their own, similarly arguing that Pritzker’s claims of busting the state’s longstanding problems with patronage don’t hold up, and the governor’s request to end the decrees is premature.
Shakman noted, for instance, Brennan was able to identify numerous problematic hiring practices, even though her mandate did not include a concerted effort to ferret out such examples.
Pritzker’s argument that the state has established a “durable remedy” to patronage rests on “shaky pillars,” Shakman said.
Shakman said he and his co-plaintiffs wish to eventually end the oversight, just as the governor does.
But they said that can only come when the state institutes a new system, with strong rules and penalties for failure to follow them.
Shakman said he and his associates “want to finish the job, not prolong it.”
“But they (the Shakman plaintiffs), and the classes they represent, are entitled to assurance that whatever plans and practices the State adopts will provide a durable remedy warranting termination of the Decree, and not be just one more of the many official State acknowledgments that patronage practices need to stop, unsupported by effective enforcement mechanisms and sanctions for non-compliance,” he said.
Shakman said he would like the judge to reject Pritzker’s motion to end oversight under the decrees.
However, he said, for now, the Shakman plaintiffs would ask the court to also consider putting Pritzker’s request on hold for six months. That, he said, would allow Brennan to “gather the facts necessary” to help the judge decide whether or not Pritzker’s assertions concerning continued state government patronage hiring are correct.
Shakman said it would also give Brennan and the Pritzker administration more time to “work diligently to complete the open tasks” remaining regarding the creation of the comprehensive employment plan.
At six months’ time, Shakman said, “Plaintiffs hope they will be in a position to join the sunset request, or, if not and if the Governor wants to press ahead with his termination request and obtain an immediate ruling, the Court will have the necessary factual record on which to base a ruling, either agreeing with the Governor or specifying those matters that need to be completed before termination is warranted.”