Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Outbreak at state board of elections reported a week after most staff returned to the office
Next Post: 1,393 new cases, 18 additional deaths, 3.8 percent positivity rate
Posted in:
* Coming late to this. Thanks to a commenter for linking to it…
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker is contending a federal decree, which has been in place 48 years and authorizes oversight of state employment practices, is no longer needed because the state has “reformed” itself and made patronage a thing of the past.
“After nearly half a century, it is time for the 1972 decree to sunset,” Pritzker said in a July 14 court document, drawn up by Illinois Assistant Attorney General Brent Stratton.
Chicago lawyers Michael Shakman and Paul Lurie sued the Cook County Democratic Party in 1969 to fight patronage. That suit led to the Shakman Decrees, federal court orders which bar Illinois government from letting politics improperly control government jobs and allows for federal oversight of hiring practices in Cook County and Springfield.
Noelle Brennan, a lawyer appointed as a monitor under the decree, filed a report Feb. 6 in which she noted work had started toward a comprehensive employment plan for state government. However, Brennan said Pritzker’s office had begun restricting communication between her team and state agencies. In October, Brennan reported the state had failed to put together rules and guidelines to “address certain current systemic practices that are vulnerable to manipulation” or which could violate the Shakman decree.
As an example, Brennan said some employees are given temporary or interim promotions, which sidesteps oversight and the competitive process. Brennan asked District Judge Edmond Chang to broaden the scope of her watchdog activities.
* The governor’s two main arguments…
First, the State has reformed its employment practices to unquestionably pass constitutional muster. The State has instituted a durable solution to prevent future patronage employment practices. It has a comprehensive “exempt list” – approved by the Plaintiffs, the Special Master, and the Court – which the Court identified as the central infirmity of the State’s prior employment practices when Plaintiffs sought supplemental relief in 2014 and 2016. addition, the State, by statute, has instituted an independent oversight structure in the Office of Executive Inspector General, which has within it a dedicated Hiring and Employment Monitoring Division – comprised of ten professionals with expertise and experience in monitoring the State’s employment practices to prevent and uncover political and other forms of discrimination, misconduct, and inefficiency.
In addition, the Special Master exhaustively has monitored the State’s employment policies and practices for the past six years, and has filed 350 pages of detailed reports describing her work and her findings. Those reports acknowledge the State’s “significant progress,” e.g., Dkt. 6565 at 1, and do not identify a single patronage violation during that timeframe – let alone the kind of widespread illegal policies or practices to justify continued systemic intervention.
Second, during the protracted life of the decree, this case has become unmoored from the Constitution. Article III confines courts to cases and controversies involving individual federal rights. To ensure the presence of a case and controversy, Article III requires, as an irreducible constitutional minimum, an injury that is fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct, and that is likely to be redressed by the requested relief. E.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). Plaintiffs are two private lawyers who, regardless of how they came to be litigants in 1969, now in no respects satisfy this constitutional minimum. They simply are not affected, let alone injured, by the State’s employment policies – they are not State employees and have no desire to become State employees.
A half century ago, Plaintiffs obtained a foothold to standing and to a federal forum by complaining of a specific patronage scheme. Plaintiffs alleged that as an independent candidate for the 1970 Illinois Constitutional Convention and a voter supporting that candidate, they were injured by a systemic practice whereby incumbents forced public employees to do political work and make political donations at the risk of being fired. Plaintiffs alleged that this army of campaign workers co-opted from the ranks of public employees tipped the electoral playing field such that candidates and voters themselves suffered cognizable injury.
Now, almost five decades since the decree was entered, Plaintiffs do not and cannot plausibly assert that the State is perpetuating any such scheme. Similarly, the standing jurisprudence that originally (although tenuously) recognized Plaintiffs’ claim to involve a justiciable case-and-controversy has evolved to unequivocally preclude litigating generalized grievances and policy preferences in the federal courts. The factual and legal predicates upon which the federal court originally entered the 1972 decree therefore no longer exist.
As a result, the Constitution compels termination of the decree, not its continued existence. In evaluating whether to vacate a consent decree, “concerns of federalism should factor strongly into the court’s analysis.” O’Sullivan v. City of Chicago, 396 F.3d 843, 868 (7th Cir. 2005). “Unless there is a substantial claim under federal law, the district judge should not enter or continue to enforce a consent decree affecting the operation of a governmental body.” Evans v. City of Chicago, 10 F.3d 474, 482 (7th Cir. 1993). There remains no case-and- controversy and no federal interest in this case to justify the extraordinary intrusion of a federal court into sovereign State affairs.
As explained further below, these developments compel an unequivocal conclusion: there is no basis for continued federal court involvement in the State’s employment practices. After nearly half a century, it is time for the 1972 decree to sunset.
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 11:57 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Outbreak at state board of elections reported a week after most staff returned to the office
Next Post: 1,393 new cases, 18 additional deaths, 3.8 percent positivity rate
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Kind of bad timing after the reveal of Carrie Zalewski, Forrest Ashby, etc.
Comment by Random Lee Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 12:08 pm
THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS.
If this was Rauner…
Has any reporter asked Mr. Shakman for comment?
Comment by radio flyer Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 12:08 pm
The Shakman Shakedown needs to end. We’ve paid his law firm enough money to delay the hiring of qualified people for months on end.
Comment by Nuke the Whales Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 12:08 pm
No way Noelle Brennan is giving up this cash cow for a few years still.
Comment by Original Rambler Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 12:10 pm
=== Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker is contending a federal decree, which has been in place 48 years and authorizes oversight of state employment practices, is no longer needed because the state has “reformed” itself and made patronage a thing of the past.===
For the love of Pete, this looks horrible to the timing of the ComEd/Madigan culture… even as it is not connected in any way to what the ask is here.
This isn’t the way to seem thoughtful to the process and overcoming the bad of the past;
=== However, Brennan said Pritzker’s office had begun restricting communication between her team and state agencies. In October, Brennan reported the state had failed to put together rules and guidelines to “address certain current systemic practices that are vulnerable to manipulation” or which could violate the Shakman decree.
As an example, Brennan said some employees are given temporary or interim promotions, which sidesteps oversight and the competitive process. Brennan asked District Judge Edmond Chang to broaden the scope of her watchdog activities.===
So much swirling.
The administration better hope they aren’t denied due to current climate or decisions.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 12:10 pm
Where should we start? More accurately, what state agency should we start with to show that nothing really has changed in 48 years?
Comment by Logical Thinker Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 12:10 pm
=== If this was Rauner…===
… he might sidestep and make things a large no bid contract to also take away union merit jobs.
Anything else?
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 12:11 pm
OW nailed it.
Comment by Lt Guv Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 12:12 pm
Shakman enforcement may cost $ but it is free from political corruption.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 12:13 pm
My father was appointed by a Federal Magistrate Justice as Assessor Compliance Administrator for multiple suits arising from Shakman, and he was proud of the work his office accomplished, including settling a case where the defendant agreed to pay over $5 million.
Whether or not the Shakman Decree will ever have any effect on actual practices is one discussion.
But less oversight never seems like best practice.
Comment by AlfondoGonz Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 12:15 pm
The “for the past six years” bit is interesting. It seems like he chose the period right after the Quinn/IDOT patronage thing. Pretty selective scope, there.
https://capitolfax.com/2017/04/25/quinns-idot-patronage-detailed/
Comment by Perrid Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 12:15 pm
===After nearly half a century, it is time for the 1972 decree to sunset===
The [voluntarily censored] it is.
The state literally was just caught horrifically violating the consent decree. Did they fire 100% of the people involved in that? Because the last I checked [voluntarily censored] is an agency chief of staff after signing off on hundreds of fraudulent time sheets and lying about it.
If you’re going to keep these clowns employed and they are somehow going to pass whatever poor attempt at vetting your administration has now is clearly not the time to sunset the Shakman decree.
It doesn’t matter how old the decree is if the government has made every attempt imaginable to fail to follow it and the folks responsible for that blatant breech of the public trust pay few if any consequences.
Comment by Candy Dogood Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 12:16 pm
Time for this to end. While it started with good intentions, Shakman lawyers have become their own interest group that have made it harder to effectively reform government offices. The hiring process across all levels of government is a disincentive for quality people to even consider applying for jobs.
Comment by Anonish Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 12:16 pm
=== Shakman enforcement may cost $ but it is free from political corruption. ===
It isn’t worth the cost. The Shakman monitors try to impose their policy preferences on government agencies in the name of Shakman Compliance. It truly is a scam on the taxpayers. Why should the monitors bill $250 an hour to create issues to resolve that will ultimately allow them tp bill even more hours?
Comment by Powdered Whig Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 12:17 pm
===It isn’t worth the cost.===
The political cost of seemingly dismissing Shackman ideals, even if they seem outdated and tedious now, is a high one with Madigan things swirling about and a reported “silent treatment” being used by the current administration.
The timing to this, even if it’s meritorious, and the way the administration is seen clamming up… what is it worth to have those same overseers or a judge say “no, you’ve not completed the overall mission”?
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 12:21 pm
==Where should we start? More accurately, what state agency should we start with to show that nothing really has changed in 48 years?==
IDOT?
Comment by Chatham Resident Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 12:22 pm
=== But less oversight never seems like best practice. ===
The issue is not more or less oversight, but oversight by who? Why do the Federal Courts and appointed monitors need to be involved in State and Local government decisions when there are other groups that have been proven to be effective? Why can’t the OEIG handle these oversight duties? Why does Brian Hays at Locke Lord get to bill taxpayers over $600 an hour for there to be effective oversight? These are the questions that should be asked and answered.
Comment by Powdered Whig Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 12:23 pm
=== The political cost of seemingly dismissing Shackman ideals ===
I disagree. The average person doesn’t know what Shakman is, but they do understand a waste of money - which Shakman is.
Comment by Powdered Whig Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 12:25 pm
I just lost any respect I had for Governor Pritzker. There are currently more corrupt patronage bums in IDOT than the old Chicago Machine.
Look at the cozy relationship between IDOT engineer Chris Aude (female), and Chris Snyder (male) from Civil Constructors. Aude supervised the construction of the Savanna-Sabula bridge over the Mississippi river in 2018. It was an $80 million dollar project, and Pritzker is saying we should have less oversight? Very sad.
Comment by Buford Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 12:27 pm
=== The average person doesn’t know what…===
The average person *knows* hiring cronies isn’t great and fighting something that let’s it disappear the oversight is bad.
Especially in the climate as a package.
“Pritzker wants Shackman to end so he can hire more Madigan cronies”
While wholly inaccurate to the thought, it is a conclusion others will push.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 12:28 pm
“this army of campaign workers co-opted from the ranks of public employees”
SCOTUS ruled that employment funded by taxpayers is political, therefore union agency fees are illegally forced on workers who don’t agree on unions’ political advocacy. If all government work is political then there should be no legal standing to prohibit all political activity on the job. Workers may want to have campaign posters, buttons, etc. Passing out campaign literature during lunches and breaks should be allowed if it doesn’t interfere with their work.
Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 12:37 pm
Either 50 years of Shakman has done its job and it can sunset, or 50 years of Shakman has proven that Shakman isn’t a realistic or effective way to stop patronage. There are plenty of patronage scandals in other states but not Shakman decrees. The court can always intervene again if internal processes don’t succeed.
Comment by GC Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 12:38 pm
This is a good thing, and you people are nuts for dismissing it. You’re only propping up a system that has evolved from an effort to eliminate patronage into a scam that makes lawyers rich with taxpayer money. The financial savings alone makes it worth the effort, and the removal of ridiculous hurdles the special master has put into place will help speed up the hiring process immensely. The state has spent 40 years paying to fix that one problem - if it hasn’t been fixed by now, it’s never going to be.
Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 12:38 pm
=== The average person *knows* hiring cronies isn’t great and fighting something that let’s it disappear the oversight is bad. ===
But that’s not what is happening. The costs of Shakman go well beyond fighting patronage. They want to impose their preferred policies on government offices. We elected the Governor to run his ship, not Shakman. If there are issues with how the Governor runs things, he will ultimately have to answer for those things.
Comment by Powdered Whig Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 12:39 pm
=== But that’s not what is happening.===
That’s the politics to it.
Voters don’t do nuance.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 12:40 pm
In fairness to the Governor, I don’t believe the statement “Pritzker wants Schackman to end so he can hire more Madigan cronies “ is currently correct.
Pritzker wants Shackman to end so he can hire his own cronies.
Comment by Back to the Future Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 12:42 pm
=== They want to impose their preferred policies on government offices. We elected the Governor to run his ship, not Shakman. If there are issues with how the Governor runs things, he will ultimately have to answer for those things.===
… and to be clear, I’m always in favor of any governor of any stripe handling their own hiring and having their people where they want them.
If they’re asking, in this climate to decidedly go after an end to Shackman as a means to good government, the political side versus the good policy side will be something that can’t be dismissed.
The nuance to the process is likely to be lost before trying to convince the nuance will override the current political climate.
I wish them well…
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 12:43 pm
Kudos to team Pritzker for having the guts to do this. These special monitors have been milking the taxpayers long enough.
Comment by Excitable Boy Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 12:48 pm
What did shakman due to prevent the hiring of blago’s administrative assistants at IDOT? Purely political hirings.
Comment by Huh? Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 12:49 pm
=== Huh? - Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 12:49 pm:===
What did laws against murder do to stop the murder of any murder victim?
Please try to deliver more than a logical fallacy if you want to be taken seriously.
Comment by Candy Dogood Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 12:53 pm
- agency chief of staff after signing off on hundreds of fraudulent time sheets and lying about it. -
Candy, with respect, Shakman has nothing to do with hiring agency chiefs of staff, and there are other laws for dealing with fraud. Whomever you’re referring to may be a lousy, incompetent bum, but CoS is and should remain an exempt position.
Comment by Excitable Boy Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 1:01 pm
“That suit led to the Shakman Decrees, federal court orders which bar Illinois government from letting politics improperly control government jobs”
Candy - my point that was lost on you is that political hiring has and will occur regardless of shakman.
To claim that federal oversight is no longer needed will allow this and future administrations to pad the government payrolls with their own political appointees.
Comment by Huh? Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 1:02 pm
=== Excitable Boy - Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 1:01 pm:===
I think you misunderstand my concern. I am not suggesting that a Chief of Staff position should be covered under the Shakman decree. I am expressing my concern that a person was hired by the Pritzker Administration to be an agency Chief of Staff after having significantly participated in inappropriate political hiring and that they also attempted to lie to the Special Master.
This person also personally signed the time sheets that would read the name of a different agency (Like IDOT) for folks that were reporting to work at other agencies.
My overall concern is the fact that since this person made it through whatever vetting process the Pritzker Administration had in place that it was either a poor vetting process, or those involved in the hiring selection disregarded information that should disqualify the person from consideration for the position.
Comment by Candy Dogood Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 1:07 pm
The Shakman/Rutan procedures certainly slowed things down, but to be honest, and politically incorrect, the real impediment to hire the best is the veterans preference law as it has been interpreted (i.e., absolute preference if minimum qualifications are met). CMS prohibits you from building strong job experience mandates into a job listing and the result is someone with a BA and no job experience beats a PhD with 20 years experience. I never found the Rutan rule to be more than a pain in the butt.
Comment by Rasselas Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 1:19 pm
“Either 50 years of Shakman has done its job and it can sunset, or 50 years of Shakman has proven that Shakman isn’t a realistic or effective way to stop patronage. There are plenty of patronage scandals in other states but not Shakman decrees. The court can always intervene again if internal processes don’t succeed.”
This is a good take. I think we need a watchdog over government hiring practices, but this isn’t the best structure. I’d prefer to see this task assigned to a nonpartisan state body.
Comment by Pelonski Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 1:21 pm
Excitable Boy is correct. The instances Candy and others are mentioning are not what this covers. Those positions that so-called “cronies” are being hired for are referred to as exempt positions. These are non-union high-level positions like Director, Chief of Staff and Chief Counsel. What the special master has been making a hash of, and what JB is referring to here, are rank-and-file positions that are filled through a long and tortuous process of civil service testing, blind qualification reviews with the applicant names removed, structured interviews, etc. If you’ve ever wondered why the state is taking so long to hire people to solve a particular problem, this is the answer. It takes months to hire people under this process.
Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 1:22 pm
To this;
=== Those positions that so-called “cronies” are being hired for are referred to as exempt positions. These are non-union high-level positions like Director, Chief of Staff and Chief Counsel. What the special master has been making a hash of, and what JB is referring to here, are rank-and-file positions that are filled through a long and tortuous process of civil service testing, blind qualification reviews with the applicant names removed, structured interviews, etc.===
It’s about nuance to the politics, that’s my thought to it.
Like this…
“…JB is referring to here, are rank-and-file positions that are filled through a long and tortuous process of civil service testing, blind qualification reviews with the applicant names removed, structured interviews, etc.===
I dunno if you want the quote to be;
“Rank-and-file positions that are filled through a long and tortuous process of civil service testing, blind qualification reviews with the applicant names removed, structured interviews, etc…. is a bad way to make things allegedly fair”
That doesn’t read or sound good, no matter the truth or if I even agree.
With respect.
Let’s all hope that however this plays out the state is best served by the decision… and the the nuances to it play themselves out.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 1:31 pm
== That doesn’t read or sound good, no matter the truth or if I even agree.==
That is true, I guess it depends on which lens you’re using to look at it. Politically, it’s a hard sell because it’s inside baseball stuff and people automatically assume corruption in pretty much anything government related. But from a governing aspect, there’s no way to justify continuing to pay the special master and associated lawyers when the normal hiring process has become so rigorous. It’s beyond onerous for state agencies that just want to hire a replacement. Work that needs to be done quickly instead sits on a desk for months on end while the hiring process plays itself out
Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 1:48 pm
The arguments to end Shakman make sense to me. BUT I think it needs to be part of an overhaul of the whole HR system to make it more effective and efficient. I think it is still in effect, but Rutan had a number of difficult provisions. For instance, it limited the number of questions you could ask and didn’t let you evaluate based on the resume. The veteran’s preference should be changed from absolute preference to bonus points.
Comment by City Guy Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 1:51 pm
Michael Shakman didnt become a delegate to the 1970 ConCon because of patronage. Right. All independent candidates lost because of it.
In reality, many independent candidates for all levels of political office won precisely because they were opposed to the regulars.
Shakman lost because he got less votes, not due to patronage.
Comment by low level Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 2:13 pm
Rauner’s favorite adjectives: Outrageous, Broken, Corrupt
I don’t miss him
Comment by Leading InDecatur Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 2:17 pm
== The factual and legal predicates upon which the federal court originally entered the 1972 decree therefore no longer exist. ==
== Plaintiffs do not and cannot plausibly assert that the State is perpetuating any such scheme. ==
Pressure for political donations was still going on in the 90’s. Same with patronage under the guise of hiring freezes.
Since I retired in 2002, I can’t say about the last 18 - 20 years.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 2:25 pm
You will never eliminate patronage completely. Just like the donation limits, there are always ways around it. Go ahead and hire 100 Brennans and triple the number of IG’s. Still wont stop it.
Comment by low level Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 2:28 pm
I think Pritzker’s office is right on the law but man does this seem wrong on the politics with MJM’s scandal white hot.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 2:36 pm
- Lester Holt’s Mustache -
Yeah… sometimes the politics and the governing timetables don’t arrive at the station at the same time but those trains are still running.
Stay well.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 2:39 pm
===- low level - Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 2:28 pm:===
Do you also believe that because we will never be 100% crime free that we should stop making an effort to enforce laws?
Comment by Candy Dogood Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 2:58 pm
Given latest revelations of using influence to force even private businesses to hire certain people, it seems that IL politicians are expanding their power even more.
Comment by Dirksen'sTop45 Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 3:09 pm
48 years is too long, which demonstrates that the decree has not eliminated the demand for patronage. We need a metric firmly established in law, quite likely as a constitutional amendment to prevent tampering, and then we can let Shakman sunset.
I think about 1.6% of state jobs are Rutan-exempt currently. Set that percent as a cap, both in FTE and salary dollars, and that gives governors, hiring managers, and courts a precise way to determine compliance.
Comment by thechampaignlife Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 3:25 pm
There are some IDOT rank-and-file who question exactly how effective Brennan & Associates have been in fulfilling their Shakman duties. My office houses four (of the twenty) IDOT Rutan-reclassified positions which were opened up for interviews last fall.
Can’t speak for other DOT locations, but here’s how that effort at “weeding out patronage” has gone so far: Interviews were held for all four of those positions in January; for two of them, offers were sent to new candidates (who started around March 1st), and the incumbents were shown the door. However, the other two incumbent candidates of that group of four remain in their former positions. Neither was officially offered their position back after interviewing for their old jobs - they just seem to still be around on some kind of nondescript “extension” which was originally only supposed be ninety days, but here we are in almost-August and both of these appointees (one being the blood relative of a now-retired IDOT patronage superstar) remain on payroll.
Meanwhile, other candidates (both internal and external) who interviewed for those reclassified positions haven’t received IDOT’s usual postal notification that they did not get the job. And a call to the Special Master only elicits a “we are monitoring the situation” response.
There is absolutely still a need for a Special Master, but from “street level,” it’s not really apparent what they’re currently doing.
Comment by Scooter Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 3:31 pm
Candy- how much did we spend for the War on Drugs? How much in prisons? How much is spent on police forces?
Crime is up now, isnt it? So hire more IGs and Brennan’s and patronage will find a way through, including in the civil service.
Comment by low level Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 3:41 pm
===Crime is up now, isnt it?===
Not really. How about you report some statistics instead of pretending like the comments section of Capitol Fax is a Fox News Program you host.
===and patronage will find a way through, including in the civil service. ===
This is without a doubt one of the worst arguments I have seen in favor of corruption ever and I need to take a moment to reflect on the fact that we’re in Illinois and remember that Illinois needed the United States Supreme Court to tell them it is illegal to fire people for supporting the wrong politician in 1990.
low level, you don’t have to defend a system with corruption just because you benefited from it. We can move on with a better foot forward, but to do that, we’re going to need to recognize that without firm action by our elected officials the People of Illinois will continue to be taken advantage of by people without scruples.
Right now we live in a state where one can blatantly participate in illegal patronage hiring, get caught red handed, and then get invited back to make a six figure salary with no acknowledgement that you should never have the public trust again.
I believe we can do better as a state. If you want to cling to the belief that candidates can only get elected by promising public jobs to donors, under paid workers, volunteers, and people that are told they have to volunteer to keep their jobs and that it should be legal for them to do that then it is clear that you might be the problem.
Comment by Candy Dogood Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 4:14 pm
Here’s someone who was opposed to the Shakman decrees. He is usually considered a great independent…
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2002-02-17-0202170422-story.html
Comment by low level Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 6:45 pm
low level - For what it’s worth, Shakman lost his election to the Constitutional Convention by fewer votes than the number of patronage workers in his district.
Comment by Keyrock Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 8:44 pm
===rank-and-file positions that are filled through a long and tortuous process of civil service testing, blind qualification reviews with the applicant names removed, structured interviews, etc.===
I needed a good chuckle, thanks.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jul 29, 20 @ 9:25 pm