|
PRITZKER
MOVES TO SCRAP ANTI-PATRONAGE DEAL AMID ILLINOIS CORRUPTION, BRIBERY
PROBES
Illinois Policy Institute/
Joe Tabor
After
nearly 50 years, Gov. J.B. Pritzker said the Governor’s Office no longer
needs federal oversight to halt patronage hiring. His request came three
days before federal prosecutors said Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan
turned public utilities into patronage havens. |
|
 Gov. J.B. Pritzker said July 14 that the Illinois executive
branch had dismantled its patronage hiring system to the point that a 1972
decree should be scrapped. Three days later federal prosecutors exposed how the
system had spread to two public utilities.
Pritzker moved to vacate the 1972 agreement with the Governor’s Office, one of
the groundbreaking agreements known collectively as the Shakman decrees that
challenged the patronage systems in Chicago and Springfield. Lawyers for the
governor argued in a supporting memorandum that the Governor’s Office has
“instituted an independent and vigorous oversight structure” to prevent
patronage.
Days later on July 17, Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan was served with a
grand jury subpoena related to a federal investigation of a Commonwelth Edison
scheme to bribe the speaker by hiring and making over $1.3 million in payments
to his associates to gain the speaker’s favor. Prosecutors detailed how
Madigan’s office provided names of potential hires ranging from meter readers on
up. AT&T was also served a subpoena seeking information about similar payments
and hires intended to curry Madigan’s favor.
The decree the governor wants to vacate doesn’t apply to Madigan or the General
Assembly, but the timing of his request could not be worse. The 1972 state
patronage agreement was reached between then-Gov. Richard Ogilvie and plaintiff
Michael Shakman, an independent candidate for delegate to the 1970 Illinois
Constitutional Convention. In 1969, Shakman sued the Democratic Organization of
Cook County over the longstanding, unspoken policy of requiring public employees
to do political work for the Democratic Party. The resulting consent decrees
included the Governor’s Office, Cook County and the City of Chicago, among other
government entities and leaders.
Pritzker wants to vacate the agreement between Shakman and Ogilvie that
prohibited the state from conditioning governmental employment upon any
political factor, permitting any employee to do partisan political work during
regular working hours or during time paid for by public funds, or encouraging
any such conduct.
[
to
top of second column] |
Even as Shakman agreed in 2014 to lifting federal
oversight on the City of Chicago, he sought and was granted more
oversight in the form of a federal special master to watch aspects
of Illinois Department of Transportation hiring practices. By 2017,
that oversight was expanded to other state agencies.
Pritzker cited the creation of the Office of Executive Inspector
General and its Hiring and Employment Monitoring Division, as well
as the lack of any violation during the tenure of the special
master’s oversight. The memorandum also casts doubt on Shakman’s
legal standing due to developments in federal jurisprudence since
the 1972 decree.
If his motion is granted, the governor’s office would join Cook
County, the City of Chicago, the Cook County Sheriff’s Office and
the Cook County Forest Preserve District, all of which have already
left federal court oversight under the decrees. Even so, the optics
of the move are not good for the governor.
Three state lawmakers are out of office and another is cooperating
to lessen penalties as a result of bribery and corruption charges,
with the federal investigation progressing ever closer to Madigan.
Pritzker himself faces federal investigation of a $331,000 property
tax dodge.
Pritzker seems to have a talent for bad timing. He asked for greater
trust of state hiring practices just before news broke that the
state’s most powerful politician extended patronage to the private
sector. Likewise, he is asking that voters Nov. 3 entrust state
lawmakers with greater taxing powers through the “fair tax” as at
least five state lawmakers who voted for it have since been
implicated in corruption cases.
Click here to respond to the editor about this article
|
