An IG-Compliance Battle in Chicago
<b>Update:</b> February 19, 2010 (see below)<br>
<br>
This blog post is about Chicago, and things are more complicated in
Chicago than in other American municipalities. So please read slowly
and carefully.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/ct-met-daley-deputy-qu…; target="”_blank”">an
article in yesterday's Chicago <i>Tribune</i></a>, the first deputy in the
mayor's Office of Compliance resigned a few weeks after he and the
office's executive director were found by the city's inspector general
to have mishandled a 2008 sexual harassment complaint (e.g., they tried to find
the accused another city job). The IG recommended that the mayor
suspend the two men for thirty days without pay.<br>
<br>
As with everything in Chicago, the backstory is all-important. Over
thirty years ago, a federal court handed down what is known as the
Shakman Decree,
prohibiting political considerations in hiring and promotions for about
37,000 non-policy-making city jobs. The city's infamous patronage
machine then went underground, and it wasn't until 2005 that the feds
unearthed it, making numerous arrests (see my blog posts on this: <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/117" target="”_blank”">1</a> <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/276" target="”_blank”">2</a>).<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/2025737,compliance-office-meaney-…; target="”_blank”">an
article in yesterday's Chicago <i>Sun-Times</i></a>, the Office of Compliance
was formed in 2007 by the mayor, under his personal authority, "because
he didn't trust
then-Inspector General David Hoffman, who had repeatedly embarrassed the
mayor." Embarrassing the mayor is a capital offense in Chicago.<br>
<br>
And now it appears that the Office of Compliance has gone and
embarrassed the mayor, as well. There is talk that the mayor is going
to take away the office's authority over hiring, and give it
to the IG.<br>
<br>
Here's what the compliance director's lawyer has been saying about the
IG's report: "This is a classic Chicago power grab. This
report is politically motivated, childish and a waste of taxpayers'
money."<br>
<br>
Amazingly, the Shakman of the Shakman Decree is still involved, and
there is a federal monitor of the city's hiring. According to the
<i>Sun-Times</i> article, they have "accused [the compliance director] of
ignoring blatant violations, covering up hiring
irregularities he’s supposed to correct and failing to discipline
employees who refuse to toe the line." Hence the mayor's embarrassment.
He wants to look squeaky clean on patronage, and his own boys are
muddying the waters.<br>
<br>
There's another twist to the story. Remember the guy accused of sexual
harassment, the excuse for this battle? Not only is he confined to a wheelchair and therefore
covered by protections for the disabled. But according to the <i>Sun-Times</i>,
he was also "stripped of his
responsibilities in 2008 after blowing the whistle on alleged contract
irregularities involving Motorola that cost taxpayers $2.25 million.
The IG pressured City Hall to reverse the punishment."<br>
<br>
Many other versions of the stories are being tossed around, but the
bottom line is that whenever you split ethics enforcement up among a
variety of agencies-- in this case, the IG, the Office of Compliance,
and the Board of Ethics -- you are asking for trouble. You are
especially asking for trouble when one or more of the agencies is
directly responsible to one or more elected officials, and when they
take different approaches (audit, compliance, conflicts) to the same
matters.<br>
<br>
A corporate-style office of compliance controlled by a mayor who, at
the very least, did nothing about his city's patronage system has
serious appearance problems, which is not a good way to change a large
city government's deeply unethical culture. The mayor should have no authority over the city's hiring oversight. He would do
best to use this occasion to close the compliance office down, even if he's doing it
because he's been embarrassed.<br>
<br>
<b>Update:</b> February 19, 2010<br>
This battle has gone to court. The compliance director, after being suspended without pay for three months by the mayor, upon the IG's recommendation, has <a href="http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/files/boswellsuit.pdf" target="”_blank”">sued both of them</a>, seeking an injunction against the suspension.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---