A New Punch Line in Cook County's Patronage Joke
Today's big story comes to us from Cook County, Illinois, and although
it's about whether a government lawyer has a conflict of interest, the
matter falls into the area of government ethics in which Chicago
and Cook County have led the way for decades: patronage.<br>
<br>
Here's the situation. An assistant Cook County state's attorney defends
the county against charges of patronage. This suit, part of a series
originally filed in 1969, recently was settled, with $3.2 million being
paid to 105 county employees. Part of the settlement requires that an
independent Inspector General be appointed by the County Commission to
investigate patronage hiring in the future.<br>
<br>
The commission (by a vote of 10-3) selected the very same assistant
state's attorney to do this, declaring him the most qualified candidate.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/1167687,CST-NWS-cook17.article&qu…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the Chicago Sun-Times</a>, the plaintiff in the suit charges
that the attorney has a conflict of interest, and that this decision
shows that the commission is not actually ready for patronage reform.<br>
<br>
The plaintiff is quoted in <a href="http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=235402&src=1the" target="”_blank”">the
suburban Daily Herald</a> as follows: "You cannot be a lawyer for a
party accused of illegal misconduct in several lawsuits and then take
off your lawyer's hat and begin to enforce against your ... clients the
very rules your former clients were accused of violating."<br>
<br>
According to the Daily Herald, the attorney "disagreed he would face an
inherent conflict. He found [the plaintiff's] privilege scenario
unlikely, given that he seldom represented individual county employees,
but rather served the county as an entity, and so could not be said to
have an individual attorney/client relationship. Where one existed,
Blanchard said, he would simply recuse himself from an investigation."<br>
<br>
It's true that the attorney would not have represented many individual
employees, but he ignores the fact that his client, the commission, was
and might very well be involved in future patronage matters. This is a
conflict that will come up again and again. And the appearance of
impropriety is glaring.<br>
<br>
One of the commissioners explained his vote with the usual expertise
argument: "Somebody who's had a ringside seat, albeit from a little bit
of a distance, to the corruption and chicanery of politicians in Cook
County is probably in a better position to understand where to go and
help root that out." That would have made Mayor Daley I's attorney the
first choice to root out patronage in Chicago.<br>
<br>
It's interesting that the commission ignored the plaintiff's opposition
to selecting the assistant state's attorney, because the plaintiff has,
under the settlement, the authority to contest the appointment and have
the court appoint a special monitor, as it has over Chicago, the Cook
County Board, and the Cook County Sheriff's Office.<br>
<br>
It appears that the selection was about power, more specifically about
the stubbornness of people who have had some of that power taken away
from them in a legal settlement. This is a sad basis for ignoring
appearances of impropriety with respect to the problem that has made
Chicago and Cook County a national joke.<br>
<br>
For information about the suit, click <a href="http://legacy.cookcountygov.com/employment_shakman.htm">here</a>.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---