You are here
A New Punch Line in Cook County's Patronage Joke
Thursday, September 18th, 2008
Robert Wechsler
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.
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.
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.
According to an article in the Chicago Sun-Times, 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.
The plaintiff is quoted in the suburban Daily Herald 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."
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
For information about the suit, click here.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
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.
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.
According to an article in the Chicago Sun-Times, 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.
The plaintiff is quoted in the suburban Daily Herald 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."
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
For information about the suit, click here.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
