To get away from an era of Machine political patronage in hiring, several local governmental units, from the Cook County sheriff to the Chicago Park District, worked hard for years to prove they had put those days behind them.
By doing so, they were freed from supervision under the so-called Shakman decrees, which barred political hiring and created a system to monitor offices that historically engaged in it.
Those laudable efforts to meet Shakman standards were a victory for taxpayers, people who applied for jobs and good government.
Unfortunately, it looks as though Chicago and Cook County might not get many more of those victories.
The good government advocates who monitor political hiring and firing expect to see the Cook County clerk’s office under Karen Yarbrough emerge from under Shakman monitoring even though Yarbrough, who previously was Cook County recorder of deeds, has been criticized for not doing what other officeholders did, such as fully cooperating with a compliance officer operating under the purview of a federal judge to monitor employment.
For example, in a lawsuit filed last year in which anti-patronage reformer Michael Shakman was among the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs argued Yarbrough had “not cooperated with the [compliance administrator] and [had] repeatedly ignored deadlines imposed by the Court.”
In 2020, U.S. Magistrate Judge Staley Schenkier found Yarbrough hired employees without posting jobs publicly, awarded jobs based on politics and changed exempt positions without court approval. Schenkier also said Yarbrough rotated employees in a way that led them to resign, freeing up positions for patronage.
Shakman has a long history of fighting for patronage reform. His lawsuits dating back to 1969 against the City of Chicago and other governmental bodies and political organizations led to the Shakman decrees.
Yet a decision last year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has changed the rules of the game. The decision was about the allowing the Illinois governor’s office to emerge from under Shakman, but it also made it easier for other government units to do so. The decision led Shakman plaintiffs to decide they had no choice other than to settle with Yarbrough’s office.
A ruling ending Shakman oversight for the county clerk might come as early as Thursday.
”It’s not the way I would have preferred the matter to end,” Shakman told us. “I would have preferred it to end as it did with [Cook County Sheriff Tom] Dart. He bought into the reforms. … I can’t say the same thing about the county clerk.”
Government agencies that embraced reform had to do a lot of work. They drew up new, professional personnel policies that motivated good employees and ended political protection for bad ones. Former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle labored mightily to satisfy the Shakman plaintiffs and a judge that they had imposed the reforms needed to emerge from Shakman oversight.
But had the city and the county just waited, they might have been able to emerge from under the Shakman decrees without so much effort.
The Shakman reforms are not entirely gone. Individuals who feel they were victims of patronage still can file lawsuits on their own. But what we’ve learned is that without on-the-ground anti-patronage enforcement by an agent of the court, such as a monitor or special master who is present to observe how an office is being run, it’s not that hard for public officials to quietly engage in patronage if they have a mind to do so.
Often, when patronage is freely practiced, it is joined by other unsavory practices that don’t meet good government standards. That’s why elected officials should not just claim they avoid patronage, but also should meet all the historical standards that would show they run their offices in a way that would satisfy a compliance officer and a federal judge.
Good government depends on it.
The Sun-Times welcomes letters to the editor and op-eds. See our guidelines.
Send letters to letters@suntimes.com.
