In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 7269 Filed: 01/13/21 Page 1 of 22 PageID #:69078 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION MICHAEL L. SHAKMAN, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Case Number: 69 C 2145 v. ) ) Judge Edmond E. Chang COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF ) Mag. Judge Gabriel Fuentes DEEDS, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) TWENTY-FOURTH REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS Cardelle B. Spangler, Shakman Compliance Administrator for the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (“RCA” )1, by and through her attorney, Matthew D. Pryor, pursuant to Art. III.C of the Supplemental Relief Order for the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (“SRO”), submits this Twenty-FourtH Report as follows: I. Introduction On May 25, 2007, Plaintiffs filed an “Application to Hold Cook County Recorder of Deeds and Certain Named Individuals in Civil Contempt for Violation of Court Order,” in which they alleged that then-Recorder of Deeds, Eugene Moore, and certain of his senior employees were in violation of a 1992 Consent Decree in the Shakman case that, inter alia, prohibited the Recorder2 from “conditioning, basing or knowingly prejudicing or affecting 1 “RCA” hereinafter shall refer to the Recorder Compliance Administrator and/or her staff. 2 Unless otherwise specified, the “Cook County Recorder of Deeds”, the “Recorder”, “ROD” and/or “Recorder’s Office” hereinafter shall refer to the Recorder and/or his or her staff. 1 Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 7269 Filed: 01/13/21 Page 2 of 22 PageID #:69079 any term or aspect of Governmental Employment including, without limitation, hiring, promotion, demotion, transfer and discharge (other than for Exempt Positions), upon or because of any political reason or factor.” SRO at 1 (quoting the 1992 Consent Decree). On September 14, 2010, this Court entered an agreed SRO wherein it appointed Cardelle Spangler to serve as the RCA and tasked her with a number of duties. Those duties included: investigating allegations of unlawful political discrimination (“UPD”) that took place in the five and a half years preceding entry of the SRO and awarding damages to sustained findings of UPD; reviewing the Recorder’s employment practices for Non- Exempt employees and making recommendations for changes; assisting the ROD with training employees on how to “effectuate a culture free of political consideration in all aspects of governmental employment for non-Exempt Positions;” developing a new Employment Plan that covers policies and procedures such as hiring, promotion, transfer, overtime, discipline and discharge; implementing a web-based application tracking system for hiring; monitoring the Recorder’s adherence to its written employment policies and procedures; and filing regular reports with the Court discussing the Recorder’s efforts to achieving Substantial Compliance with the terms of the SRO. THe SRO, which was not intended to be permanent, included a process through which the Recorder could petition the Court for release from the SRO after the ROD believed it had demonstrated Substantial Compliance3 with the terms of the SRO. 3 The SRO states that “Substantial Compliance” means: (1) the Recorder has implemented the New Employment Plan, including procedures to ensure compliance with the New Employment Plan and identify instances of non-compliance; (2) the Recorder has acted in good faith to remedy instances of noncompliance that have been identified, and prevent a recurrence; (3) the Recorder does not have a policy, custom or practice of making employment decisions based on political reasons or factors except for Exempt Positions; (4) the absence of material noncompliance which frustrates 2 Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 7269 Filed: 01/13/21 Page 3 of 22 PageID #:69080 Over the ensuing 10 years, three different Recorder administrations have attempted to comply with the terms of the SRO, none of which petitioned the Court to be found in Substantial Compliance with the SRO. As the Office of the Cook County Recorder of Deeds officially was assumed by the Office of the Cook County Clerk on December 7, 20204, the RCA submits this report to provide a summary of the ROD’s compliance efforts over the past decade. II. Summary of ROD’s Efforts Since September 14, 2010 A. Eugene Moore Administration (September 14, 2010 – November 30, 2012) When Ms. Spangler was appointed as RCA in September 2010, the Recorder of Deeds, Eugene Moore, had been in office since January 1999. The RCA began its oversight by receiving and investigating complaints from former and then-current Recorder employees and applicants who alleged they were the subjects of Unlawful Political Discrimination by the Moore Administration. The RCA also attempted to monitor the Recorder’s existing employment policies in action and to work with that Administration on codifying Shakman compliant hiring policies (in an Employment Plan) and non-hiring the Recorder’s Consent Decree and the SRO’s essential purpose. The RCA and the Court may consider the number of post-SRO complaints that have been found to be valid. However, technical violations or isolated incidents of noncompliance shall not be a basis for a finding that the Recorder is not in substantial compliance; and (5) the Recorder has implemented procedures that will effect long-term prevention of the use of impermissible political considerations in connection with employment with the Recorder. SRO at 13. 4 On November 23, 2020, Plaintiffs’ Counsel filed a Motion to Substitute Party the Cook County Clerk for the Recorder of Deeds. See Dkt. 7201. In this Motion, Plaintiffs’ argued that because the Recorder’s Office is being assumed by the Clerk’s Office, the Clerk should substitute in as the named party in the Consent Decrees. The Court has set a briefing schedule for consideration of this Motion; the Motion remains pending. 3 Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 7269 Filed: 01/13/21 Page 4 of 22 PageID #:69081 employment policies (in a Policy Manual). 1. Complaint Investigation Findings During her investigations into alleged Unlawful Political Discrimination by the ROD, the RCA discovered that, before her appointment, the Recorder’s Office had practices both of not following their own written employment policies and of considering Political Reasons or Factors in many aspects of Non-Exempt employment. The RCA discovered rampant deviations from the Recorder’s stated hiring and employment procedures “that resulted in politically-connected employees and external applicants receiving promotions and positions over more qualified (but not clouted) employees and external applicants, and . political favoritism affecting every level of the disciplinary process.” RCA’s Seventh Report to Court (Dkt. 3173) at 8-9 (filed on Dec. 17, 2012). The investigations also showed that the Moore Administration facilitated promotions for certain politically connected employees by Cross-Training the employees in vacant positions for a short period of time and then either awarding the employees that position permanently on account of now having experience in the position, or directly requesting the County’s Bureau of Human Resources reclassify the employees to a higher grade on account of their “increased duties.” RCA’s Third Report to the Court (Dkt. 2391) at 4-5 (filed on Aug. 26, 2011). The RCA also discovered multiple instances where the ROD awarded a “promotion to politically-connected employees who ranked last among all applicants” for the promotion and other instances where “the Recorder himself hand-selected employees for promotions who had both political and familial connections to him.” Id. at 4. One of the most egregious discoveries was a hiring process wherein the Recorder himself hand- selected a politically-connected external candidate for a position before any candidates 4 Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 7269 Filed: 01/13/21 Page 5 of 22 PageID #:69082 received interviews for that position; yet the Recorder’s Office continued with the interviews for the position in an effort to make the process appear competitive. Id. In addition to the politically-tainted employment policy violations, the RCA also “found ample evidence of employees being asked to conduct, or actually conducting, political work on County time” as well as a practice of political petition and political fundraiser solicitations by the Recorder himself and other senior staff on County time. Id. at 7. Overall, the RCA concluded that 26 claimants were the victims of UPD by the Moore Administration between May 2005 – September 2010 resulting in payments totaling $738,562 to those victims. In general, the ROD was severely lacking a culture of Shakman compliance. 2. Moore Administration Compliance Efforts Under the RCA’s oversight, the Moore Administration struggled with complying with its written policies and procedures and with providing the RCA consistent and adequate notice to monitor its employment practices. At the time of Ms. Spangler’s appointment, the ROD only accepted paper applications for its vacancies. When the RCA requested HR provide her with the hiring files for several positions, oftentimes HR was only able to provide a single resume – that of the hired Candidate. As the ROD was required by the SRO to implement an online application tracking system, the RCA worked with the ROD for several years to implement Taleo – the online application tracking system utilized by Cook County. See, e.g., Third Report (Dkt. 2391) at 14 (filed on Aug. 26, 2011). The Moore Administration, however, never adopted Taleo (or any other online application system platform). The ROD also consistently violated its own written non-hiring employment 5 Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 7269 Filed: 01/13/21 Page 6 of 22 PageID #:69083 policies. One of the most glaring examples was the Moore Administration’s approach toward its Discipline Policy. In the over 100 disciplinary sequences that the RCA monitored during the Moore Administration, the RCA observed that the Recorder’s Disciplinary Hearing Officers often did not follow the Office’s policy requiring progressive discipline after finding an employee committed the same policy infraction multiple times without progressing to the next disciplinary step.

Load more