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. See RCA’s Seventh Report (Dkt. 3173)
at 4, 9 (filed Dec. 17, 2012). In 2011, the RCA discovered that the Chief Deputy Recorder
– who had no written role in the Discipline Policy – revoked a one-day suspension of
supervisor who had political connections to the Chief Deputy and provided no notice to the
RCA of this revocation. See RCA’s Fourth Report at 10 (Dkt. 2565) (filed on Dec. 15,
2011). Despite all of these issues, the RCA worked with the Moore Administration to
improve compliance and, by the end of the Moore Administration, the ROD’s lone
remaining Disciplinary Hearing Officer was beginning to consistently enforce the
Discipline Policy. See RCA’s Sixth Report at 5 (Dkt. 2944) (filed on Aug. 15, 2012).
By the end of the Moore Administration, the ROD showed improved compliance
with its hiring and discipline policies; however, many key compliance pieces remained
outstanding, including: finalizing an Employment Plan, revising its Policy Manual,
adopting an online application system, hiring a Director of Compliance, and demonstrating
that it had a professional and effective HR department capable of implementing the ROD’s
employment policies.
B. Karen Yarbrough Administration (December 3, 2012 – December 2, 2018)
For six of the ten years that the RCA oversaw the ROD’s efforts to comply with the
SRO, Karen A. Yarbrough served as Recorder of Deeds. During this time, there were
6 Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 7269 Filed: 01/13/21 Page 7 of 22 PageID #:69084
significant milestones reached on the path toward Substantial Compliance, such as: the
filing of and training employees on a new Employment Plan, the updating of and training
employees on a new Policy Manual, the adoption of Taleo as the ROD’s online application
tracking system, the hiring of a Director of Compliance, the updating of all of the ROD’s
Job Descriptions, and initial attempts to implement an annual performance evaluation
process. Despite the above positive steps, the Yarbrough Administration failed to
demonstrate a sincere and consistent commitment to the principles of Shakman as
demonstrated through its HR staffing, approach to working with the DOC, and inconsistent
adherence to its written policies as evidenced by significant findings of UPD by the OIIG
and non-compliance by the RCA and DOC through Recorder Yarbrough’s six-year tenure.
1. Human Resources
The Yarbrough Administration’s initial compliance efforts were hampered
significantly by its lack of a serious and effective HR department. In April 2016, the
Director of HRD retired and was placed on the Do Not Hire List following an OIIG
investigation and report that concluded that Recorder Yarbrough and her staff had insulated
the Director “from the consequences of (a) a performance so poor it rises to the level of
obstructing substantial compliance and (b) repeated acts of providing false statements to
the OIIG during investigations conducted under the SRO.” RCA’s Nineteenth Report (Dkt.
6148) at 4-5 (filed on Dec. 24, 2018). The OIIG concluded the Recorder’s treatment of the
Director – who was in a Non-Exempt Position – was, in part, motivated by Political
Reasons or Factors. Id. The Recorder’s second Chief of HRD was terminated and placed
on the Do Not Hire List after 13 months in the position after the RCA concluded the Chief
had “‘misled his own co-workers on the nature of his relationship’ with a Candidate for the
7 Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 7269 Filed: 01/13/21 Page 8 of 22 PageID #:69085
DOC position and had not been forthcoming or truthful with the RCA about various matters
concerning the DOC hiring process.” Id. at 4. Finally, the third Chief of HRD, who served
in that role for 18 months had significantly more success than her predecessors in
advancing the Office’s efforts to update Job Descriptions and update certain policies;
however, she had difficulty helping the office consistently implement and enforce its
Performance Management and Attendance Policies.
2. Director of Compliance
The Yarbrough Administration’s problematic approach to Shakman compliance
was also reflected in its treatment of the DOC Position. The first DOC resigned after six
weeks in the job after reportedly being “frozen out” by the Recorder’s senior staff. See
RCA’s Nineteenth Report (Dkt. 6148) at 6 (filed on Dec. 24, 2018). The second DOC
quickly alienated the majority of ROD employees by becoming consistent lunchmates with
Exempt staff – a practice the RCA recommended he cease. Id. Ultimately, the DOC
resigned his position, but not until after the OIIG concluded in a report that he and Recorder
Yarbrough had violated the SRO by “attending together a non-work event of a political
nature.” Id. at 7. The third (and final) DOC proved to be committed to helping the
Yarbrough and Moody Administrations comply with Office policies but, like the first
DOC, met significant resistance from the Recorder and her senior staff in those efforts. Id.
3. OIIG and DOC Findings During the Yarbrough Administration
During the Yarbrough Administration’s six-year tenure, “the OIIG issued 11
reports with 14 separate findings of SRO violations, Unlawful Political Discrimination,
improper consideration of political factors in connection with Non-Exempt employment,
and/or violation of the Ethics Ordinance.” RCA’s Nineteenth Report (Dkt. 6148) at 10
8 Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 7269 Filed: 01/13/21 Page 9 of 22 PageID #:69086
(filed on Dec. 24, 2018). The second and third DOCs (as well as the RCA, when appointed
as Interim DOC) issued 29 DOC Incident Reports and Notices of Violations – 23 of which
“concluded that a Deputy Recorder, Chief or Director had violated the Plan or Manual.”
Id. at 16-19. Below is an accounting of all of the OIIG’s findings as well as the most
significant DOC findings during the Yarbrough Administration5:
• 2013: OIIG finding that the Chief Deputy Recorder under the Moore Administration committed UPD in 2012 by allowing multiple Non-Exempt postings to be influenced by pressure from the incoming Recorder (Karen Yarbrough) and her campaign manager. See Interim Report (Dkt. 3108) at 2-8.
• 2013: OIIG finding that Recorder Yarbrough violated the Ethics Ordinance by hiring her niece as her Labor Counsel. See Ninth Report (Dkt. 3616) at 35.
• 2014: OIIG finding that in 2013 Recorder Yarbrough terminated the employment of a Non-Exempt Manager based on Political Reasons or Factors. OIIG also found that senior staff misled the RCA regarding the basis for that termination. See Eleventh Report (Dkt. 4036) at 7-10.
• 2014: OIIG finding that Recorder Yarbrough, the then-Director of HRD, a Non- Exempt Director, and an Executive Assistant violated the SRO by involving unlawful political factors in the 2013 hiring of Non-Exempt Executive Assistants and a Non-Exempt Director. The OIIG also found the Recorder, the then-Chief Deputy Recorder, then-Director of HRD, a Non-Exempt Director and multiple Executive Assistants provided false information to the OIIG during its investigations of the same. See Tenth Report (Dkt. 3759) at 10-20.
• 2015: OIIG finding that Recorder Yarbrough’s continued employment and disparate treatment of her then-Non-Exempt Director of HRD was based on the Director’s significant political ties to Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan’s organization. The OIIG concluded that the Director of HRD’s “performance [was] so poor it rises to the level of obstructing substantial compliance” and that the “tangible consequences of this employment scheme are to deprive the people of Cook County of faith in their government along with the significant monetary costs triggered by these circumstances.” See Twelfth Report (Dkt. 4603) at 9-11.
• 2015: DOC finding that then-Labor Counsel violated the Manual’s prohibition against retaliation when he issued his Executive Assistant several Major Cause
5 The below OIIG and DOC entries are taken from the RCA’s Nineteenth Report at 10-12, 16-17.
9 Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 7269 Filed: 01/13/21 Page 10 of 22 PageID #:69087
Infractions that were not based in fact after she filed a complaint with the DOC. DOC also found Labor Counsel knowingly interfered in the DOC’s investigation. See Thirteenth Report (Dkt. 4603) at 9-10.
• 2016: OIIG finding that the then-DOC and Recorder Yarbrough violated the spirit of the SRO by jointly attending a “ribbon cutting ceremony” at a hospital. OIIG noted the then-DOC’s stated intent for taking the Recorder to the event was to show the Recorder that the DOC had “substantial outside interests and connections” that might help the Recorder trust the DOC. See Fourteenth Report (Dkt. 4818) at 8-10.
• 2016: DOC finding that the then-Chief of HRD violated the Plan’s prohibitions against Political Reasons or Factors impacting Non-Exempt employment when he allowed an Exempt Employee to perform the duties of a Non-Exempt Position. See Fifteenth Report (Dkt. 4985) at 16-17.
• 2017: OIIG finding that Political Reasons or Factors impacted Recorder Yarbrough’s decision to hire a Non-Exempt Security Officer in 2015 who was politically active with the Recorder and her organization and was the nephew of a U.S. Congressman. OIIG also found that a Shakman Exempt Recorder employee had a practice of announcing Recorder employment opportunities to volunteers at the Proviso Township Democratic Organization. Finally, the OIIG found that Recorder Yarbrough herself failed to cooperate with the OIIG investigation. See Fifteenth Report (Dkt. 4985) at 13-15.
• 2017: OIIG finding that Recorder Yarbrough’s Special Assistant was not performing the duties of her Position from 2016-17 and the transfer of those duties to a Non-Exempt employee constituted UPD. See Sixteenth Report (Dkt. 5220) at 10-11.
• 2017: DOC finding of widespread abuse of the Recorder’s Sick Time policy and that HRD and a then-Deputy Recorder failed in their duties to oversee and enforce the policy. See Sixteenth Report (Dkt. 5220) at 9; Seventeenth Report (Dkt. 5988) at 5-6.
• 2017: DOC finding that the then-Chief of HRD knowingly provided false information to the DOC during an investigation regarding the DOC hiring process. DOC also found that the Chief of HRD violated the principals and spirit of the Plan by attempting to conceal from the ROD, RCA and Interim DOC the extent of his relationship with a Candidate for the DOC Position. See Sixteenth Report (Dkt. 5220) at 3-5.
• 2017: DOC finding that a Director violated the Plan by allowing a non- Supervisor to perform the duties of a Supervisor outside of any process in the Plan or Manual. See Seventeenth Report (Dkt. 5754) at 6-8.
• 2018: DOC finding that a then-Director violated the Plan by conducting an
10 Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 7269 Filed: 01/13/21 Page 11 of 22 PageID #:69088
unsanctioned investigation and violated the Manual by intimidating the subject of his (unsanctioned) investigation in the process. See Nineteenth Report (Dkt. 6148) at 18-19 (discussing DOC Incident Report 18-005).
• 2018: OIIG finding that the former Chief of HRD committed UPD by permitting a Non-Exempt Director in 2017 to avoid attendance-related discipline due to the Director’s political affiliation with the Recorder. See Eighteenth Report (Dkt. 5988) at 9-11 (discussing IIG17-0123).
• 2018: OIIG finding that the former Chief of HRD committed UPD when he terminated the Director of HRD in 2017 in retaliation for the Director taking disciplinary action against a political hire. See Eighteenth Report (Dkt. 5988) at 9-11 (discussing IIG17-0163).
• 2018: OIIG finding that the Recorder violated the Plan and committed UPD in 2018 by involving Political Reasons or Factors in the anticipated hiring of an Executive Assistant. See Nineteenth Report (Dkt. 6148) at 14-17 (discussing IIG18-0361).
Concerning the OIIG’s above findings, “Recorder Yarbrough did not agree with
any of these findings of UPD, improper political considerations in Non-Exempt
employment, SRO violations or the Ethics Ordinance violation and, with a single
exception6, declined to implement any of the OIIG’s recommendations for corrective
action.” RCA’s Nineteenth Report (Dkt. 6148) at 12 (filed on Dec. 24, 2018). Concerning
the various DOC findings above, on the whole, the Recorder either disagreed with the
DOC’s findings or declined to issue the recommended discipline. See, e.g., id. at 7-10. The
RCA notes that Recorder Yarbrough moved swiftly to terminate her first Chief of HRD
after the RCA (as Interim DOC) concluded he provided her false information during an
investigation. See RCA’s Sixteenth Report (Dkt. 5220) at 4-5 (filed on Oct. 5, 2017).
Overall, the Yarbrough Administration cleared some hurdles not cleared by its predecessor
6 The lone exception came in response to the OIIG’s 2017 finding that Recorder Yarbrough’s Special Assistant was not performing the duties of her position. In response, the Recorder informed the Special Assistant she had 30 days to improve her performance. When she failed to do so, Recorder Yarbrough terminated her employment.
11 Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 7269 Filed: 01/13/21 Page 12 of 22 PageID #:69089
(finalizing an Employment Plan and Policy Manual, implementing Taleo, hiring a DOC,
and beginning to professionalize its HRD); however, as evidenced by findings of the OIIG,
DOC and RCA, it consistently violated both the letter and spirit of the SRO, Employment
Plan and Policy Manual, and rarely reacted to those findings in a manner that reflected a
sincere interest in remedying those violations and ensuring the violations would not recur.
By the end of the Yarbrough Administration’s tenure, the ROD still had significant ground
to cover to demonstrate Substantial Compliance with the SRO.
C. Edward Moody Administration (December 4, 2018 – November 30, 2020)
After Karen Yarbrough was sworn in as Cook County Clerk, Edward Moody was
appointed her successor by the Cook County Board. At that time, the Recorder’s Office
had an established Employment Plan, a Policy Manual that was in need of extensive
updating, and several years of experience with the online application tracking system for
its hiring processes. It had a DOC who was growing into her role and exhibiting the
independence needed of the office, although she had not yet been embraced by the senior
staff who were capable of embracing her recommendations and reforms. The ROD also
had a Chief of HRD who had made significant gains in updating ROD Job Descriptions
but was having difficulty with ensuring consistent implementation and enforcement of the
ROD’s Performance Management and Attendance Policies. Finally, the ROD as a whole
continued to struggle with consistent implementation of its Discipline Policy.
For the first year of its tenure, the Moody Administration approached compliance
with the SRO, Plan and Manual with vigor and focus. The ROD revised its Policy Manual
in August 2019, revised its Employment Plan in October 2019, and trained all staff on the
above revisions. The Moody Administration also never had a finding of UPD by the OIIG.
12 Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 7269 Filed: 01/13/21 Page 13 of 22 PageID #:69090
Unfortunately, the ROD never demonstrated the ability to follow its own policies
rigorously which hampered any ability to show sustained progress. The RCA believes three
key factors played a role.
1. Human Resources Staffing Issues
The Moody Administration was plagued by high turnover and a lack of subject
matter knowledge in HRD. A few months into Recorder Moody’s tenure, the Chief of HRD
voluntarily resigned and was replaced by Cook County’s former Shakman Compliance
Officer. Similar to her predecessor, the new Chief of HR was an attorney with a compliance
and ethics background, but no HR experience. While she did a commendable job of
responding to backlogged information requests from the RCA, her lack of HR experience
meant she had to rely heavily on the Director of HRD for her expertise. The DOC’s Incident
Reports and Notices of Violations, however, revealed that the then-Director had difficulty
implementing HR policies and procedures. See, e.g., RCA’s Twenty-First Report (Dkt.
6671) at 9-10 (filed on Jan. 21, 2020); RCA’s Twenty-Second Report (Dkt. 6852) at 19-20
(filed on Apr. 27, 2020). The Director of HRD resigned in December 2019 for another
opportunity. A few months later, the ROD’s sole HR Generalist also resigned. The ROD
neither replaced the Director nor the HR Generalist. Instead, after several months without
either role, the Recorder retained two outside consultants to help with Attendance Policy
compliance. Unfortunately, by the time those consultants began their work, the Office was
in its final months of existence and most staff was working remotely so the impact of their
efforts to bolster Attendance compliance was limited. Without an effective HRD, the
Moody Administration was limited in its ability to help Supervisors and staff to implement
the employment policies in the Plan and Manual consistently.
13 Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 7269 Filed: 01/13/21 Page 14 of 22 PageID #:69091
2. Moody Administration’s Approach Toward DOC
Second, the ROD neither fully embraced the role of the DOC nor provided her the
additional support she requested to be able to perform all the duties assigned to her. See,
e.g., Twentieth Report (Dkt. 6590) at 4 (filed on November 13, 2019); Twenty-Second
Report (Dkt. 6852) at 8 (filed on April 27, 2020). Particularly over the course of the
Administration’s second year, senior staff routinely kept the DOC out of deliberative
discussions about employment policy development – a practice that the RCA (and DOC)
cautioned Recorder Moody only hurt the Office’s ability to proactively address compliance
issues. See, e.g., Interim Report of the RCA (Dkt. 6973) at 5-8 (filed on July 23, 2020)
(explaining how the Recorder’s decisions to suspend enforcement of certain policies and
to propose an Executive Order with amendments to other policies was done without
including the DOC (or RCA) in the deliberative process). The DOC, nevertheless, worked
tirelessly to help the Office make whatever gains possible and held one-on-one remote
meetings with Supervisors during the COVID shutdown to assist them with better
understanding the Performance Management Policy and soliciting feedback from those
Supervisors on what was preventing them from following the Policy. See Twenty-Third
Report (Dkt. 7022) at 5-6 (filed on August 13, 2020). The DOC also made sincere and
consistent inquiries with senior staff on how she could better assist their compliance efforts,
yet found those inquiries largely ignored. Id. at 6. Finally, despite the DOC’s best efforts,
she found herself continually behind in her investigations and report writing – duties that
she attempted to balance with the many monitoring and training duties assigned her
position. She requested the Recorder authorize her to hire an Assistant DOC to help her
with the monitoring and administrative functions of her Office, yet that request was never
14 Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 7269 Filed: 01/13/21 Page 15 of 22 PageID #:69092
approved. The DOC proved that she was capable, independent, and dedicated to helping
the ROD comply with their employment policies and procedures but did not receive the
support needed to fully realize the potential for her Office.
3. Policy Implementation and Enforcement
The Moody Administration also exhibited significant difficulty with implementing
consistently certain employment policies (Performance Management, Time and
Attendance, and Discipline) and enforcing consistently those policies when Employees
violated them. While the first year of the Moody Administration was largely dedicated to
finalizing long-discussed edits to the Policy Manual, once the ROD trained its employees
on those edits, the Office did a poor job of implementing the amended policies. The RCA
recognizes that the COVID-related Office shutdown that began in March 2020 undoubtedly
complicated the ROD’s efforts to comply with its policies; however, the problems began
well before that shutdown and were unnecessarily intensified during and after the
shutdown.
As noted in the DOC’s annual report covering the first year of the Moody
Administration, the DOC described the significant struggles of Supervisors, Managers and
HR when implementing its first-ever annual performance evaluations of all Non-Exempt
employees. See RCA’s Twenty-Second Report (Dkt. 6852) at 7 (filed on Apr. 27, 2020).
The ROD’s problems with implementing performance evaluations were evidenced, in part,
by poorly drafted evaluations, unsupported scores, and “several Supervisors who did not
submit a single draft evaluation for their subordinate Employees even months after drafts
15 Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 7269 Filed: 01/13/21 Page 16 of 22 PageID #:69093
were due.”7 Id. at 10. While, in January 2020, the Chief Deputy Recorder met with
Supervisors individually to stress the need to complete evaluations on a timely basis,
shortly after the ROD shut down in-office operations in March 2020, the Chief Deputy
Recorder unilaterally authorized Supervisors to cease completing and issuing performance
evaluations altogether. The manner in which the Chief Deputy Recorder suspended this
policy was problematic in that the Chief Deputy did not follow the Policy Manual’s
amendment process which requires the ROD to provide advance notice and a period of
review and comment by the DOC, RCA and Plaintiffs’ Counsel before implementation.
See RCA’s Interim Report (Dkt. 6973) at 5 (filed on July 23, 2020).
The ROD also continued to have significant problems implementing its Time and
Attendance Policy, “including widespread non-compliance with swiping policies by
Employees and the failure of Supervisors to monitor, recognize violations, and initiate
Counseling or Discipline.” RCA’s Twenty-Second Report (Dkt. 6852) at 8 (filed on Apr.
27, 2020). This compliance did not improve as, just with the Performance Management
Policy, the ROD unilaterally suspended enforcement of its Time and Attendance Policy in
the months that followed the Office shutdown, again without engaging in the Manual-
required process for proposing policy amendments. See Interim Report of RCA (Dkt. 6973)
at 7-9 (filed on July 23, 2020). As the DOC noted in her July 1, 2020 Semi-Annual Report,
the “abandonment of Time and Attendance requirements after the shutdown resulted in
confusion of how Employees tasked with working from home were to account for their
time, and highlighted the disparity between the Employees required to work and those who
7 This Court made clear to the ROD that ignoring policies outright was not acceptable. See Feb. 14, 2020 Hr’g Tr. at 15:1-2 (stating that Supervisors cannot simply “get a veto on something by saying, I’m not going to do it”).
16 Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 7269 Filed: 01/13/21 Page 17 of 22 PageID #:69094
were not, while all were in paid status.” RCA’s Twenty-Third Report (Dkt. 7022) at 7 (filed
on Aug. 13, 2020).
Finally, the Recorder’s adherence to its Discipline Policy never improved
consistently under the Moody Administration. Instead, once the office shutdown began in
March 2020, the Recorder’s Office “held in abeyance” all Discipline pending at that time
– including Performance Management and Time and Attendance Policy violations from
2019. See DOC’s July 1, 2020 Semi-Annual Report at 10-11. While some of these
outstanding Performance Management Policy violations were ultimately acted upon, by
the time they reached the Disciplinary Hearing Officer, they were deemed too stale to
warrant a suspension. The Time and Attendance Policy violations from 2019 were left
untouched – and many new violations were observed after the ROD resumed in-office
operations. The ROD’s HR contractors attempted to get a handle on new violations in the
last few months of its existence, but they had mixed success at best. At the conclusion of
the Moody Administration, the Discipline Policy enforcement issues present were
substantially similar to those present at the beginning of the Administration.
III. Principle Reasons the Recorder’s Office Did Not Obtain Substantial Compliance
Over the ten years of Court oversight of the ROD, the Recorder’s Office had ample
opportunity to achieve Substantial Compliance with the SRO. Over that period of time, this
Court described the foundation of Substantial Compliance as a three-legged stool: one leg
being the employment policies and procedures “[b]ecause that creates a template for there
to be predictability, regularity in the office, and it also makes it harder for someone, if they
were inclined, to do something that is prohibited”; the second leg being a strong,
independent and professional human resources function who “has the confidence of
17 Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 7269 Filed: 01/13/21 Page 18 of 22 PageID #:69095
employees, and is aggressive in implementing the plan and following the plan”; and the
third leg being an independent Director of Compliance who is not “held kind of at arm’s
length and made to feel unwelcome . . . . [but also not] somebody [co-opted] right, by
management.” See Hr’g Tr. June 5, 2017 at 17:7 – 18:23 (Dkt. 5108). The Court has also
gone further and said on top of that stool must sit the Recorder himself or herself who sets
the tone for the office’s efforts because, if the employees tasked with implementing and
enforcing the policies “don’t believe it’s important to the boss, it won’t be important to
them.” See Jan. 7, 2019 Hr’g Tr. at 39:16-24 (Dkt. 6196). As described in Section II above,
the Recorder’s Office, unfortunately, never created the stable three-legged stool necessary
for obtaining Substantial Compliance.
A. Policies and Procedures
The Recorder’s Office finalized a Plan (covering hiring policies) in August 2013
and Manual (covering non-hiring employment policies) in January 2015 and revised those
documents several times thereafter. While the ROD demonstrated over the last few years
an ability to implement consistently its hiring policies, it did not show the same level of
compliance for several employment policies covered in the Manual. It had considerable
difficulty implementing consistently its Discipline and Time and Attendance Policies as
well as rolling out a Performance Management Policy, ultimately abandoning enforcement
of wide swaths of these policies as the ROD wound down operations. Based on the RCA’s
observations, the Recorder’s Office could have benefited from more tailored trainings as
well as individual follow-up with Supervisors struggling with compliance – much like what
the DOC engaged in during 2020.
18 Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 7269 Filed: 01/13/21 Page 19 of 22 PageID #:69096
B. Human Resources Function
As described above, the Recorder’s human resources division has not been the
stable influence needed to move the Office toward Substantial Compliance. Two of the
four Heads of HRD ultimately were placed on the Do Not Hire List due to investigatory
findings by the OIIG and RCA. The two subsequent Heads (and their Director) were able
to make some progress on policy compliance but ultimately had significant difficulty
executing the functions assigned HR in the Plan and Manual. Most critically, each
struggled implementing the policies in those documents on a consistent basis, which
hampered the Office’s ability to make meaningful progress toward ending this Court’s
oversight.
C. Director of Compliance
Perhaps the prong that the Recorder’s Office was closest to solidifying was having
a strong, independent DOC. After seriously problematic issues marred the tenures of the
Yarbrough Administration’s first two DOCs, the third DOC was hired and, over time,
established herself as the independent and serious-minded DOC that the ROD needed.
Unfortunately, neither the Yarbrough Administration nor the Moody Administration fully
embraced her guidance. These administrations consistently kept her out of deliberative
discussions on policy compliance and declined many of her recommendations aimed at
improving such compliance. Consequently, while the DOC gained the trust of the
employees, her overall effectiveness in helping the Office move toward Substantial
Compliance was limited.
D. ROD Leadership’s Messaging Concerning Compliance
The final element of Substantial Compliance discussed by the Court over the years
19 Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 7269 Filed: 01/13/21 Page 20 of 22 PageID #:69097
has been having a consistent message from the top letting senior staff and those below
know that compliance with the SRO, Plan and Manual are essential and that non-
compliance will not be tolerated. Recorder Moore was largely absent from the office
throughout the two years that the RCA oversaw his administration and senior staff’s non-
compliance with office policies went unchecked by him. See RCA’s Seventh Report (Dkt.
3173) at 9 (filed Dec. 17, 2012). While Recorder Yarbrough was much more active with
overseeing her office and frequently stated that Substantial Compliance was one of her
highest priorities as Recorder, her actions often did not reflect this prioritization. Her
administration, for example, routinely disagreed with findings and/or disregarded
recommendations from the OIIG and DOC. When Recorder Moody took Office, he quickly
set a tone that compliance was indeed his highest priority and he scheduled somewhat
regular meetings with the RCA to discuss outstanding issues. Unfortunately, his desire for
his Office to comply did not directly impact the senior staff who reported to him as many
of them oversaw failed policy compliance efforts that, with few exceptions, resulted in no
adverse consequences for those disregarding the policies. Further, after the March 2020
Office shutdown, Recorder Moody had minimal direct contact with both the RCA and
DOC – reflecting a decreasing interest in addressing compliance issues in the final months
of his Administration.
IV. Conclusion
There is no doubt that the culture of the Recorder’s Office in 2020 was a significant
improvement over the one that greeted the RCA upon her appointment in September 2010.
The implementation of an online application tracking system alone was a huge
improvement over the paper application process used by the Moore Administration. The
20 Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 7269 Filed: 01/13/21 Page 21 of 22 PageID #:69098
creation of an Employment Plan and updated Policy Manual that employees were trained
on for the first time helped lift the curtain between management and employees so all knew
what the policies and procedures of the office were and who employees could go to if they
believed those policies were not being followed. This stands in contrast to what the RCA
heard in her first months on the job as employees explained they had no idea what
employment policies were in place and did not trust any of the senior staff charged with
ensuring those policies were fairly administered without consideration of Political Reasons
or Factors. Further, while the Recorder’s Office struggled mightily with implementing its
Performance Management Policy, the process of developing the Policy led to Employees,
often for the first time in their careers, receiving accurate and updated Job Descriptions as
well as some feedback on their performance outside of a disciplinary process. Lastly, the
Recorder’s final DOC, Alexis Serio, provided employees with comfort that if they did file
complaints about policy violations, they could be assured that the DOC would look at the
allegations thoroughly and would issue a report on her findings.
Despite these improvements in office culture, the ROD fell short in its efforts to
reach Substantial Compliance.
First, the Recorder and his or her senior leadership did not approach policy
compliance with the consistency needed for effective change. Second, HR was not fully
staffed with personnel with the necessary experience and expertise to implement the
policies effectively. Third, the ROD never had a DOC who was fully and appropriately
integrated into the office. Finally, the ROD never consistently adhered to many of the
employment policies in its Policy Manual. This formula to achieve Substantial Compliance
is not a secret. Cook County Offices under the President, Cook County Health and
21 Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 7269 Filed: 01/13/21 Page 22 of 22 PageID #:69099
Hospitals System, the Cook County Sheriff’s Office, and the Cook County Forest Preserve
District all followed this formula and all were found in substantial compliance with their
respective Shakman obligations. The Court and the RCA repeatedly encouraged the
Recorder’s Office to fully embrace this approach in order to achieve similar results, but
that ultimately did not occur.
The RCA, nevertheless, thanks the many Recorder employees over the years who
worked hard to comply with the Office’s written policies and procedures and to achieve
and maintain a true culture shift of compliance in the Recorder’s Office. Finally, the RCA
thanks the Court for its wisdom and guidance throughout this process.
Respectfully Submitted,
Cardelle B. Spangler Recorder Compliance Administrator
By: /s/ Matthew D. Pryor Matthew D. Pryor Her Attorney
Matthew D Pryor ([email protected]) Counsel to the RCA 69 West Washington, Suite 830 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 603-8911 Fax: (312) 603-9505
22