Excerpts from the second semi-annual report by Shakman Compliance Administrator (CA) Julia M. Nowicki:
K. The Politically Protected Supervisor… Continued
In reviewing the claim, the CA’s attorney notes the hearing was conducted’with significant irregularities and the opinion issued by the Hearing Officer appears to be substantially biased. For instance, the supervisor was allowed to have representation at the hearing, but the rules state that it is the Grievant who is allowed to have a representative. The Hearing Officer’s “Findings” consisted mostly of prior unrelated discipline claimant received and did not address the merits of the case. Without addressing the merits of the case, claimant’s suspension was upheld.
This example illustrates the danger of the politically protected supervisor. The claimant alleges that it was actually the supervisor’s error for which she was written up. Claimant provides documentation in support of this contention. Thus, the supervisor is able to avoid consequences for his own failings by blaming his subordinate. Claimant alleges the supervisor is able to do this because he is outside the normal course of discipline by virtue of his political connections and because the grievance procedure is not free from political influence.
Excerpts from the second semi-annual report by Shakman Compliance Administrator (CA) Julia M. Nowicki:
K. The Politically Protected Supervisor
One claim illustrates how a politically protected supervisor can misuse his: position and how employees have very little recourse. Claimant received a 3-day suspension from her supervisor. Claimant believed the imposition of the suspension was unjust and believed the complaint in question should actually have been directed at her supervisor. She provided documentation in support of this claim. She appealed the suspension with the Human Resources Labor Relations Division. The appeal hearing was conducted before a Hearing Officer.
The claimant states that her supervisor is politically connected. Claimant believes very few employees, including the department’s Hearing Officers, would cross him for fear of retaliation. Claimants and several other witnesses state that the supervisor brags that there is no one his employees can complain to because he is protected.
Reporter Josh Stockinger, with the Daily Herald, expands on Judge Colwell’s Campton Hills ruling [read full article here]:
After months of legal wrangling between the village and several landowners, Colwell issued judgments last week characterizing the village’s defense against disconnection attempts as “self-serving” and built on a political promise to avoid local property taxes.
Since the village incorporated after a controversial referendum last spring, trustees have waged fierce legal battles against more than a dozen neighborhoods that want out. While the village’s central argument has been that dismantling the new municipality will cripple its finances, Colwell pointed out in his rulings that officials have the ability to levy property taxes and institute municipal fees to offset any decrease to the revenue stream.
“The court is not persuaded that it may simply disregard such alternate sources of funding simply because the village has not yet attempted to utilize those sources (or, more accurately, because its elected officials fear it may be politically inexpedient to do so),” he wrote in one opinion.
“(T)he village’s position is self-serving. … The village is opposed to the disconnection because it does not want to raise taxes,” Colwell wrote in another. “If the citizens of Campton Hills refuse to pass a referendum to impose a property tax in order to have municipal services provided to them, then they will have to either live with fewer municipal services or dissolve the municipality.”
Excerpts from the second semi-annual report by Shakman Compliance Administrator (CA) Julia M. Nowicki:
J. Union Involvement and Issues
Several claims describe how the unions are affected by patronage issues. One claimant sought a promotion that was given to the claimant’s co-worker. The co-worker was alleged to be backed by political sponsorship. Claimant states that pursuant to union rules, he should have gotten the promotion since he had two years of seniority over his co-worker. According to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the position should have been filled by seniority. Claimant informed his union steward and business agent that he wanted to file a grievance but they informed him the union would not pursue his grievance because they did not want to get involved in claims involving politics.
Another claim was brought by a 20-year employee of the County. For approximately 2 1/2 years ofhis tenure, he performed duties outside of his Job and Grade without being promoted to the position and without receiving any additional compensation. Ultimately, another person who was said to be politically connected was given the position permanently over claimant. Documentation shows claimant was harassed during this change-over and that his then -supervisor was aware of the harassment. Claimant stated that he did not feel he could complain to his union because his supervisor was also his union representative and had allowed the politically tinged harassment to continue.
A court-appointed official on Thursday gave an accounting of how hundreds of victims of political patronage at City Hall will share in a $12 million settlement and expressed concern that Mayor Richard Daley’s administration still has not disciplined several supervisors who abused the city’s hiring process…
Brennan said a single individual, a longtime city laborer, received the $100,000 maximum. Her report does not provide names of those getting awards, and Brennan declined to identify the laborer.
“He’s a gentleman who worked at the city for decades in one of the lowest-paying positions and was unable to get out of that position because he did not support the favored political candidate,” Brennan said in an interview. “He suffered significant damages.”…
A total of 1,424 people got an average award of about $8,400 after submitting evidence they were harmed by the city’s actions between the beginning of 2000 and the end of last May.
Excerpts from the second semi-annual report by Shakman Compliance Administrator (CA) Julia M. Nowicki:
H. Irregular Job Posting and Hiring Procedures… Continued
A subtle result of political hiring is its long term effect on the careers of other employees. One claimant has been employed with a medium sized department since the 1990’s and received her first and last promotion ten years ago. After claimant’s last promotion, a politically connected individual was hired for a position above the claimant. The individual was hired despite a notation on the last page of her resun1e indicating she “does not have relative work experience.” Claimant alleges that the individual remains in the job and performs her job so poorly, that the consequence is that there is no chance she will be promoted based on merit. Claimant contends that as long as this unqualified, politically connected individual remains on the job, claimant has virtually no chance of advancement.
Many claimants describe how illegal patronage has affected their morale. One claimant at a large department has been working in the capacity as an Administrative Assistant for several years. She currently works alongside an Administrative Assistant who is widely reported as being politically connected. Claimant performs greater duties than her co-worker despite the fact her co-worker makes more money. In fact, claimant alleges her co-worker refuses assignments that would normally fall within her job description. It falls on claimant to perform her co-worker’s duties. Claimant describes how discouraged and cynical she has become and how she struggles to perform her job well.
Powered by FireStats