Trenches of Democracy

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.

To be continued…

You can read the full Shakman report here.

Tags: Cook County, Nowicki, Patronage, Shakman, Stroger

Trackback URI | Comments RSS