Judge Riley entered an order enjoining the President of the Cook County Board from proceeding with a hearing to remove the Public Defender. The TRO was granted after Ed Burnette was allowed to intervene in the pending litigation in the Chancery Division where the litigation seeks declaratory relief as to the office’s independence from political influences in staffing by virtue of the public defender statute. As a consequence, please do not attend the previously scheduled hearing before the County Board which was going to be held on Wednesday, May 7, 2008. A hearing on whether the TRO will become a permanent injunction is set for 2 pm on May 9th, 2008 before Judge Riley.
ATTENTION ALL MEMBERS:
************TRO was reversed on appeal. Please see story in the In the News Section **********
May 2nd, 2008
Did Furmin choke on a donut?
May 2nd, 2008
He was not here but we (several Local 3315 officers) were about to ask former APD Valasquez who was there if he missed representing the indigent.
Bruce
May 3rd, 2008
You know Stroger has to be fuming right about now, but that’s what we do as defense
attorneys: we always keep fighting……Go Ed!!!
May 3rd, 2008
Did anyone who was there happen to see the exchange of “words” between the 2 attorney’s in the hallway?
May 3rd, 2008
Michelle:
Your three executive board members in attendance left momements after the court ruled. I guess we missed the fun! BTW, Ed had about ten attorneys make appearences on his side (including our guy from Cornfield) and Todd had two…so once again Todd’s side was unwise in picking a fight. lol
Bruce
May 4th, 2008
Wonder if Todd Stroger will claim he is unfit for trialwhen the U.S. Attorney’s Office catches up with him? The way in which he brazenly packs the County payroll with friends and relativescan only lead one to wonder how he doles out contracts for County business.
May 4th, 2008
Wow! Three board members made it….that’s pretty darn good. And thanks to whomever got the word out after the court ruled as I got a text message about it almost instantly. Thanx guys!!
May 5th, 2008
Will Ed now be attending the Woody Jordan Retirement Party?
May 6th, 2008
The Sun-Times, on 5/1/08, stated that Todd Stroger “defends his right to fill some positions based on political patronage.” This seems troubling because of the legacy of the Hatch Act, that was passed after the Civil War to specifically prohibit patronage, which was undermining effective and meritorious government service. The Hatch Act has been subsequently extended to local governments that accept funds from the Federal Government for their operations, in part. 50 ILCS 135 appears to be the Illinois version of the Hatch Act for local governments. Numerous Supreme Court decisions have upheld the principles of the Hatch Act that are intended to prohibit patronage, because it is fundamentally un-American in that it is the opposite of meritorious service and equality among citizens. Consequently, it is very unclear where this claimed “right” to patronage stems from, except perhaps the theory that “might makes right.” However, it is interesting that the first known, English use of this phrase, and criticism of it, was in 1846 by the American pacifist and abolitionist Adin Ballou, who wrote: “But now, instead of discussion and argument, brute force rises up to the rescue of discomfited error, and crushes truth and right into the dust. ‘Might makes right,’ and hoary folly totters on in her mad career escorted by armies and navies.”
May 6th, 2008
The Shakman consent decree allows political/patronage hiring for a limited number of jobs which are deemed to be policy-making or confidential. In the latest chapter of the long-running litigation, Julia Nowicki has been appointed as a monitor to revamp the County’s hiring practices and its designation of Shakman-exempt (i.e. political/patronage) jobs. No one seems to have a definitive answer on which positions in our Office are Shakman exempt.
May 6th, 2008
Chief Justice Swygert of the United States 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, dissented in Shakman on the grounds that the suit would unjustifiably expand the Federal Hatch Act to local government -which is exactly what it did. Subsequently, it has been made clear that accepting Federal Funds with Hatch conditions does expand the reach of the Hatch Act to local government that accepts the funds on such conditions. Furthermore, 50 ILCS 135 became effective September 10, 1991 (about 20 years after Shakman) effectively applying the Hatch Act on a State level to local government in Illinois. Thus, Shakman is now redundant, as patronage is no longer lawful under State law or for those entities accepting Federal, Hatch designated monies.
May 6th, 2008
What about the issue that has been raised in Ed’s lawsuit based on the Public Defender Act? If the PD act says that the hiring decisions can only be made by the appointed PD, how can the County circumvent that via Shakman? The County Board can’t consent to something Illinois law forbids.
May 8th, 2008
How does the Hatch Act affect the pension of Woody Jordan?
May 8th, 2008
Appellate Court reversed lower court paving way for removal of Burnette!
www.suntimes.com/news/politics/939848,burnette050908.article
May 9th, 2008
This legal wrangling is almost as exciting as the White Sox road trip to Toronto.
Stroger does not need the approval of the County Commissioners to fire Ed.
While Ed came out to 26th Street and told the rank and file we were taking unpaid furlough days, he filed suit against Stroger to protect Directors and Chiefs.
Might be time for the Union to concern itself with the members who pay dues…..Burnette’s contract is up in one year anyway….stop the hand wringing and start working on our own political clout.