meetings 2020.
That's for the following rules of conduct to be followed
during the public comment period and the duration of all
committee and City Council, meetings, profane vulgar,
threatening abusive or disruptive language is not
permitted. Demeaning discriminatory or harassing behavior
and speech directed towards others is not permitted
disruptive behavior, including disruptive or disrespectful
conduct during others presentations is not permitted,
banners flyers, or signage are not permitted backpacks,
large bags, and sharp objects are not permitted. Clear
bags, not tinted in color that do not exceed 12 by 12 by 6.
In will be permitted in our subject to search all food and
beverages including in metal canisters are not permitted
cell phones. Must be placed on silent prior to entering the
meeting room. Individuals must remain seated, public
comments speakers, are permitted to stand only when
providing public comment, small handheld devices may be
used only while
Seeded and the user must refrain from interfering with the
view or hearing of other individuals, individuals or groups
failing to adhere to. These rules will be asked to see such
disruptive conduct and failure to comply. Will result in
there being subject to removal from the meeting by the
sergeant-at-arms.
City of Chicago city council rules of conduct for public
meetings, 2023 to 2027, pursuant to the Chicago city
council Rules of Order and procedure rule, 49, the
sergeant-at-arms sets forth, the following rules of conduct
to be followed during the public comment period and the
duration of all committee and City Council, meetings,
profane vulgar, threatening abusive or disruptive language
is not permitted. Demeaning discriminatory or harassing
behavior and speech directed towards others is not
permitted disruptive behavior, including disruptive or
disrespectful content. During others presentations is not
permitted, banners flyers, or signage are not permitted
backpacks, large bags, and sharp objects are not permitted.
Clear bags, not tinted in color that do not exceed 12 by 12
by 6. In will be permitted in our subject to search all
food and beverages including in metal canisters are not
permitted.
Cell phones must be placed on silent prior to entering the
meeting room. Individuals must remain seated, public
comment speakers are permitted to stand only when providing
public comment, small handheld devices may be used only
while seated and the user must refrain from interfering
with the view or hearing of other individuals, individuals
or groups failing to adhere to. These rules will be asked
to see such disruptive conduct and failure to comply. Will
result in there being subject to removal from the meeting
by the sergeant-at-arms.
City of Chicago city council rules of conduct for public
meetings, 2023 to 2027, pursuant to the Chicago city
council Rules of Order and procedure rule, 49, the
sergeant-at-arms sets forth, the following rules of conduct
to be followed during the public comment period and the
duration of all committee and City Council, meetings,
profane vulgar, threatening abusive or disruptive language
is not permitted. Demeaning discriminatory or harassing
behavior and speech directed towards. Others is not
permitted disruptive behavior including disruptive or
disrespectful content.
We can help you remember.
Okay, good morning everybody. Good morning.
The committee on ethics and government oversight will now
come to order.
We have 2 items on today's agenda. First is a subject
matter hearing on the office of Inspector General's,
quarterly report for the third quarter of 2024 and second a
subject matter, hearing on the department of human
resources policy regarding ineligibility for rehire.
We will begin with a roll. Call to establish Quorum. Please
note that your yes or present response will be deemed a.
Yes, vote. When this Quorum call is used for a reference
vote for other items. Chair, Martin is present, Vice chair
Haden
Alderman. OSHA
Alderman. Lee.
Alderman, Taylor alderwoman sabares alderwoman, Scott
Alderman, Talya, Ferro.
Alderman waguespack.
Alderman pisado.
believe Alderman listado is
Here. Oh, I got you, uh, alderman. Nent
Alderman Vasquez.
Alderman is present Alderman. Reilly
Ottoman Lawson.
Okay, we have an established forum.
Oh, um, we have, uh, uh, older woman Taylor has requested a
remote participation in the committee meeting under rule 59
due to a qualifying event. Is there a motion to allow her
to attend remotely? So moved by Vice chair Haden, all those
in favor, say I
All those opposed say no in the opinion of the chair, the
eyes have it alderwoman. Uh, Taylor is allowed to attend.
The committee meeting remotely at this time. We will begin
public comment, which is set for 30 minutes out of respect.
For everyone's Time. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes.
Uh, we will begin with Edith.
if you can walk up to the microphone Edith,
And after Edith will have Jasmine, Smith.
My check. Okay.
So, good morning, um all the minutes. Uh, and everyone that
is here, I am at the vas Smith with Chicago alliance
against racist and political repression. A lot of you guys
should know about our organization and what we stand for
and what we're fighting for.
so you're going to be seeing a lot of me, in a lot of more
people, feeling these rooms as this year to come, um, to
express our demands of what the constituents and the city
taxpayers are demanding of these many bodies, that's having
many meetings and making many decisions, that's impacting
our communities. So I fight for wrongfully convicted,
innocent torture survivors. That's my main thing that I'm
fighting for. And I have a list of survivors that has been
wrongfully convicted by when the highest paid sergeants in
due to us protesting and disposing him in the news, y'all
they they forced him to retire. There is no accountability
in this city when it comes to officers. None whatsoever or
the State's Attorneys or the judges that are happening in
these cases. And this body has the power and has the
connections to the attorney, general to the governor and
also mayor, and the superintendent that can make all of
these things happen.
When it comes to accountability and getting all loved ones
free from out of those godforsaken slaves. Now, I'm going
to be coming down here making demands. Clear because our
referendum that we are fighting for is sitting in the rules
committee. Now, I misstated where it was at the last time I
spoke, but because of Raymond Lopez,
Y'all allowed him to put the referendum in the rules
committee so it can go dead and we're not going to allow
it, we're going to be fighting, we're going to be seeing
more of us. We want our referendum out of the rules
committee and put into the Public Safety Committee where it
should be at where the East CPS was passed in 2021. I said
it last time if you guys are on the right side, that it
shouldn't be no question. We should not have to come down
here or mobilize. Y'all constituents against y'all to get
y'all to do. What's right? Right is right. Wrong is wrong.
If a cop is doing misconduct killing people, putting bad
cases on people, they should be held accountable. That's no
question about that.
This fop contract is protecting the protecting these cops
from being held accountable, and our referendum will give
the powers to the city-wide Commissioners to be able to sit
at the table with the city lawmakers who are negotiating
the fop contract. It's simple as 1, 2 3. And I am not
asking y'all, I am demanding y'all because I will be
knocking at y'all constituent with doors with volunteers
and mobilizing them to get on y'all about standing on the
right side. Like we shouldn't even have to beg for y'all to
do this. Right is right? Wrong is wrong. My love was have
served over a decade for wrongful convictions crimes. That,
that, that they did not commit, y'all all voted in to
protect Public Safety. There's no Public Safety. When
innocent people are rotten in the prison. While the
criminals are still roaming our streets,
Thank you, Miss Smith.
Next up. Is there an Edith?
I don't have a last name.
No Edith. Okay. Oh
Okay. Edith uh will have you and then Miss Jackson, you'll
be next.
Go. Please go ahead. Yes.
Yes, Greetings. Oh, my understanding this, um, meeting is
uh, committee on ethics and government and so oversight. I
mean, well, when you speak of Ethics, uh, ethics is not a
single entity.
The word.
Is collaborated with ethical?
Unethical, morals and morality.
And code of ethics Plus.
Civil.
Now all these that I just mentioned are bound into
sublimation and can not be in a program of a oversight.
As in a relevant relevant relevant mistake, this would be
ludicrous.
Um, the subject matter hearing discussion regarding
ineligibility for higher. For rehire, the quarterly report
released October the 15th 2024.
This, these 2 session is a blend together.
Set in stone.
According to the oi and CC.
The perpetrator or perpetrators committed, a horrific crime
and found illegal in the administrative position, the
person or persons, who fell through the cracks with the
intent to fraud.
Found and contempt before an investigation.
After sworn in God, I trust. This is far
this is,
From the Epic drum.
It is a violation of the law.
Partnership.
Uh, punishable by circumstance.
Without any Clemens, whatsoever.
Jesus said, keep my laws statutes and Commandments.
There should be no.
Other exceptions to the rule.
Thank you.
Jessica Jackson, uh,
followed by Patricia pente.
Okay, so
Jasmine, make sure that you found me because I want this to
go viral. I want it all over the Internet that I'm asking.
Inspector, General, Deborah whisper.
To respond to the written complaints.
That I have submitted to her office.
I want her to make our meeting like we requested so that we
we could voice our concerns and have City Hall
investigated. Like we asked, that's all right, it's
taxpayers. You don't get to ignore us. And then tell me
something silly, like its confidentiality. It's my
complaint.
How You Gonna Keep the results from me?
That doesn't even make sense but it just goes to show you
how the Democratic party, really do believe and they hard
or hearts and mind and Minds that they can tell black
people in the old dog on thing, right?
Okay, we gonna see you with that because you going to
answer our complaint, you're going to give us our meeting
or Trump gonna come. See you like he's got Brandon Johnson
getting ready to come. See him.
You got that?
You look and teligent. I know you understand. Now, the rest
of my time, I'mma read this, uh, statement from somebody
that told me to read it to you about ethics.
What are the ethics of giving a billion City dollars to
illegals but none to law. Lifelong black residents, what
are the ethics of obstructing immigration enforcement to
protect illegal sex offenders? What are the ethics of
stealing arpa money from South and West Side neighborhoods?
What are the ethics of hiding gang members from Haiti and
Guatemala and Illinois, state prisons only to release them
into the black community rather than turn them over to ice.
What are the ethics of stealing property from black seniors
and black neighborhoods to fund these priorities? Why are
you losers more upset about Dr? Phil and Tom Holman and
forcing the law, then you are about violent criminals,
illegals, breaking the law, make it make sense. And as far
as famous Friday is concerned Vasquez, you got your wish
this Friday famous Friday.
Andre Vasquez Alderman Vasquez, We're Gonna Make You Famous.
Zoe Lee at 6 oclock on YouTube Friday at 6 oclock Alderman,
fastest and we gonna be waiting for our response for our
meeting Deborah whisper because if you don't give it to us,
then you gonna give it to Trump and anybody who think that
that ain't gonna happen. Just Keep On Believing, just like
just like y'all didn't believe that Trump was gonna get an
office. That's how come y'all didn't do nothing faster to
correct your bad behavior.
But he is in office and they might be corrupt, but it is
what it is and it's better than anything in here.
You better give us our meeting.
Thank you, Miss Jackson. Uh, um, Patricia Puente followed
by Juliet calabresi.
Good afternoon. My name is Patricia Pointe. I have a
concern, not a complaint. Like that gentleman. That is
walking away. Not a complaint. My concern is that I went to
a job and applied. I worked at the Cook County my years and
I retired. I went to apply in the factory because I've
never worked in a factory before.
Um, the Caucasians and African-Americans invited me to their
table. I'm a rocker. I love music.
After a month or 2, the Hispanic came to me.
And said, you are not allowed to speak English here.
I'm like, what? I'm in the United States of America. I'm
not in South America. I'm not in Mexico for you to tell me.
I'm not allowed to speak English. I got harassed. I got
pushed. My boxes were thrown on the floor.
Oh my goodness. But you know what? Thank God. I'm retired
and I said, this is not for me.
A year passed. I got another job. 90% of the people that
work in the factories are Hispanic.
10% are diversity.
I went to another Factory, the same thing happened. I put
my foot down and said, I'm not going to speak Spanish
anymore.
They told me that I had to speak Spanish and I'm like,
they told me, you have Mexican blood, you have, you are a
Mexican. I'm said you sound really ridiculous. God forbid
is something happened to you. You ended up in the hospital,
are you going to? And you had to get blood? Transfusion,
are you going to tell me? Excuse me. Is this Mexican blood.
That ridiculous. They sounded I started getting harassed by
the Hispanic, not only that they show me a bulletin.
Thing. Puerto Rican. Mexican. Nicaragua and Venezuelans all
natural. Hispanic nationalities, we're taking over
Illinois. This happened 2 years ago. What happened the next
year Venezuelans came over here. What happened? I went to
the police station on, uh, District 8. I see the the the
migrants on, on the police station. That's their second
home. It's like you. This is your second home because you
work here and you go home and that's your first home. They
were put him on the police station. They were doing gang
signs to the cars and I go to the police and say, guys, are
you seeing what I'm seeing? They're doing gangs on. Oh the
city told us that we are not allowed to tell nothing to the
migrants. Are you kidding?
And then they're stealing, they're going to the stores and
stealing their killing the people. They're robbing on the
North side and you guys are okay with that.
I do not like,
Thank you, Miss Pointe.
Next Juliet, calabra. Followed by Mr. Blakemore
Hi. My name is Juliet, Calabria.
And my great-grandfather came to Chicago to build trains
for Pullman.
and in 1910,
he had a better lifestyle than I have ever had in my entire
life.
A good job that he could walk to work.
My daddy.
Was a Chicago police officer.
Of course, I'm going to get an ad now.
But what what is more interesting is that my daughter's
father?
Was a British citizen.
And he was deported by ice. Isn't that ironic?
From Chicago.
So a British citizen who lived here for 7 years, who had 2
American children.
It's just like, my father.
My father was a Chicago, police officer.
And he was so intelligent and so good.
And he was Mr. Fun.
oh, and he was married to
Dulan amusements daughter.
Isn't it a mystery that he died when he was 45 years old?
And if I called the Chicago Police to say, my father was
killed.
All they do is hang up.
And the police say, oh your dad was a good guy.
Yeah, he was a good guy.
they said that when he was still alive,
and to
To surmise Chicago's ethics. We already know what Carl
Samberg said about Chicago. They told me you are wicked and
I say, yes, I have seen the gunmen kill and go free to kill
again.
And they tell me you are wicked. And I've seen the painted
women luring Farm boys underneath the lights.
City of big shoulders hog butcher to the world.
Player with railroads stacker with wheat.
and,
You know, the rest.
I would like to take a moment of silence for all of my
deceased friends.
From Rogers Park.
Mark, love strand.
Danny henit, Krista branch.
Constantine Kettle, who was Jamaican?
Conrad Daniels.
Lorna raymaker. Yeah. They're like, please speed up, please
speed up. I, I had so many dead friends from Rogers Park.
Isn't it amazing?
But the truth of the matter is, is that people say, why
can't you just go to Wales to get back together with your
child's father? Oh, yes. I've been to Europe 10 times. I've
been to Ireland 12 times I've been to, uh,
I've been, I've been all over the United States of America.
I've been to Mexico. Why can't I go to Wales to get back
together with this guy?
Oh, I'm sorry.
Thank you, Mr. Colibri uh next up, George Blakemore.
This is our second to last public comment.
What motivate you? You missed quite more coming down here.
Look at Walter, Bernie.
Where's that inspector? Jim? How are you doing this black
Moore?
But very good. What motivates you? I'm dear friend.
And I embrace my dear.
Their Erica.
The system is broken. Turning it back.
Look at and turn this back.
You don't know, respect.
I'm gonna be very brief.
I'm gonna talk about these black Al
My mother told me. Nathan is smarter than you.
My mother.
Believed in truth. That's because I'm a serve son. She
embraced other children
She would tell Johnny made me like Rosslyn is smarter than
my brain, my sister and and Miss marlock say your daughter
smart, too, but you gotta win off.
You got a winner. Johnny may he Embrace truth?
The black people here have losers.
They're not like the Hispanic all times.
They're not like the white almond or other agent, they'll
lose us.
They'll lose us.
And you know when my mother corrected me she was saying you
come from me and I'm gonna give you tough love some kind of
way. We got to figure out how to handle all black losers.
No.
Worse. And these Hispanic you couldn't give them millions
of dollars to vote against their interests but these black
ones both against theirs.
They voted for illegal immigrants to come in to compete
with them for jobs. Good contracted service Health Care
education. They are losers.
And Mr. Blakemore, I wish you could have a magic wand and
just get rid of all these black losers.
And they see me then abuse, they send us being abused and
they shall.
They they shall now if Ellen Blakemore if you start to
bother me all you'll see what says she's on.
You just don't go there but she had such enough to know
when from loses.
And she embraced other people's children. The Hispanics are
doing very good. They even announced. We are the minority
now. You black step back.
So they have achieved something that your black a heaven.
Thank you, Mr. Blake Moore. Our last public commenter. I
believe is remote uh Peter sicinski.
Mr.
Please, please continue.
Do we have him signed up or do we have him?
Calling in.
Hi, my name is Pete, says, Nika of the 45th Ward. My name
appears in several of the board of Ethics board. Uh,
meeting minutes in relation to the lawsuit, says, nikah
versus Gardner a lawsuit where aldermen Gardner was found
guilty of violating Citizens First Amendment rights.
In deposition, we learned that the unethical Gardener had
caused to have misleading deceitful and outright false
information, given to the board of Ethics in his unethical
effort to violate our rights.
The city was dismissed from the lawsuit in 2021 yet per
WTTW. Reporting by Heather Chiron. We see that the city is
paying 87,500 of gardeners 157500 legal settlement. In this
case again, the city was dismissed from the case yet. The
taxpayers are on the hook for 87,500.
Because it is so difficult to get information from the
city. Even through Foya 1 conjecture is that Gardner
threatened to sue, the city asserting that he received
quote, bad advice from the board of Ethics even though
Gardner had caused to have misleading deceitful and
outright false information given to the board of Ethics in
his unethical effort to violate our rights.
I will note that the board of Ethics staffer Who provided
advice The Gardener in 2019, never investigated, or asked
another department such as oig to investigate. Instead she
just whimsically told Gardner something he interpreted to
me, he could violate our first amendment rights. I'm
suggesting to the committee on ethics that the rule
ordinance tradition, whatever it is of hiding, all their
manic legal settlement, expenditures be amended. So that
any distribution of City funds, like the 100,000 dollars
that the city paid to settle, Gardener's, previous lawsuit
be presented in the committee on finance openly.
And not hidden under small claims or under reports of
cases, in which verdicts judgments and settlements.
it ALS seems to me that some City functionary deciding to
expend 87,500 in a case, the city was dismissed from in
20121
seems unethical.
We need and demand openness and transparency. In matters
that involve aldermanic unethical illegal and allegedly
criminal behaviors. This committee needs to do its part to
address the deficit of legitimacy at which the city of
Chicago operates a deficit exacerbated. By hiding the
rationale for taxpayers subsidizing Alderman gardeners on
ethical and illegal behaviors as Inspector General,
witzburg concludes in the 2024 third quarter report, we
must work urgently to pay down more than 1, kind of deficit
at a time. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. So, Nikka that concludes our public comment.
Uh, our first order of business is the rule 45 report from
October 2024, which was distributed to the committee via
email, can I get a motion to approve the report?
So moved by older woman lie, all those in favor. Signify by
saying, I all those opposed say no in the opinion of the
chair. The eyes have it. We will now begin the subject
matter hearing for the oig's quarterly report for the third
quarter of 2024. Uh, I'd like to introduce Deborah
witzburg. The Inspector General for our city to provide
brief remarks, and then we'll go to questions from the
committee General. Good morning chairman. Thank you very
much for having me. Um, I will as you as you described, I
will talk briefly through our third quarterly report for
the third quarter of 2024 released in October and then I
will be happy to answer questions from the committee.
um, this report was released on October 15th, and
When we?
Uh when we released it uh thank you. I was I was conscious
of the fact that that date came um at what looked like the
middle. It proved to be early in the budget season.
and,
uh, not all of oig's work is is directed at the city's
bottom line, but some of it is and given the timing of this
report, 1 of the things I want to highlight in terms of
overview, uh, is the, is the impact that some of our
oversight work has on the city's bottom line, among the
work reported in the third quarter, um, was program and
policy work addressing inefficiencies and opportunities for
for cost Savings in city in the operation of city
government, and investigative work, which identified
misspent funds and resulted in fines, and recoveries and
the third quarter,
That included finds from the board of Ethics. Um, fines for
obstructing an oig investigation and recoveries into
debarment actions which arose from oig investigations.
In the third quarter. Um, we continue to operate oig's,
centralized intake function, as you all know, we've talked
about this before, this is a departure from oig's
historical practice of treating intake. As an investigative
function, we have a centralized intake function, which
allows us to review each piece of information, which comes
through oig to determine which of our oversight. Practice
areas might be best suited to address the issue.
In the third quarter, we received 20053 intakes that was
down from the previous quarter during the second quarter.
We received near nearly 5,000 intakes. Um, as is often the
case in the third quarter, most of our intakes were
received by email others through a variety of other
mechanisms telephone online, portal letter, Etc oig as
empowered by the municipal code, to do so initiated 83
intakes ourselves.
Are active investigations in the third quarter. We reported
238 active, misconduct investigations of which 112 had been
opened more than 12 months. That is a flat number from the
quarter before.
The subjects of those investigations are are, are mostly
city employees, followed by City officials, contractors,
subcontractors, and people seeking contracts with the city
licenses appointed, officials and others.
uh as provided in the municipal code in each quarterly
report we summarize administrative investigations concluded
in that quarter which resulted in sustained findings of
misconduct. Our quarterly reports are the only places where
the municipal code permits us to make public statements
about our investigative work.
Uh, we reported 20 sustain, administrative investigations
in the third quarter and among them. Those those included
but were not limited to the following. We reported 3
separate investigations in which city employees were found
to have a fraudulently obtained loans from the federal PPP
program. Um I I will pause briefly here to say that that
that we have a large and long-term and ongoing effort
around PPP fraud investigations, we conducted proactive
data analysis um and identified about a thousand PPP loans
issued to people under oig's jurisdiction not all of those
are fraudulent. Many of them bear, some indicia of fraud
that is a long-term investigative effort which is ongoing
As those cases have concluded, we have reported them out. As
we go, 3 work included in the third quarter. Those had
those centered on employees of the Department of
Transportation, the office of administrative hearings and
streets and sanitation where we found that employee from
each of those departments had. In fact, committed loan
fraud in the PPP program.
we found we sustained misconduct allegations against a
former major case specialist at coupa at the civilian
office of police accountability, who had failed to disclose
a disciplinary history at a prior employer and had made
unauthorized disclosures of confidential information. Uh
having to do with a then open Copa investigation.
We identified a city debt collection contractor.
This is an an entity that was contracted by the city,
through the Department of Law to collect outstanding debts
and the contractor misused, their access to City systems to
assign itself. Unripe debt, for collection, that resulted
in the contractor collecting as much as 489,000 in
contingency fees to, which they were not entitled.
We found a former appointed official made material omissions
on 3 years worth of statements of financial interests. So
you all are familiar with these documents. They are
required of certain city employees and officials by the
board of ethics. And those forms ask people to identify
their sources of income, their property interests and their
membership in certain kinds of associations and Boards. We
found that this official had made these material Emissions
on 3 years worth of those Sophie's failing to report both
income as well as membership in committees and boards.
We found a former high-ranking official at the Department
of Business Affairs and consumer protections who had
subjected employees to prolonged verbal, abuse and
discrimination and created a hostile work environment. In
that department.
We found in employee of the Office of Public Safety
Administration who would committed time fraud when they
clocked in and then returned home while on the clock. And
finally, a library clerk who improperly used Patron
information to, which they had access in the course of
their official duties to commit sexual harassment.
Our Public Safety section, as you all know, is devoted to
oversight of the Chicago Police Department, and Chicago's
police accountability agencies among the work published by
the public safety section. In the third quarter was, uh,
project on Staffing. That's a project which, uh, our Deputy
IG for Public Safety to bar Richardson and I were before
the committee to, to speak about. So, just by way of
reminder, um, this work comes in the form of an up.
updated data dashboard on our information portal, where you
and your constituents can see how many CPD members are
assigned and working with Patrol duties in a ward or a
community area or a district. You can look at the data, a
number of different ways. The updated dashboards include
information about whether people are present for Duty. So
not just whether they are assigned or detailed to the
district but also whether they are on Furlow or injured, or
or elsewhere, um, we published a report a company that
dashboard explaining the Staffing structure within CPD for
patrol functions previous and current transparency efforts,
including by this committee around CPD Staffing and
Staffing, allocation as well as limitations in the data.
Uh another function of our Public Safety section is the
review of closed. Disciplinary investigations conducted by
cpd's Bureau of internal affairs. And by Coppa
The statutory Authority for oig in that function is among
other things to recommend that a disciplinary
investigation. Be reopened if we find that the
investigation was materially deficient uh or deficient in a
a way that materially affects its outcome. That's the
standard set out in the law. We examined in the third
quarter 251 investigations, uh, closed by bia. And Coppa,
we conducted in-depth reviews of 18 of them. In each
quarterly report we publish summaries of those
recommendations to reopen, which have reached a final
procedural resting place.
among the cases we reported in the Thor in the third
quarter, was a Copa investigation, we reviewed in, which
Copa investigated allegations, that a CPD member had used
racial a racial slur against a member of the public had
reported false information, and had failed to report
misconduct by another CPD member
Copa failed to conduct an analysis of whether cpd's rule 14
had been violated. Rule 14 is the rule of of the Chicago
Police Department's rules of conduct which prohibits false
reports.
despite finding here that the an accused member had
reported quote falsely and was quote, not credible Copa
failed to conduct an analysis of whether rule 14 had been
violated.
That accused member had been the accused officer in 51
separate misconduct investigations and prior to this
investigation had been found to have violated. Cpd's rule
14 twice? That is he? They'd been found to have lied twice.
Before this case, we recommended that copper reopen, the
matter to conduct an analysis of whether the false and not
credible, reports violated rule 14.
They did. So in response to our recommendation found that
rule, 14 had been violated and recommended separation of
the member, the superintendent concurred.
Elsewhere in the office out of our audit and program review
section, our legal section, our Compliance Unit and
elsewhere. Um we also publish as you all know, a variety of
other products, audits follow-ups, advisories
notifications, Etc. Uh among those reported in the third
quarter were an audit of the Department of Finance
administration of the city's civilian Workers Compensation
Program. This is a program which was historically
administered by the city council committee on finance under
then chairman Burke
um,
there were historical obstacles to transparency to say the
least around this program. It's it's being situated within
a city council committee for a period of time, during most
of which oig lacked jurisdiction to oversee those
operations, um, as well as the leadership of that committee
at the time historically. Um, prevented transparency into
this program.
Uh, with the expansion of oig's jurisdiction and, uh,
Alderman waguespack leadership of the committee on finance,
there was an opportunity for oversight of this program.
And, and this audit resulted
the, the audit determined that the city has made important
progress in the administration and transparency of that
program, um, as compared to its time during administration
of chairman Burke and the committee on finance,
We published a note, a notification on compliance with the
minority and women-owned business, Enterprise requirements,
City contracts have, as you all know, certain requirements
for participation by women and minority owned business
enterprises and oig learned that the city's contract with
Chicago parking meters. That is the long-term lease deal of
the city's parking meters. Um, which came at tremendous
Financial expense to the city. Um, we found that the that
the entity to which the city least the parking meter
Chicago, parking meters was claiming credit for a minority
owned business Enterprise, which was not in fact
appropriately certified as a minority owned business, the
city failed to to detect those false reports. Um and so
this went on for some time. What's important here I think
is to note that this deal this part the parking meter lease
was
catastrophic from a financial perspective, the city's
failure to identify misreported MBE credit means that the
city was not even realizing whatever benefit might have
come from that deal to lowering barriers to entry for City
contracts.
we published a notification regarding treatment of Chicago,
Fire Department student, trainees, arising from a series of
complaints around, um, the environment in which those
trainees were working. We made recommendations to the fire
department to improve the circumstances of the of that
program.
We identified errors in the governmental ethics ordinance.
Those were addressed by legislation in this committee
having to do with a parent omissions. And, um, sort of
typographical errors that had some important implications
in the ethics ordinance. Those have been corrected,
we published a notification regarding a lack of clarity in
the gift policy, in the department of streets and
sanitation,
Uh, similarly, a notification to the Department of Fleet
and Facilities Management around overtime calculation.
There was a there is a
Lack of consensus. I suppose. Um, with respect to whether
certain city holidays, can be counted in overtime
calculations at at 2 FM.
We published a notification on the department of
handling of eeo, complaints to ensure that those complaints
are routed appropriately and the discipline does not sort
of front run appropriate investigations.
We published a notification on password sharing at opsa the
Office of Public Safety Administration due to the nature of
its work. Obviously has access to and handles a great deal
of sensitive information and we found policy violations in
information security in that department.
And finally, we published an explainer, a transparency
product on the city's campaign, Finance rules, including
where there are gaps in those rules, and what efforts have
been undertaken in this body and others to close some of
those gaps.
Finally, we reported on our ongoing work monitoring the
city's employment actions. This is the work of ensuring
that the city continues to follow the rules, uh, and the
reforms set out in the shakman decree. So in our, in our
ongoing monitoring of employment, actions, we reviewed
reports of political contacts.
Reviewed senior manager, hires audited, hiring sequences
across 4 City, departments monitored, hiring sequences
across 7 and audited, a fire department, Referral List.
So, chairman with that, I will be happy to answer any
questions. Great, thanks. We will open it up to, uh,
committee members. Um, I have 2 quick questions to start 1
is and I'll just ask them at the same time, uh, what the
status of that Library? Clerks employment is with the city.
Uh and then second, if there was any understanding through
your work as to why Copa had failed to conduct the rule, 14
analysis, as an initial matter,
um,
I will take the second.
if that's okay, with respect to uh, to Coppa and the rule
of 14 analysis,
um,
my best read of that is that this particular case was part
of an ongoing larger pattern that we have identified with
respect to the under enforcement of rule. 14. And that is
to say that um Coppa and Bia have have both historically.
under enforce, the rule have failed to bring rule 14,
Allegan when finding that CPD members have made false or
misleading or inaccurate statements, um, that is deeply
problematic. Um, and is and leaves us in a situation where
there are members of the police force, who, in fact, have
have been found to have lied and remain on the job. This
was a particularly aggravated and aggravating circumstance,
where we had an accused member who had been found to have.
In fact, violated rule 14 twice in the past. Um,
A single violation of that rule. Renders someone in my view
unfit to serve as a police officer. This is someone who had
found been found to have violated the rule twice in the
past had made what Coppa found to be false false reports.
And yet there had been no analysis of the rule
this is, as I say, in my view, part of that larger pattern,
um, with respect to your question about the library, clerk,
we recommended that that employee be discharged and
referred for placement on the ineligible for rehire list.
The library, discharge the employee and agreed to make that
referral for placement on the ineligible for rehire list.
Thank you.
Uh, questions from committee members.
Okay. I have, um,
On.
Thank you, chair. Um, thank you, General RG. Um, just a
couple of things the, um,
Department of Finance contractor. Who had access to the
system? Seems like a breach that is concerning. Um the
finance response was a little vague as far as what they did
to correct that um have have we done a deeper dive into
this system or others to make sure that things like that.
Can't happen again.
Um,
Well, we have we have identified a number of related
issues. I I agree with you. This is a lot of controls
problem. In addition to an individual misconduct problem, I
think we see this often where a failure of controls and
individual misconduct are co-located. It is a failure in
control, is that facilitates individual misconduct. So, um,
I I it is my understanding that that improved controls are
underway. We will continue to pursue active individual
misconduct arising out of access to City systems where we
see them. Right. So um that kind of goes to my second
question, my my staff brought up, it's 99% of your intake.
Is misconduct I suppose to inefficiency or waste, um, where
this is, probably a security issue that separate, but, um,
we all just got out of a very long budget process as you
referenced where we're looking at inefficiency and waste.
And, and how can we better? I don't know. Uh, prepare
City employees residents neighbors to, to identify that. Um,
and to help us when we do, you know, look to make cuts and
and look to the right size um departments and programs.
I just want to make sure I'm understanding the question.
How do we better equip people to identify inefficiencies,
is that it weighs right? Misconduct is easy, right? Well, I
don't mean to say that General but I mean, people know it
when they see it maybe better than or, or they're less
empowered to say. I think that's wasteful as opposed to, I
think that's misconception. Um, and we really should be,
you know, identifying both right? Yeah, absolutely. I
that's a great question and I I will say the recognition of
that need is part of what drove us to centralize our intake
function. As I talked about a few minutes ago, it is a
recognition that not everything that goes wrong in the
experience of a Chicago and in their interaction with city.
Government is misconduct. Sometimes it is that something is
not working as well or as efficiently or as equitably as it
should. Um now some of the intake coding that you're
looking at where we identify misconduct versus
inefficiency, some of that has to do with the framing of an
intake. When it comes in, something may come in as an
allegation of misconduct. And as we pursue it, through this
centralized function, we may learn that there are not the
problem is
That rules are being broken. The problem is that there
aren't adequate rules in place or there aren't adequate
controls in place, or we are not things are not working as
well as they should. Um, and so I, I think in terms of
equipping people to recognize those things, whenever people
are finding in their interactions with city government,
that things are not working, that they are not getting what
they need from the city. Um, we would like to hear from
them about it and and we will sort out whether that is
because somebody is breaking the rules or because something
isn't working efficiently. We are not getting adequate
return on our investment in Chicago's neighborhoods.
Got it. Thank you. And then I think you answered my other
question. Uh, the number of PPP cases under jurisdiction a
thousand, ruffler about a thousand loans issued to people
under our jurisdiction. Yes. And how many of those have
been sort of final finalized closed out
Um I can get you that final number through the chair. We've
we've reported each. We've reported them in quarterly
reports, I will say um just on a the note of investigative
timelines. Um, these are paper cases, what has gone wrong,
what went wrong went wrong on paper here, um, and that
evidence isn't going anywhere. And so as we prioritize the
timelines of our cases, we try to attend to
That observation. Um, and so this is a large scale effort.
I, these are cases aren't going anywhere. We'll we'll be at
it for the foreseeable future and is, do we sort of have a
blanket policy on these, that we're recommending discipline
discipline or termination? Does it depend on what role they
hold or? Um, because the fraud is all probably very much
the same, right? They filled out the form. They shouldn't
have got money. They shouldn't have yes. Um, without
Side of their City job in most cases. They're all, uh, the
conduct is similar. That's right. Right? Uh, we have
recommended termination in all of these cases. My view is
that people don't get to both defraud, the government and
work for the government.
Sure, I agree with that. Thank you very much. Thank you
share.
Thanks ultimate wages back.
Thank you, chairman and uh thanks for having this hearing.
Um I know we're going to get into the ineligible for higher
issue after this, but Inspector General, good morning. Um,
just to uh you mentioned you and my colleague mentioned the
library clerk putting put on the do not hire list um
so, 1 of the things that we've been talking about for many,
many years is the, uh, application of the do not hire list
or ineligible for higher and other issues with our sister
agencies. Um,
What prevents the city from having? Um inspector generals
or agent uh the other agencies from
cooperating directly to prevent, um, those that are
ineligible for hire from being brought on at CPS cha CTA
and vice versa. Um, and are there other agencies like PBC?
And then you mentioned Library where
Maybe they're slightly separate, but they are applicable to
our do not hire list.
Nothing prevents that and I think that reciprocity among
sister agencies for do not hire for ineligible for rehire,
designations would be an important Improvement. Um, nothing
prevents that I will also note that um,
Individuals who have been designated ineligible for rehire
by the city are still eligible for Higher by City
contractors. And so in addition to the possibility that
That employees might appear at a sister agency. They also
might appear at City contractors working side by side with
city employees in the same departments from which they were
terminated
um,
so, recently, we've seen quite a few cases, where, you
know, somebody is on our list here and they pop up at
Um, I think it was CTA CPS, um, maybe even the cha and I
know these are 1 offset us here and there, but what about,
uh, um, aldermanic offices? How do you address that?
City employees serving in aldermanic offices. Um,
sort of fall under the under the ineligible free higher
policy including to be clear, including shakman exempt
positions. Um, positions that we described as shakman
exempt, um, are exempt only from the rules prohibiting,
political considerations in hiring, the rest of the city's
hiring rules, including the ineligibility for rehire policy
continued to apply to those positions.
And then when that happens who is who is notified that um
somebody has slipped through the cracks or somebody's been
hired and then what actions would be taken? I I'm sorry to
interrupt I think this is a line of questioning that I'm
very interested in and I want to make sure that the
commissioner can participate in that as well, so which is
kindly asked that we wait until the second part.
As long as you stick around, I'll be here. No, I'd rather
be
Want a tag team that question. So, anything outside of do
not hire. Okay. All good. Thank you. Want to know Shay.
Then Alderman Vasquez. Thank you.
Thanks chairman.
Thanks for putting this together. Uh good morning General
morning.
uh, I wanted to double back on, um,
City employees.
Who fraudulently filed and received PPP loans? How many
total number is that?
Um, well.
The the the approximately a thousand number is all PPP
loans issued to people under our jurisdiction, not all of
those loans are fraudulent. Some of those are legitimate
loans, um, many of them bear, some indicia of Fraud. And so
the the universe of cases, which, um,
Where there is some indication of PPP fraud number in the
many, many hundreds.
so, and and is this
At some point.
There'll be an official recommendation for termination.
in in these cases as we close them as reflected in in this
quarterly report and do we know, are there are their
departments or people in the administration have said
No, no. We're not going to fire OSHA who we know
fraudulently filed and received
have there been people uh in departments or the
administration have said, we're not going to fire them.
I'm not aware of any termination recommendations being
declined in PPP fraud cases.
Would it be possible for us as a council to get that
information?
Um, that's been reported. In quarterly reports. We can
certainly compile that and get it to you through the chair
on cases, where we have
in concluded investigations and reported them out.
Um,
I just think it's so important as, as
As a body, we have such a problem in our neighborhoods and
in our city, the lack of mistrust of government.
When there's documented cases, when the world was upside
down.
That city employees.
Probably while on the payroll were fraudulently filing.
And receiving benefits.
and,
I I wholeheartedly agree. I don't mean to drop you. I
wholeheartedly agree. And that's why we have recommended
discharging all of these cases. Um, I will also say, I
think, I think there is, I'm, I'm particularly troubled by
city employees abuse of benefit programs. I think that
abuse makes it harder for the people who need the benefits
to get them. Um, I think that is fundamentally inconsistent
with public service.
I appreciate your work. Um,
I am so frustrated.
when we think of,
Leadership's unwillingness.
To look any waste.
To make cuts. And yet we have hundreds and hundreds of city
employees.
That built the taxpayers.
Um I I think as a body, any any more information we could
get as we're headed. Very shortly, folks into what will be
an extremely difficult and painful?
Prolonged.
Budget process. Um,
I'd like to get any more information, we could and I do
appreciate your work and the work of your staff. Thank you.
Thank you Alderman Vasquez.
Thank you very much chairman. Uh,
so, um,
kind of along some of the lines that like uh my colleague,
ottoman Lawson mentioned in thinking about efficiency, and
definitely, after the budget process, we all went through.
There's things that seem like
They might be more systemic or just Concepts. So the 1 that
I want to bring up is just the Office of Public Safety
Administration. We were sold that this is something that's
going to save us money. It was the idea of separating what
was in effect, a police department budget along with
others. Is there anything going? Is there anything your
office can do or is doing to identify how efficient if this
thing is doing what it said it was going to do because
there are members that are seeking to discontinue it. I'm
still not on 1 side of it or the other, but I think the
information is important for us to make decisions
Um, I appreciate the question. So as you know the Office of
of Public Safety Administration was constructed to combine.
The quote unquote, administrative functions, not entirely
well-defined but the sort of human resources and finance
and certain it administrative functions of the police
department, the fire department and oemc. Um,
The idea there was to realize cost efficiencies by doing
that. Um,
I think there are some persistent questions around whether
those efficiencies have been realized this topic appears on
our Public Safety project plan for 2025, it is also
reflected in the management ordinance which was passed
during this year's budget process as you know to study
Potential cost savings. So um I imagine that through at
least 1 or the other of those mechanisms there will be some
further examination of of the cost efficiencies that opsa.
Yeah. I mean to part of what we negotiated to this last
budget was to have a year-long process to identify more of
that because when it gets crammed into the last month and a
half of the year, we kind of see what the results of that
look like. So I think as you're able to um
any findings that could be shared with members of the
council would be greatly appreciated. Because exactly that
point like you know for the city at whole our language
contracts are under Office of Public Safety Administration
which I don't think even falls under the definition of what
it's intended for, right? We've got different departments
that aren't cfd CPD and so they're just other things like
that. That I think the more we dig in the better we can
identify if this makes sense, or how to change, make
changes, where it would. So, um, my next question is
related to
There is someone there I guess a vendor that collected half
a million bucks from Department of Finance. Um
when this gets found like what happens after like do we
collect that money back? What is based on the contracts
that that person just
what does that look like as far as us basically collecting
funds back when situations like this occur,
Um, that matter was referred to the law department, for
Recovery of the costs.
Okay. And so I guess,
maybe something that I'll be curious in future kind of
follow-ups or hearings is
What is the effectiveness of dough? And collecting that
money. Is that something we talked to D directly about? Is
there a way to check and identify their effectiveness and
doing? So, because if we've got all these things, we're
finding fraud but we're not collecting.
Then it affects some folks aren't really being held
accountable, right? So I think that's just something that I
I'm curious about.
Um,
Public Safety, CPD. My next question.
uh, and this is something that comes up all the time
related to
Auditing finding out anything about CPD that there's just
challenges in the transparency and opaqueness there.
um,
It comes up often enough and I'm sure you might already
have it. But I just for my edification, like, is there a
list of those challenges for us to kind of take a look at
right? Sorry, say that again. Which say that again. Yeah,
so CPD whenever we're trying to find out
What they're doing with certain money, or how they're
operating.
There's always, what are an effect or blind spots, right?
The data is just not good in certain places that will be
helpful. Or I'm curious about if there's a list of like,
hey, these are the challenges where it is opaque so that we
can drill down further to help bring more clarity and like
open that up.
Um, I I think
that the question of data quality both. Um,
the completeness on the quality, uh, in public, safety data
is a challenge that we see running through almost every
single 1 of our oversight efforts with respect to the
city's Public Safety operations. And there are lots of
reasons for that including that Public Safety and emergency
response, entities are not set up to be data Gathering
operations. Um,
That said we its we cannot improve what we cannot measure.
Um and so in each of our products, where we encounter these
data challenges, we try to identify them with respect to
Staffing, particularly again, I know we we've already
talked a little bit about this so I won't take up too much
of your time, but that is particularly an area where there
have been, tremendous challenges to transparency and data
access around Staffing. That's an oversight problem for us.
It's an operations problem for the Department. Um, and in
the report that a company is our new suite of staff.
Coughing dashboards. We we do go deeper into some of these
specific challenges including for example records that are
stored only on paper overtime records. That are stored in a
different system than regular work records um notations for
people who are injured on duty and on Furlow in a separate
place than their assignment records. There are, I think
many of those kinds of structural challenges, all of which
impede, transparency and and efficient operations, I
appreciate that. I think.
It would be challenging for anyone including the department
to try to figure out how to address that because you're
overhauling a whole system. But I think for us the more we
see it, the more we want to figure out how to get that
digitized and wherever possible things like that, so I
appreciate it. Um that leads, I got 2 more that leads into
like data protection in general. So especially given the
time we're talking now a new Administration and a sanctuary
City, there's concerns about data, that's identity data
going out, whether it's dfss CPD or even like vendors like
favorite, right? How do we assess that data is protected
and what accountability is there for? Like favorite, I
think
I don't think anyone in the city, including the council,
including is a fan of favorite at all.
And so trying to identify how we hold them accountable even
after with that information is important and so I just
didn't know how we even look at that. Or is there any
oversight there?
I think there are a lot of different ways to get at
Information Security 1 of those. I will note we have an
ongoing audit so this the work is ongoing and it will be
reported.
Soon, um, is, is an audit of the city's office of
information security. So the city does have an entity which
is devoted to information security. Now,
That is certainly an operation that that runs across City
departments, all the ones you mentioned and some others,
right? But but there is a centralized City entity devoted
to that function. We are in the midst of auditing, their
their work. And I think, um,
There's a lot of real life impact to how how competently we
handle information, security. And so we will, I look
forward to to discussing that audit with this committee. I
definitely look forward. We, we went through a whole budget
process and I don't think I ever heard anyone mention the
office of information security. So I think the more
information, no, pun intended, that we get the better. So
thank you for that. And the last question I have,
as, um, our colleagues were asking about the, um,
Not eligible for higher list. And so, this is separate from
that, I know we're coming up next but shakman came up and I
think some of our members need Clarity because that law
itself has changed. They're kind of like run its time in
certain bodies of government. So I don't know.
Where we're currently at related to shakman and I believe
our like, people are here in the first term but even know
less. Yeah. So if there's any Clarity there,
certainly, there's a great deal to talk about here, the the
Cliff Notes version, is that the shakman decree was a court
order? This was sort of Chicago's. First round with the
consent decree, the shakman decree was a federal court
order entered in the early 1970s with which subjected the
city of Chicago and other government bodies to rules around
employment actions. Um, it was it arose in a lawsuit filed
by Michael shackman, uh, alleging improprieties in
employment decisions, based on political affiliation.
And so, um, the city was was subject to this order from the
early 1970s until 2014 an extremely long lifetime for a
quart, a court-ordered consent degree. Um, at the end of
that time in 2014, the city was founded substantial
compliance and the remaining work of ensuring that the city
continues to follow the rules about keeping improper
political considerations out of City. Hiring came to rest
at oig.
so while the city is no longer subject, to the shackman to
create itself, the rules that evolved from that action live
live in the cities employment plans, um and those rules
Corps. The regular city jobs prohibit consideration of
improper political factors. There are also in city
government, what we all hear about uh shackman exempt
positions and I think that there is a lot of confusion
throughout City departments about what exactly that means.
Here's what it means. If a position, is shakman exempt, it
means that the regular prohibition on political
considerations in hiring, do not apply. And so if there's a
shakman exempt position, that means that political
considerations can be part of a hiring decision. Shakman
exempt positions, continue to be subject to all of the
city's other hiring rules, including those requiring
minimum, qualifications and job specifications, and the
ineligibility for rehire policy, Etc.
Good. Yeah I think I think it the kind of the question that
was being asked like if any of those folks are found
accountable at things, understanding the process and
I think I think our colleague for asking about Ward office
isn't specifically because that's just a whole different
great area for some members here that we need to be more
clear on. So thank you for that. That's all I have. Thank
you. Can I just clarify 1 answer quickly? I'm sorry to just
I want to go back to the contractor who in properly
collected, the fees and, and, uh, expand on my unsatisfying
answer about the result there. So, um, just to clarify the
Department of Law had all had has terminated the city's
contract with that contractor. We recommended that the
department of procurement Services initiate, debarment
proceedings, which they have done against both the
contractor as an entity. And the individual who was
responsible for most of the conduct at issue, um,
Department of Finance, uh,
Reported to us, that they have taken steps to limit system
access to sort of improved controls around that behavior.
Um, and Department of Finance withheld, subsequent payments
to the contractor in the amount of the improper payments to
which they were not entitled. So apologies for, for the,
the confusion there. But that's, that's where that all
ended. Thank you for all of that. It's good to know it. And
also the different departments, that kind of weigh in on,
on making sure that companies no longer something. We
consider I I think we have to think through that. And I
imagine it happens more often than not, so thank you, thank
you. Um, 2 final things for me, 1, just 1 to plus 1. A few
things that we've heard from colleagues around the ongoing
work of audits. And the intersection with our budget work,
I think opsa is a great example, where I know, we can't
direct what you look into. Uh, once you finalize your audit
plan, I think from our perspective, it would be very
helpful to have you provide your Department's Insight. In
terms of that uh important department. Um and if that work
and some other budgetary matters could be done before say a
budget address in particular that
Could be quite helpful. So want to um, emphasize that. And
then lastly we did receive um uh some written public
comments around. Uh, an investigation that occurred. I was
hoping you could speak at a high level to how um,
departmental collaboration, or lack thereof can impact, um,
the pace at which some of your investigations move forward.
Um, thank you, chairman. I I appreciate the opportunity to
address the this written comment. Um,
I can't speak to specific investigations conducted by oig
beyond what is reported in the fourth quarter. Um, but I
will say, I will say a number of things generally 1 is
that, um, no 1 is well served by investigations that take
too long. I I was a prosecutor before I did this work. I
know it to be true. That cases don't improve with age, um,
and we should be moving faster.
Um,
I will also say, again, without speaking to a specific
investigation, that there are practices of the city which
limit the effectiveness of oig Investigations and which
slowed us down, and I have a couple of things in particular
in mind.
Um,
the Department of Law is empowered to approve. Oig's
requests to enforce subpoenas in oig investigations that
permits, an opportunity for the Law Department to make a
decision about which investigations we can, we can enforce
subpoenas in, in which we can't, that is deeply
problematic.
um,
the city is in the historical practice of asserting,
attorney client privilege as a limitation on the duty to
cooperate with oig. That is to say, when we request
information from a city Department, there are regularly
assertions of privilege. Um,
and the city has taken the position that it can choose,
which information is subject to oversight by oig, and which
is not,
Finally, the third, the third concern that I have here as
it impacts the effectiveness and the timeliness of oig
Investigations.
Is that the law department is in the practice of uh
insisting that 1 of 1 of the Law Department. Attorneys 1 of
the mayor's lawyers, be present at oig investigative
interviews. This is profoundly contrary profoundly
threatening to oig's Independence and to the
confidentiality of oig Investigations and to their
effectiveness, I think there is there is no no way to
expect that people will be candid and forthcoming in an
oig. Investigative interview with the mayor's lawyers
sitting in the room. Um so that insistence on the presence
of of City Hall lawyers. In our interviews is really
problematic for our Effectiveness and our timeliness to be
clear, we do not permit that we do not conduct those
interviews. Under the circumstances, we do not permit law
Department attorneys, um, to, to Monitor and compromise our
investigative work. The bottom line is that compromises
both our Effectiveness and our timeliness.
ENT.
I'd kindly, I'd kindly ask that members of the public, keep
their voices down, so we can hear the questions and
answers. Thank you.
Thanks chairman. Um,
General. Westberg,
When did that attempt start?
To be present at interviews. Yes. Um, that dates back
sometime, um, and I will note and I I think I won't speak
for the law department, but I think that they would note
that historically in in previous administrations, oig,
allowed that oig.
Used to allow Law Department attorneys to be present at
investigative interviews. I view that as wholly
inappropriate and we have not allowed it during my tenure
as in. I agree.
Thank you. Thank you.
Uh, thank you chairman. I'm sorry. I I, I really you caught
caught me. So off guard with that, um, for a whole slew of
reasons. So,
I just want to make sure I I'm super clear though.
You do not allow Law Department attorneys to sit in any of
your, your interviews or investigations, correct, correct.
Interviewees are entitled to personal counsel. They are
entitled to be personally represented by a lawyer. The city
is not permitted to monitor our investigative work.
Understood and does.
The Law Department.
Currently, or routinely request of the office of the
Inspector General to sit in said interviews. Yes.
I I should say those are not framed as requests. Um, those
are presented as demands. Um we we do not conduct
interviews under those circumstances we, we will not
subject either Witnesses or subjects or complainants, you
know, IG interviews to to that. And and I, I wholeheartedly
agree with your decision to not comply with that. What I
think is also very interesting is and you probably know
better than I do Inspector General. But, um, we were just
touching on whether folks are shackman or shackman exempt.
shackman exempt. And if you're exempt, you serve at the
pleasure of, uh, for example, our aldermanic staff serves
at the pleasure of the Alderman and, um, I do believe a
large portion of the, the law department is exempt and
serves at the pleasure of the mayor. Is that correct? Yes,
thank you. That's all I have chairman. Thank you. Almond
Vasquez.
Uh, thank you. This is why I love these hearings. So, um,
I've asked this before, like, when the board board of
Ethics has come here about recommendations that you have
for us legislatively to make changes in municipal code in
ways that remove some of those hurdles and allow you to
operate. I think us knowing kind of where to start and
where our interests lie is is super helpful to be able to
move things through committee and through Council. So if
you could do the chair uh send that, you know, at a time to
make sense
Absolutely. I, I will take you up on that. I will say, I
think that there are 3 separate fairly discreet,
legislative changes, that could be made, that would address
these 3 problems. Those are in the language around the
enforcement of oig's subpoena Authority, that's in 1,
section of the municipal code. Um, it is in the language
around entitlement to Council in oig interview and it is in
the language around, um, the duty to cooperate, there are
good models for better legislative language on all of these
issues, including in the federal statutes, and in the model
legislation um from the National Association of inspectors
General. So absolutely, I will send through the chair some
suggested language. Yeah. I'd say even
There may be because the city government a laundry list of
those things and those are just the top 3, feel free to be
expansive and like, send thorough to, because there's
things that we might be able to change, so happy to get it
on our end. Thank you. Thank you. I will do that.
Thank you. General we? Yes ultimately please. Um, do we do
you document every time? A request like that or demand like
that is made.
Yes. Is that in the aggregate? Can you share some of that
data with us? As I'm I'd be interested to understand uh of
the number of cases that your investigating the percentage
of which the the city's demanding that their lawyers be
present.
Um, yes, I think that we could I think that we can put
together some fine. Yeah, we can, we can put together some
high level information on that. I will say that, um, 1 of
the concerns that this presents. And I think this is, I I
mentioned this because I think this is 1 of the questions
teed up in the written public comment, is that there's a
potential for sort of selective protection of certain
people on certain issues in city government. Um, privilege
is not a synonym privilege. Does not a synonym for
unflattering, um, to City Hall and where we have where the
Law Department. Asserts a, what I view it, a misunderstood
right to be present in interviews of some people, but not
others into some issues, but not others at some
departments, but not others that sets up the risk, that
Certain things and certain people are being protected from
oversight, that's not how we work. Um and so I just say
that to say some of the concern here has to do with the
number of cases in which this occurs and some of it has to
do with which cases what types of cases. Yeah. So,
I don't know how much of that level level of detail you can
share, obviously, we'd be interested in as much as
possible. Um but I agree with you wholeheartedly as well. I
I think it's it's absurd and really um, stunning that that
was even that, that's even a thing. So I appreciate that,
um, under your stewardship, that that hasn't been allowed
to happen. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you chair. Thank
you. Uh, we are now going to turn to, uh, the second and
final subject matter portion of this hearing which concerns
the department of human, resources policy regarding an
eligibility for a higher, um, would invite up. Uh,
commissioner Blakemore and anyone from your staff who you
would like to have present testimony,
And as we come up, I just want to share a few quick
remarks. Um, the commissioner is going to get into this
with more specificity, but if some of you may recall in the
late 2000s, the city created the ineligibility for rehire
list which was formalized. This unofficial City policy in
2011. Um, so about a decade and a half ago, that policy has
been clarified and expanded multiple times over the last 14
years. Most recently last year, under commissioner Blake
Moore's leadership. She will provide more specificity
around those changes, which include applying the policy to
city council staffers and formalizing when a former
employee can be given an ineligibility designation um that
said despite these uh improvements I think the work to make
city government more transparent and accountable never
Stops and over the past few years, several incidents have
demonstrated that in my opinion, there's still room for
improving this policy. So that we not only continue to root
out corruption but also ensure that the policy is not used
as a political weapon, um, in this meeting today. Uh, my My
Hope and expectation is that all of us can learn more about
the important work that the commissioner and her team have
already done as well as discuss additional ways that we can
protect city workers. Uh, so commissioner, uh, if you want
to introduce this person to my right and commence with your
with your presentation and then we'll get to questions.
Yes, thank you. Um, Alderman, Martin and thank you, uh,
Council for having me here this morning. I'm Sandra
commissioner of the Department of Human Resources. And with
me today is Ben Amino kapal Lupo managing Deputy of Labor
Relations and policy at the Department of Human Resources.
Uh today I'm going to take you through the ineligible for
rehire policy.
I want to first start with setting the stage of the history
of this policy. Um IFR, you'll hear that. Um, acronym
frequently, it's ineligible for rehire. The policies also
colloquially uh known as the do not hire list
Uh, the first written uh, policy occurred in 2011. There may
may have been lists before but um the first written policy
that we found for ineligible for rehire was in 2011.
In 2019. An update was made to the policy under the then
DHR commissioner Sue choy.
Um, March of 2024, um, I was appointed as the commissioner
for the Department of Human Resources and in May of 2024, I
made under my leadership clarifications to the ineligible
for rehire policy.
And I want to step back for a minute and discuss the role
of DHR versus the role of the operating.
Department.
Dhr's role is to create and drive employment policies. We
are the leaders in the Personnel of rules policy update,
the hiring plan policy update, that falls under the
jurisdiction of DHR,
Operating Department Commissioners are the Authority for
discipline for their Department employees.
The DHHR commissioner does not have the authority to
overrule a department commissioner's disciplinary
decisions.
with respect to the ineligible for rehire Policy Department
Commissioners or their designates, a former employee
ineligible for rehire during the termination process.
DHR manages the information system to house. Uh the
department memos and the ineligible for rehire flag. That
is on the former employees record.
Uh, the DHHR Commissioners world is to manage the appeals
process.
in 2024, when I came into the role as the commissioner, uh,
1 of the first things that I did was to start to unpeel and
understand this, uh, policy
And I really, um, wanted to add Clarity, uh, to this policy
because again, um, I was an operating Department
commissioner for several years. So now that I came over to
the DHHR side, I saw an opportunity to clarify and make
these policies. Um, you know, simple and clear for all
users.
First. They're, um, when employees are separated, from the
city, they're 4, uh, buckets in which they can receive the
ineligible for rehire, designation. The first is a
termination for violation of the city's Personnel rules
Andor the, uh, Chicago Police Department's rules and
regulations, or any other department rules that govern
conduct,
if an employee resigns or retires in lieu of termination,
Resignation or retirement under inquiry. And then
investigation comes back and substantiates serious,
misconduct that will lead to an IFR. Designation.
What we uh, clarified in the 2024 policy was this
bucket of its discovered that a former employee had engaged
in serious misconduct while still employed with the city.
another area in which we um really wanted to add Clarity
um, to the ineligible for rehire policy was
The department, the operating department head must submit a
memo detailing. The Personnel rule violation or CPD rule.
Violation leading to the IFR. Designation
Before these changes I made to the policy there was no memo
required.
I specifically wanted to add in a memo. So there would be a
clear document detailing why this former employee was being
placed on the IFR list,
That way, there could be, we wanted to prevent any
capricious use of this list.
The additional, um, uh, Clarity that we put into the policy
was required, uh, substantiating documents to be included.
And this would be, um, such as, but not limited to
investigation reports from eeo, or the oig violence in the
workplace, reports, and Progressive discipline records,
therefore, between having the memo and supporting
documents. It should be clear. Why the employee former
employee was placed on the IFR list?
Additional policy clarifications in 2024 for the appeals
process, the request can be made in writing, with
supporting documentation,
and um,
The new, uh, change we made would be, uh, appeals cannot be
made, uh, earlier than 1 year after the designation was
placed.
This was put in because the former employee needs time to
show how they have corrected, the situation that led to
them being terminated and put on the IFR list. You need
time to show a change.
However, if a former employee feels that they were um
incorrectly put onto this list, they can appeal at any
time.
And a request for removal will be considered uh, once every
2 years.
Timing of the process. The knot notification goes out to
the former employee within 24 hours, uh, via US mail.
For the uh, appeal review, I can't speak to what happened
before. I got into the seat, but for the appeals that came
to me in 2024, my average response time was 2 weeks.
I take this very seriously this accountability because it
involves uh, people's lives and I want to give them. Um, an
answer I want to be quick, but there are times in which,
you know, I also need to be thorough and get a different
additional information to make a decision.
So really depends on the complexity and any um, you know,
litigation that may be involved in the case.
For 2025, we're going to continue to look at um, polishing.
um the policy and we have a working group in place. Now we
are working with the inspector General's, team Department
of Law and DHR. Um so that we can uh we want to close any
want to close any, uh, loopholes and make any additional
clarifications, uh, to make this policy, um, a strong
policy for, um, employees and department heads in the city
and we're looking at q1, um, timing.
Um, that's um, that concludes my presentation. Thank you
chairman, thank you. Um, we're going to hear now briefly
from uh General witzburg, and then we'll open it up for
questions.
I'll be uh on characteristically brief here, just to say
that. Um I uh the office of Inspector General interacts
with the ineligible for rehire policy, mostly in 2 ways. 1
is in our capacity of overseeing City programs, including
the city's, Human Resources programs. The other is that set
of circumstances in which subjects of oig Investigations
appear on the ineligible for rehire list. Um, as you all
see, in our quarterly reports, we make recommendations that
that departments refer employees.
For placement on the IFR list under 2 circumference.
A city employee whose termination. We recommend as a result
of their misconduct and then we recommend that when they
are terminated they are referred for placement on the list.
The other is a situation in which we are investigating
conduct of a. Now, former city employee that is to say,
we're investigating misconduct that occurred while someone
was a city employee but they are no longer and historical
practices around. This have have changed somewhat at oig
over time. It is. It is our usual practice. Now if we if we
we are conducting an investigation and the subject of that
investigation leaves City employment, we often will
continue that investigation to findings. Um, and upon
finding in that fourth category that someone committed
serious misconduct while still a city employee. We will
refer that person for placement on the ineligible for
rehire list. That is in my view, a better practice than 1
where we stopped investigating. When somebody leaves City
employment in the hopes of picking it back up again when
they try to get rehired. I think if we can sort of
Come to findings and and establish that.
That outcome. Um,
Preemptively before someone goes through the city's rehire
process. That's a that's a better way to do it. So just to
say those are kind of the 2 perspectives from which we
interact with this policy. I'd certainly be happy to answer
questions about our our role here. Thank you, General. Uh
we're going to start with Alderman waguespack followed by
Alder Manhattan. Then nent.
Thanks chairman and, uh, feel free to jump in if you hear
something, because I know we've been kind of working on
this together. Um, thank you both for being here, all 3 of
you. Um, this obviously is a a very serious, um, concern
for a lot of people in the city. Uh, as you know, we had
some pretty serious issues take place just a few months
ago, with some of our employees who were terminated. Um, I
think, you know illegitimately, um, and they had a very
difficult time, um, trying to get back on the city payroll.
Um, I think the process that took place was just uh, pretty
abhorrent in the way that um, things were presented to them
and and how they were released from the city or or forced
out. Um,
So I, you know, I've had a laundry list of questions about
how this process has worked and some of the changes that
were taking place. So, um, if I could start out with, uh,
the clarifications that you made, um,
With the, uh, I believe it was.
May 2024 clarifications to policy and the first question,
you know, and I went through and and looked at both of the
documents side by side um 1 of the biggest concerns I had
was the timeline and maybe you could explain the timeline
again, you said that you changed it uh to allow people to
um make sure that uh they could
have time to, um,
Show how things could be corrected. Um so first question
is, why is it uh 1 year and then for the 2 years appeal,
why is it 2 year only 2 times and 2 years or every other 2
years?
um I'll start with the um second question, the 2 year um
appeal period that was um, Legacy from the 2019 policy so
that has not been um touched yet in terms of the 1 year,
um,
You know, you need time to show that you have corrected. A
situation that got you terminated and put on the list, you
may have needed uh additional training. You know, if you um
um, you know, your skills in accounting were deficient and
you were terminated you might need additional training.
Some, people need to have a substance abuse, uh, counseling
and treatment. Um, so
You know, you know, a 1 year could be a minimum time period
to uh, demonstrate, uh, changed Behavior.
um,
But a large part of this revolves around, I think political
issues. You know, we talked a little bit earlier in this
uh, briefing about shackman. Um, and I think the ones that
we were seeing and I I think that's you know, the case with
several of the employees out of the mayor's office has been
rectified. But 1 of the things that came out was that um,
um, and very questionable was the approach that the, uh,
chief of staff took and the head of the, uh, PR department
or press department and that was, um, to make false
accusations against people. If somebody's been falsely,
accused of something, how can they, uh, Rectify that
situation in a year? And then if they can only appeal, uh,
every couple, what relief does that really give them if
they're if their reputation has been damaged,
In that situation. Well, I legally can't speak on specific
cases on any employment cases. I legally can't. But as I
said in the policy if you feel like you were wrongly placed
on the list you are welcome to file, your appeal
immediately
Okay. Um,
so,
When um, when the appeals went, what there wasn't an appeal
at this time, but when you see, you're, you're the HR
Director and you make recommendations.
Do you make recommendations to the Personnel handbook?
How we how we approach things for instance?
Um, with the HR Director uh make recommendations about eeo
policies and sexual harassment policies for the city.
As the commissioner of the department, um, the Personnel
rules are under the Department of Human Resources. The
hiring plan is under eeo offices, under the Department of
Human Resources.
So we have, do we have pretty? Do you think we have pretty
strong sexual, harassment policies, eeo policies that need
that are kind of working for us right now?
Um, the biggest change I made in coming into the seat, was
require all 32,000 employees to have eeo training. That was
not a requirement in the city until I got into the seat
because I think people first need to understand and
everybody needs to know this policy, particularly
supervisors, we have a training for all staff and then we
have a secondary training for supervisors because as a
supervisor of people, you need to understand that you have
a duty.
To report any harassment as well. And I want that the
Cascade down from Commissioners onto, um, all employees at
the city of Chicago.
So, um, in 1 of the cases that we saw, we, we had, uh,
supervising staff implementing a peace Circle.
and,
I don't think that's a legitimate way to go about things.
When you have uh your accuser and you are being put in
front of your accuser, whether it's for sexual harassment
violence in the workplace.
What do you as the DHHR? Or
Department of Human Resources. Do to say this is this
doesn't fall in my handbook. It doesn't fall under any of
our policies as a legitimate way to rectify a situation.
What steps do you take to tell supervising authorities that
this is not the appropriate pathway?
Um, for eeo investigations. Um, DHR provides a
recommendation to department heads on discipline.
And we also require department heads to report back on um,
the timing of completion of this discipline.
But department heads are not required to follow dhr's,
recommendation.
so,
If they're not required to file a recommendation, does that
mean they're not required to follow?
The guidelines, the rules, the Personnel handbook.
If you're recommending something that's in that book in our
code, the option of um, increasing the discipline, they
have the option of lessening the discipline. And I think
you have to step back and remember that 90% of the
the city of Chicago um, are covered under, um, their
represented. Yeah. And um Progressive discipline is a very
represented by um a union. Yes and Progressive there
there's a clear Cadence to Union discipline as well as
career service that has to be followed.
Can I just interrupt? Um,
I think that.
The do not hire a list is a very complicated issue. And
while for purposes of this conversation, I definitely don't
want to um, in my role as chair, shut down lines of
question that are related to that. I would just ask
colleagues. To be mindful of, have asked the commissioner
to present specifically, on do not hire issues. And for
some of these issues that are adjacent happy to entertain
some line of questioning, what would like us to keep it as
tight to the do not hire list.
As possible. And for other issues, especially, if it falls,
within the jurisdiction of the committee, happy to talk
about subsequent, um, hearings to talk about some of these
ancillary issues, which are to be clear very important. But
I, I do want to keep us as close to the do not hire list as
possible. Sure. Um, so
Um in just a couple other questions. Then in the work group
that you're putting together now with um, Department of Law
oig DHR. Um,
what are you looking for to change within that work group?
Um we the work group has started. Um so it's in place now
and um you know we're looking to see if we you know airport
areas that need to be clarified. I I can't speak on it now
because it's work in progress. Okay, would you present this
to the city council when you're completed uh, the working
group and the clarifications that you need? Sure. I think
it's important because um a lot of us, you know, have gone
through. We get calls from people who are put on the IFR
and, um, you know, it would be I think important for us to
understand Point by Point, uh,
what we need, how we need to respond to people and what the
legitimate concerns are, you know, or not coming from
people and how we address that, um, another question and
this can be addressed by the Inspector General too. But um,
when we have people put on this list and then we see them
pop up at a sister agency.
Uh what is your response to that? And is that something
that would come up in those clarifications? Um and I
understand that we have to have mou with sister agencies
but if we keep seeing this over and over again what is
preventing us from putting an end to that practice and how
how could we go about that?
well, first I can start out by um, you know, talking about
how the city shares information with sister agencies, um,
it's a variety of methods from live feeds of the city of
Chicago's, ineligible to rehire list to. Um, it may be, um,
more discussions with third-party background checks.
But, um, the challenge is, is that the sister agencies are
separate legal entities, they're, um, ineligible for rehire
policies, uh, differ, and there's no centralized
information system across the city of Chicago. So, those
some of the challenges. But, you know, in terms of, um, the
screening of employees or candidates at the city of
Chicago. Um, once an employee once a candidate has, um, a
conditional offer.
Of employment. Um, they are screened. Uh, we received the
social security number, they're screened against the city
of Chicago's do not Harry list and background checks are
done on criminal convictions, uh, up to the recent 5 years.
I'm sorry to interrupt, can I ask 1 clarifying? Question,
they so uh, they are screened for do not hire list
placement. Once, was it, a, what was the term you said
additional? Um, additional, so that's when we get possible
or preferable to
if not require at least instruct departments to review,
this do not hire list feed earlier in the process because I
would be concerned about someone going through. What? At
times can be a lengthy process. Other potentially viable,
candidates looking for employment elsewhere. Then it sounds
like potentially late in the stage. The hiring Department
determines that someone is on that list. How do we have
that consideration happen? Earlier? We can look into it,
was driven by like when we received the social security
number because the we have to have the social security
number because there could be um 2 or 3 Sandra Blake Morris
out there and 1 of them is on the do not hire list and we
want to make sure that we have the right uh, Sandra
Blakemore.
Go ahead. Sorry. Thank you.
Oh no, I think that's good. I I um if the Inspector General
wanted to jump into, I just um obviously this issue has
been cropping up over the last several years. Um we've
brought it up, you know, with different administrations. Um
I just feel, it's been.
Uh, used as retaliation for some people in an unfair and,
uh, impractical way. So I'm really hoping that the
clarifications that the 3 uh entities make you know brings
about some reforms to this uh do not hire list or
ineligible for higher and um you know I don't know if you
wanted to weigh into but it's uh it's just something when
we see employees in the city who are abused by it and we
don't have when we don't have strong policies and look we
we made significant changes to the sexual harassment
policies in the city and eeo policies just a few years ago
and to see those ignored, um, and abused on the fifth floor
is very disturbing and I just want to make sure that if
we're if we're rewriting this stuff, if we're strengthening
this this um not an ordinance but a policy then those
people that are abusing it against other city employees.
Unfairly are held accountable too. And so far in some cases,
we have not seen that. So
that's where that's where my concern is. As a, you know,
with constituents who are affected by it and that Citywide
I I will just weigh in very briefly if that's okay, I
appreciate the question. Um as the commissioner mentioned,
we are part of this working group to to identify
improvements in the policy and I I look forward to that
work continuing. I will say um, without sort of front
running the results of that it it looks to me. You all hear
hear me talk all the time. About the fact that um, we have
given Chicagoans every reason to assume the worst When
government processes happen behind closed doors and in dark
Corners government. Processes work better in the light of
day, and I think that there are real opportunities to
improve transparency around the ineligibility for rehire
list, um, which would in themselves be an improvement
because it would allow more visibility and I think that
things work better when people can see them. Um, the um,
information about the the residents of the IFR list are,
are are Foy, that's public records. So, the city responds
to foyer requests for that information. Those are public
records, they could be made more.
Readily available than only through Foya lists. I think
that's 1 of the kind of improving operational transparency
is 1 of the things that that we will discuss in this
working group. Um, again, you've heard me say this many
times, I think there is an important difference between
information. Being theoretically publicly available and
meaningfully publicly accessible 1 of the things. I think
we could do to make this work better for everyone involved
would be to make the information about the IFR list. More
meaningfully publicly accessible.
Thank you, uh, alderwoman Haden followed by alderwoman
Egypt.
Oh and 1. I recognize Alderman vagus. Uh non-member. Would
you like to be added to the queue? Got it?
Are you sure?
Are you sure you want to be on our list? Come on.
There's on that list. Um, thank you, chair.
um,
Thank you. Um alter newent for getting my lame jokes. Thank
you. Um
I've got a couple questions. Um I feel like we we've had
good discussion and around the position of the employee or
the candidate. Um, I'm curious, I know you mentioned
training that we go through as supervisors. Um, I know we
have like Wright State mandated training, the e-learning
portal um is everyone completed their security training?
January 31st is your deadline it's in 19 Parts by the way.
So if you think it's just 1 course you're not allowed
enough time. Um so we all get these mandatory trainings,
right? That we take and supervise
Advisors have additional steps. So, um, I know we have that
check
how, how does, um,
if I decided to fire to terminate an employee, and I
thought that they should go on the IFR list. What are the
guidelines or reasons that I am allowed to request that?
Like, as a supervisor
Or department head, right? As a department head, um, you
would write a memo detailing, the Personnel rule violation.
And you need to attach the substantiating. Um,
documentation, for example, you want to, um, terminate, um,
John Smith because he is chronically, um, absent. Then you
would need to, um, attach the cater records so that we had
proof that he was, um, chronically absent. It's not just
you writing a sentence, you have to attach the proof. Know,
that's for termination. Now, if I just said, and I want him
on the ineligible for rehire list is chronic tardiness. Uh,
a qualifying reason to be put on the ineligible for rehire
list.
It's a violation of the Personnel rule in any violation of
the city's Personnel rules, can lead to being on the, um,
IFR list, okay? So right now, if there was any violation of
the Personnel rules, then I as a department head could say,
uh, not only am I terminating this person, but I want them
on the ineligible for rehire list. And I think you just
have to also understand that
Termination process is lengthy. It's not like, oh, John
Smith came in late, 1 day, and then is terminated we go
through a lengthy Union, U Progressive, discipline,
termination process. That is for bargain, for employees,
and that's 90% of the city, but under aldermanic offices
the mayor's office, these are there. It's different, right?
right? Shakman exempt is uh, a different, a smaller
different, uh, population where you for me. I'm shakman
exempt, I serve at the will. I could be dismissed, right?
Um, so and so under those conditions and I think this is
important for um, I'm thinking right now, I'm missing uh
law 103 with the the great series of um informational kind
of studies that um chairperson dowel, the finance committee
and the Law Department have been putting together to really
help us in in the topic for today, is really on, like what
we're doing and how we can be better about assessing our
risk.
Okay, so I'm approaching this from a hey what should we not
do? Right. So as a department head with shakman exempt
employees, right? Um, I'm an older person.
Older people mayor um and people who are working in
supervisory roles like in our offices. Um I'm I'm pretty
familiar with our Personnel guidelines and and I think have
a pretty
Standard, uh, standardized process that follows the rules.
That's not the case and in every office. And, you know,
again, I know um, Alderman wag brought it up, you know, I
expressed some concerns about some of the terminations that
came out of the mayor's office right last year as well. Um,
I don't think they necessarily crossed over with the IFR
but
when we don't have the same guidelines and we don't have
the same rules, we might have questions about how people
were treated and when I think about um, how can we stay
within the bounds of our rules and our regulations and our
guidelines and wondering if there might be outside of our
Personnel guidelines. More guidance. Um, from the
Department, I think would be helpful, um, for those of us
in these unique positions, right? So for older people,
maybe our Chiefs of Staff, maybe the mayor's office and
people within the mayor's office could use some additional
guidance as well to just say, hey, we've looked at this and
based on what you're seeing right through your department,
from the request, you might be able to help. Give us a bit
like more kind of reflection and guidance, um, to make sure
that we're not creating a problem, um, for that employee.
Certainly but also
Not for the city right like that. We're not terminating
somebody or putting somebody on the ineligible for rehire
list that maybe doesn't really need to go on the ineligible
for rehire list, right? And just to clarify, this memo is
required for all terminations not just Union or career
service. If you're shakman, if you're terminating a shakman
exempt employee, you need to provide the memo so we can see
what personnel rule violation was, um, broken and got the
person onto the IFR list. It's not just like you, you just
can't terminate you need to have, uh, a justification as
well, 1 Clarion.
What do you view your role and understand that this policy
is relatively new? Um, this addition in terms of
documentation, what do you view your, your your role to be
in terms of uh differentiating between merely receiving
this documentation and reviewing it to ensure that it is
adequate especially if someone were to subsequent to your
review uh appeal, their designation.
Right. We, um, you know, we rolled out this policy um, in
may we rolled it out to the uh, head of HR and all of the
Departments. I personally did a training with the public
safety departments because they had the most IFRS
and I was saying memos that didn't come in, correct, I made
them correct the memos because I wanted to make sure that
everything was being followed and the new clarifications,
I think, uh, along the lines of Alder woman's had an Point
through the broader work of the working group, I think if
there are, and I know this is tricky, uh, illustrations
that you can provide that are sufficiently hypothetical to
not tie, your hands unnecessarily that we should keep in
mind. I think would be very helpful and then ensures that
we are doing the work proactively, we can ask questions. I
think it also serves as a risk mitigation tool to avoid
lawsuits including costly lawsuits as well as, uh,
undermining as Alderman waguespack among others said, um,
The public's trust in senior positions and government.
Um, and we actually, um, we have, uh, a draft of a training
that we were going to put into e-learning. We're just
holding it now that we're making these clarifications. But
then we wanted to have, um, examples. Um,
So that it could help, um, reinforce the training and, you
know, the in the e-learning can be rolled out to um, all um
city employees as well. And be another uh, training that
everybody uh, has a good foundation on.
Fantastic. Um,
Thank you for that. And then I'm wondering if you're able
um, through the chair to um give us a report. Maybe on
I'd be curious to know the reasons.
Like the general reasons for um not terminations that would
probably be a lot but maybe for reasons stated um for
placements on the IFR list through last year. Um so
not tied to the specific people, but in the form of a
report, like I'd be curious to know like how many how many
requests were made to put somebody on IFR because of um
frequent tardiness or how many for this reason based on how
they line up with the Personnel guide?
Okay, I'll get that to do this here for you. Thank you. And
I, if there are any members today or subsequently who want,
um, some more points in terms of that through the Cher
request, I can imagine a lot of different permutations, so
just let me know and we'll pass that along to the
commissioner. Thank you, alderwoman, uh, nin followed by
Alderman Vasquez,
Perfect. Thank you. Thank you chairman. Um, I really
appreciate this hearing today. So thank you for for doing
this. I think it's really important and I've, I've learned
a lot and I want to thank the commissioner for, um,
updating the policy and
I think that's critical and I was actually very happy to
hear the part, um, along with, uh, commissioner woodsburgh
About even if an investigation has begun on employee who,
who leaves that we continue that. So if there was
misconduct found that they can't come back, I think that's
important and I think that's a good thing. So thanks to
both of you for for doing that. I just I have several
questions because I want to be able to wrap my my head
around some of this.
If I'm understanding it correctly, it sounds like if if you
are terminated in being put on the IFR list, you do not
hear about it. When you're terminated, you send it by mail,
24 hours later is that
Do you don't find out during your termination? Um, you
know, that would be with the Department's, HR would let
them know, but we we want to, you have an official
document. So the official document is sent through US mail
Okay. So, but on the slide, it says that, can we go back up
to that slide for a moment, right? I mean, it's
notification of the official document is within 24 hours,
but is it your understanding you would know, um, during
your termination here? How are you? Yes, they do. Tell you.
Okay, yes, we just wanted to say here's your document for
your records. Okay. Okay. Thank you. That makes that's that
clarifies. I
I understood the part about not allowing someone to appeal
an IFR decision for a year if they're trying to work
through perhaps substance abuse training. But if you feel
that you are put on the IFR list for something, so
egregious or offensive talk me through the part where it
says you have discretion, because,
I like you, like I've worked with you and I like you, but
you are also a shakman exempt employee. Who serves at the
pleasure of the mayor
How do we determine that somebody who potentially ends up
on this list for egregious or offensive reasons is not held
in this awful Purgatory position for 1 year which
quite frankly for someone who loves working in government,
this is the most damaging thing that could happen to them
professionally. So can you kind of talk me through this a
little bit, like what that discretion looks like? How you
use it? How we prevent abuse.
If someone feels that um, he or she, you know, if they've
been wrongly, put on the list, they can reach out with an
appeals letter.
At any point, right? I think that's an important
distinction at any point and it might not capture
everything that you're talking about alderwoman, but if you
feel that you've been put on erroneously, you can appeal at
any point after receiving that notification, which is
different from someone who said, okay, I recognize I was
put on that list hypothetically speaking for drunkenness at
work after a year and I can demonstrate that I've you know,
received treatment.
And and done other things, demonstrated sobriety and and
subsequent workplaces. That would be a situation uh where
after a year you can appeal your placement, is there, maybe
a gray area that you're getting at between those 2. Um, but
I believe as written, you do have the discretion to not
hear that appeal. If I believe I was
Put on that list for offensive ages.
Political reasons.
You have the discretion solely correct. But you know you
can I mean, I would review it because I'm not trying to
keep anybody in purgatory. And I think some of you have
reached out to me with different, uh, cases where people
were in purgatory and I worked to get them off of
purgatory. I'm we're just, I'm just trying to prevent a
revolving door of you're fired on Wednesday and you come
back on Thursday. We have a very small DHR staff and I
think that's what people forget. I have a 122 staff, half
our recruiters have very few administrative staff, um, to
do everything. So, you know, again, I'm trying to prevent a
revolving door. I'm giving people a year to show that
they've gone through a training or a substance abuse, but
if you feel like okay, the wrong Sandra Blakemore was
placed on the list. It was a different Sandra, Blake Moore
then come forward. I'm not trying to, uh, keep somebody in
purgatory. Okay, no. And, and I
I appreciate that. I think.
I'll speak for me. I think what we're really looking at
here today, is the shakman exempt, employees, who we feel
may have been, um, the victim of something more political,
I think. Now, if there's Union employees that have these
issues that, you know, we would always want to work with
them too, but they're, they have some mechanism. So I think
what we're really talking about today shakman exempt does
um,
I want to make sure I understand this. So, prior to May of
2024
Did if a department head of any of the various City,
departments wanted to put an employee on the IFR list. They
did not need to provide any form of documentation to you
is. Did that was there anything required in the
The policy pre yours in 20 a memo wasn't required. Um, I
think they would just have the termination uh, paperwork.
But again, you know, when I since it's been under my, um,
you know leadership, I require the memo because I wanted
everything and 1 document that way when I you're reviewing,
reviewing, uh, appeals, everything is there, before I would
have to dig through the entire case File, to understand to
see, okay? This person did X Y and Z on these dates. That's
why they were terminated and put on the list, but I felt
that, um, departments had the responsibility to write a
memo detailing. The exact Personnel rule violation
Um and then attaching the um, substantiating documents. I I
think it's great, um just we're a huge City. I'm I'm just
kind of curious like how many terminations each year. Just
ballpark have an IFR attached to it. Sure. Um I can give
you some numbers now we have um 1,377 people on the IFR
list.
And to put this in Greater context, we have 32,000 city
employees. So we are talking about a small population of
employees because, um, you know, people have been on the
list for, you know, over 10 years now. Yep. Um, in 2024 we
had 120 um I have people uh put onto the IFR list.
No, that's very helpful. Say that 1 number 1 more time in
2024, how many were placed 120? Thank you. And when you
look back over the past 6 years, it averages about 145
people put onto the IFR list. Um, do you have a, a point of
clarification point of information. So, up to 32,000, how
many are exempt versus, uh, collective bargaining.
Uh, Union employees are 90%.
Roughly 30, 30,000.
So of the 2000.
That are there. How much are those RFI or make up to 100?
Um, I don't have it split up by, um, shakman versus career
versus Union. Could you provide that through? Thank you,
Mr. Chairman, I just just um, I'd be interested in that as
well. The the other thing I just wanted to ask so under the
current policy, it sounds like there's great leeway for the
head of HR of all the various departments or at least
they're in charge of the implementation of HR rules. And
that specific Department do, those do they have to have
written codified policy in each of
Those departments on what would put somebody on IFR?
No, All City departments, follow the city of Chicago's
Personnel rules. The department head is um the leader of
discipline in each department.
Okay, so if you were to put somebody on the list, it has to
based on what you are saying, in the 2024 policy, you have
to go through Personnel, roles that can be subjective.
It has to be a violation of 1 of the city of Chicago's
Personnel rules.
okay, it can't be, you know um,
You know, I'm not, I don't like Sandra Blake Moore because
she's a socks fan. Uh, it has to be. I know. That's me too.
So it has to be, you know, Sandra Blake Moore. Um was you
know, did discredits treatment at this event. Blah blah
blah. She was chronically late for 6 months, okay? I I I
appreciate that very much. Um,
Thank you, thanks for your responses. Thank you. Uh, before
we go to Alderman Vasquez, followed by Alderman, vagus, um,
Maybe we'll start as a recommendation of what the working
group considers and we'll see what happens in terms of the
substance. Before I make a formal through the chair
request, as a number of people have mentioned, I'm deeply
troubled by the fact that, as alderwoman, nin correctly,
noted, we're increasingly focused on people that that 10%
of the workforce. That's Jackman exams, not represented by
unions.
At a high level from a system design standpoint. I'd be
very concerned that his alterable Manhattan mentioned in
theory, each of our fee, 50 different aldermanic offices,
can have no formal policies that are written about
guidelines or can have 50 different policies. Uh and then
presumably you could add the mayor's office as a 51st. Um,
understanding that in terms of the total number of city
employees that fall within our aldermanic offices and the
mayor's office is not a huge number it. Nevertheless is
troubling and I think begs the question. Are there other
peer cities that have um,
HR related policies that span the entirety of Tsai city
council. Um, I can imagine scenarios where they do where
they don't, maybe we don't want to replicate that, but I, I
would strongly urge you and, and general, witzburg and
others to give thought to, um,
what we should be doing in these instances because looking
back to pre 20 pre 2024, there are just lots of instances
where intentionally or otherwise um, things could not work
well. And I I think that formal recommendations guidance,
that provides at least a floor a baseline for what these
policies look like that. Could potentially serve as a
jumping off point for placement on do not hire list is, is
quite critical. So not through the chair Quest right now
but know that I may put that out there depending on what
you do or don't come back with. Um oh can I do a point just
to clarify, you know,
Every Department, um, you know, office should be following
the city of Chicago's Personnel rules.
Um, we just, you know, you have there's no other rules to
follow or you shouldn't be following any rules that you
make up for your office, or, you know, my department, we
all follow this. We should be all following the city of
Chicago Personnel rules, and we will be, um, also
partnering with, uh, law. And then Inspector General to do
an update of the city of Chicago Personnel rules this year.
Uh, as you all know, I have in my budget um to get a deputy
of policy that we did not have in DHR, so that job has been
posted. So, um, this is a focus for DHR for this year.
Thank you, Alderman. Basquez thank you chairman. Um, I'm
I'll ask first before, I are there any members of the city
council that are part of the working group,
Uh, I mean no members of city council are in the working
group. It's IG, DHR and Department of Law. So I might
recommend and not to give Matt more work. Uh but some
member of council to actually have Insight in there because
there might be legislative changes that need to happen. Um,
There are members that are just going to be concerned about
conflict, when you're talking, the executive branch against
versus the legislative not to put it in a versus fashion.
But
In the situation that kind of led to some of this
conversation. We're talking about a department where we
can't identify Who the head is because if it's from the
mayor's office, it's the chief of staff. We don't know what
accountability looks like in that regard and so I think it
is important to have Council be a part of those
conversations to figure out what accountability should look
like.
You have a, a point of information. Go ahead.
Um, I'm wondering from my colleague. Um,
And they're working group is set. And I, I think you would
already mentioned, this was in response to Alderman wages,
facts question. Um, that you would bring the findings,
right? Or kind of decisions from the working group, um,
maybe is a friendly Amendment kind of idea there, maybe you
don't need a council member on your working group.
but perhaps, if there's part of your process where before
things are finalized, maybe, um, if you're going to
different departments to get kind of input or feedback,
maybe the suggestion could be coming to.
It could be through this committee even um, to a sampling
of older people, as we are our own department. Heads to get
some input before you finalize. Um, what you're doing?
Yes, I'm I'm open I mean not the way you're negotiating
here but some process where you're getting city council
like feedback.
Before it's a done deal. Because what we've kind of seen
through a variety of lenses, here is when things are baked
without talking to the council, you're then just going to
have a whole bunch of questions and really critique of
anything that comes out of it. And so it might help
everybody to just have that part be a component for that
reason. So thank you for that. Um,
For the due, the chair add-ons. Um I'd like a racial gender
uh and other breakdowns related to who was placed on this
list by year or by term.
Uh as a comparison. So we talked about how we're hiring and
are we hiring certain folks? Right are we hiring from
different underserved communities. I'd like to know what
that looks like as far as who's getting placed on the
ineligible for rehire list.
Right? Because there may be concerns if we're not even
tracking that. So I'd request that due to the chair. Um,
so, I think
I'm, I might Bounce Around different place because answers
were spurring questions. So, um, I, I
I would recommend kind of to what. Uh, the chairman was
mentioning is some level of standardization across
departments because
When you talk about like people who should be following,
the rules should is doing a whole lot of lifting and the
government at that point, without the expectation that
people are going to do and that's what accountability is
for. So understanding like I worked in management, I worked
on both sides. I've been Union staff, non-union, staff and
management over Union, right? And the level of
documentation, I would need to provide to go from even a
write up right to have. We have 2 conversations verbally.
Here's here. Now we're going to email now. We're going to
have to document it. Now, we have a second documentation,
trying to help you correct the behavior in all of that and
and then we get to the point where, you know, it could lead
to termination right left final warning and then finally
doing it. I am confident, there's not that level of
documentation related to the majority of departments when
later on. You get to the point where somebody's placed on a
List like this. So I get that we should. And the department
should figure out some level of policy. But there needs to
be some standardization on documentation. And I'm wondering
your thoughts on that? Well, no. The the progressive
discipline process is very lengthy and it is well
documented.
So um, there there, I mean, there's a lot of documentation
and involved in this process, it can't be done. Just
And it's consistent from Department to Department
Progressive discipline. So, in, in again, in the example
that
Spurred this conversation. It does not appear that. That's
what occurred when the documentation was provided. For
example, it was like, yeah, we talked about it. It was no
detail on what the conversation was about. No level of
action, items know next steps. So,
Again, should is different from what you're actually
seeing. So, to your point,
If you're also looking at it, quantitatively and saying we
have documentation with this is insufficient.
We're exposing ourselves to liability.
and so, I just
I I these are questions I would have when the working
groups get developed on how to flesh that out. It's why
during budget a nice amount of the council was saying, you
need to get your own attorney because you could definitely
see how this plays out if you don't have the documentation
on the front end, right? Right. And again, I just want
everyone to be clear that for any type of discipline, at
city of Chicago. It's a lengthy process. It's documented
uh, step by step. Uh, so it, you know, for Union and
career.
Service employees and for the, um, IFR list. That's why I
put in requiring the memo. So it would be consistent across
all departments and offices so that you have to write what
the Personnel violation was and attach documentation.
What is the accountability look like?
And I'll use hypotheticals.
Where a supervisor is abusing, who they put on that list,
you find out later, there was some level of abuse.
Do you retroactively look at every single person that then
was put on an eligible for Higher by that person? How are
they held accountable? How is their supervisor held
accountable to making sure they're doing it?
Correctly and it doesn't occur.
Again, that's why, you know, I put in the memo to prevent
any type of capricious behavior and weaponization of the
list you have to have a documentation of what personnel
rule violation was broken. And what is the, um,
documentation to support that a memo write up. But the
challenge there is if if the definition is somewhat
amorphous, if it's broad, you could come up with whatever
you're writing and submit it in and say, hey I I checked
the boxes but again in the scenario where someone is found
to have abused it a boss says, hey,
This deploy didn't want to go on a date, you're gonna do not
not fire. We're getting rid of you. I'm not writing that on
a memo. I'm finding another reason to say that's the case,
but once the oig finds out that, hey, they actually did
misuse it.
What's the recourse and going? We need to go back and every
single person this person put on it eligible for hire
because they may have similarly abused it. What's the
process for any of that? I mean I would really defer to
Corporation Counsel on how that situation would um, be
handled from a legal and risk management. Yeah, I would
love to do the chair through whoever and shackman exempt as
a whole, another scenario, for example, are there any word
offices that are hiring people who are already on the
ineligible for rehire list?
We, um, for city employees, they're checked against the
city of Chicago's ineligible for rehire list. But how does
that play out? And Alderman says, I want to hire this
person as our chief of staff. Does the city then go, you
can't.
If they're on the city of Chicago's ineligible for you,
hire a list, you can't, okay?
Got it. Okay. Um, thank you for that.
um, but I I do think
whether it's through the chair or Department of Law,
whatever that process is to be mindful of any retaliation
that could occur how people use the actual ineligible for
rehire list.
we need to know what that process looks like, because again
Some of us believe, I believe we already have seen somebody
abused it and so I have no idea how that plays out with
anyone else who's been placed on eligible for hire.
By that person and I would imagine if you've got 1300
people on that list.
I would imagine whoever did that in this scenario is not a
unicorn and it might be other examples of it. So if we
don't have protocol on what to do in those or whatever it
is, we need to see that um is
My question.
Other question in general, what's progress? Sorry. No,
thank you. I just quickly, it strikes me hearing concerns
from the committee about consistency of application of the
policy and the exercise of discretion, and the potential
for abuse in terms of who is, is referred for placement on
the IFR list. I just want to offer up the observation that
that there's a there's at least a potential for abuse in
both directions. Right? Both who is placed on the list or
referred for placement on who is not. Um we hear concerns
about, as I say, people who are placed on the list and
perhaps should not have been. We also hear concerns about
people who are separated from City employment, but are not
placed on the list as a sort of
Looking out for somebody or whatever. Right. I got you I
will leave that characterization to you. I just want to
make this observation um the list the the policy as it's
written does not allow for people to be fired, but not
placed on the IFR list. The policy states that if you are
terminated for violating City Rules, that employee shall be
deemed ineligible for rehire, that is to say, if we have
City actors, who are making a decision that they are going
to fire someone but they're not going to refer them for
placement on the list that is not allowed by the policy as
it's written. So I just want to note that. I think there's
potential for abuse in both directions. The policy says
that if you get if you get fired for breaking the rules,
you shall be deemed ineligible for rehire. So
what you just read leads me to believe that number should
be way higher than 1300 given on people who break, whatever
the policy or V, right? Like there's a little bit of
ambiguity in how that's phrased that I think we all should
dig into a little because again, there's plenty of people
to your point that probably,
Should be on a list that aren't they're playing. People
that break rules that just aren't deemed. And the lack of
clarity there is going to be. I believe a larger legal
problem for the city. Um,
So something else I was thinking through because we were
talking like substance use disorder or something, where
it's we're reviewing his health issues but it's affecting
the job, right? Um, to to alter women, Nan's Pointe. If
you're a government worker that gets placed on this list.
You're kind of done in government. No other cities. They're
going to know. Hey, you're on a do not hire. So we're never
hiring you, right.
After a year, let's say they appeal and they get off, it
doesn't erase them off of a record to still part of a
record somewhere, right? Or, or do we have a list of folks
who have appealed and successfully, are we hireable?
Because again, if you're an employer,
You're not going to parse through the details. You're going
to say oh this person back in however many years ago was on
a do not hire, we're not even interviewing them, right? And
so the way that plays out is
Harmful for lack of a better term. What do we do in the
instances? Where somebody's taken off the ineligible for
rehire? Are they removed completely from any record that
they were on the list to begin with? Is there a way to let
people know that they are rehireable again?
What does that look like? Speak to that? Yes. Um, the flag
is removed from there. Um, chips record at the city of
Chicago. So when they are, when they apply for a job,
there's no IFR flag on their record.
Meaning an employee just happens. I guess what they call a
former employee or employer at that point. Like I just
don't know how, how governments track that for each other?
I don't think. Well, I mean, it's not, I mean there's no
central government information system so it's not out
there. So for the city of Chicago, let's say I um, was on
the IFR list. I petitioned and got off. Um, the flag is
removed from my record. So, I'm applying again to be an
account Tech. Um, it's not seen, um, by the recruiters when
um, I'm applying for the position, so follow up on that.
I mean, there's a record. So you have a total number to
your point. It's an internal record. If someone is a
subject to Foy you.
But you're no longer on the list.
And you know we send a hard copy um letter uh to you as
well. Um saying that you know you've been removed from the
IFR lists. I also follow up
I'm assuming that in a Personnel record, there would be a
history of the, the sort of actions, right? So there would
be you appeared on the list you placed on the list
legitimately then you were taken off. So you're not
currently if let's say a different agency, the federal
government, the IRS calls to check the background of
someone who used to be an accountant for the finance
department. Um, and they were on the do not hire list at
some point and if they're asking HR to verify employment
records is that the sort of thing that would be disclosed
Closed know, if they're off the list, they're off the list,
okay? So you wouldn't be giving it's not going to, you
know, once you're off the list, you know. I mean yes it
would you would keep it in the we keep all the records but
it's not the sort of thing that you would disclose in like
a, a screening type of question. I mean,
If uh, if I'm the employer, and I'm checking the
and I like, verifying your employment with the city, that's
city, that's not something standard that would be
disclosed. You're just not on the do not hire list and
that's it. That's all the information that's provided,
okay? Yeah, no, thank, thank you for that because I want to
Clarity. So, I, I think,
There's a lot of 1. I'm glad that you're doing the work to
actually bring a little more transparency and
accountability because it is, it has been terribly
ambiguous. I think there's a lot more to to work on, so I'm
glad that working group is there as well.
I need the challenge that.
I think none of this tends to solve.
happens on the fifth floor, meaning
Separate from this mayor, any mayor their staff and what
they do, and how they utilize things. There isn't the same
check and balance, meaning because they serve at the
pleasure of whoever is hiring.
If someone were to abuse it but a mayor decides, hey,
they're actually pretty valuable on the team. So,
We had a conversation but we're going to keep in mind,
there's zero to be done there. It's more like public
accountability as opposed to any other level in government,
right?
I'm going to take the silence says, I'm right. It's because
nobody.
It's a rhetorical question. Yeah, they're still out there.
No 1 want to get on the record, but that's the problem
because if people have an issue with a department that
feels like they're above the level of accountability, we
want for all our departments, and there aren't the tools to
hold it accountable.
It, it's
It's untenable in the long run, at least to eroding uh
relationships between the council side and the leg. Uh, the
executive branch in a way that makes government
dysfunctional, and that is going to be a big problem in the
next number of years where we all need to be working
together.
So I appreciate the work being done because my hope is as
much as we get that level of accountability, we can
continue raising it up to even the fifth floor, so thank
you very much. Thank you, chairman. Thank you. All of them
in cardono for purposes of Quorum. Is a non Committee
Member. Go ahead. I apologize. I just wanted to respond to
your observation about about accountability. Um,
if City actors on any floor of this building or in any
other city building are violating the rules or the law in
their use of the ineligibility for rehire policy.
That is subject to investigation by oig. I do not serve at
the pleasure of the mayor I serve in a protected term. Um,
and and it is the job. It is the mission of this office to
pursue accountability at all levels of city government. I
love that we don't CPD. You say, they got to fire some
people and they never fire them. So I think that would
extend to other floors as well, which is a problem, but
thank you. I absolutely appreciate that work.
The older woman Lee followed by Alderman Vegas.
Thank you and my colleagues asked most of the questions
that I had and I I wanted to just go on record. Um,
commissioner Blake murder, thank you for the work that
you've already done on this. Um, I think
the fact that there wasn't a requirement to attach a memo
justifying placement on the list is really mind-boggling to
me and I'm I'm glad that was 1 of your first orders of
business and I can appreciate, um, the role that DHR plays,
um, in this process and how misunderstood that is
ultimately, um, I'll I'll Echo the the call for, um, more
standardization and training for aldermanic staff, um, and
the mayor's office at the end of the day, um, I was taking
the, the eeo training, um, and I think I may have said this
to you or to maybe, uh,
Katie Doyle on the phone when we were talking about
something else. But like
going through the training, it was, it's great because it
applies to people that work in departments. You go to your
DHR representative. We we would just call you at that
point. Uh, but it's not, it's not super clear at the end of
the day, um, and and how we, um, apply the the Personnel
rules to aldermanic staff, even understanding what
shackman, uh, means at all. Um,
I knew what it meant coming in, but not all of my colleagues
would have, right? And and really understanding how that um
how that applies uh and you know we should have some
standards that we are held accountable for at the end of
the day because at the end of the day this it is an eroding
eroding of public trust um in for those individuals who end
up on the list for whatever the reason is whether it's
departmental or because uh you know you
You've been uh, deemed to have broken uh or violated the
Personnel policy and now you're automatically on this list.
Um,
I I really believe in due process. So, you know, being able
to have that, uh, ability to come back. Um, and make your
case for why it is. You'd like to be pulled off or why it
was unjustified. Um, it's very necessary at the end of the
day. Um, the only other question that I have for you is, is
there
Is there a max number of years that a person remains on
this list or is this just indefinite? It's, um indefinite.
Okay.
I think it's just something to think about at the end of
the day depending on the circumstances. I mean I think you
know a lot of what we're we're here really talking about is
you know concern over use of this IFR list um for for
political retaliation. Um and if this is something that you
know, ultimately the HR department, I happy for you, all to
be the Arbiters of this. Um, I think someone should be
looking at it so that there is some consistency. Um, you
know, I express my own concerns to you during the budgeting
process about the fact that you know, the
hr's recommendations for, you know, um, consequences for
individual actions, you, you make a recommendation but it
doesn't have to be followed at the end of the day, which
just leaves us with the situation where, you know, this
type of behavior is okay in this department because you
know that head of that department chooses not to enforce um
um the rules on that. Um, and then in another department,
someone's getting the book thrown at them. And I think it's
a really, you know, it creates an environment. That's
really unfair to employees and like, you know what the
policies are. You can violate them. It's okay here but not
okay. Here, um, I could lose my job over it and be placed
on a do not hire list ultimately, but this guy over here is
okay,
Because they're really close to their boss or something. So
I think there's, there's some tightening up that needs to
be done. And I would encourage you to continue to um, to
look at that and and make some recommendations to us and
how we can do that. I think, you know, many of us would be
more than willing to help pitch in on that. Um, I do think
that it would be great to have a council, member's voice.
Um, and just to represent the, the sort of challenges that
we uniquely face, uh, running aldermanic offices, um,
without necessarily the the broader support of, you know,
HR staff, and otherwise,
That's all. I've got sorry, 1 question, but lots of
comments. Yeah, thank you know. Um, thank you and I I
wanted to respond to both. Um, you Alderman, Lee and
Alderman Vasquez. You know, I am a shackman exempt
employee. But, you know, my goal is to have better
discipline across the city of Chicago for everyone at all
levels.
and with this IFR policy, I want a policy that's thoughtful
and it has to be well-crafted because it has a tight
balance to achieve. We want to keep out Bad actors and we
don't want Bad actors to weaponize the policy at any level.
So that's my uh intention with working having the working
group uh come together again and continue to unpeel the
policy because we want to do the right thing by our
employees in the citizens of Chicago.
Thank you. Commissioner recognizing alderwoman, Mina
hoppenworth uh as a non-committee member Alderman Vegas. Oh
oh sorry Al Alderman's pisado.
Fault. Okay, Alderman. V is followed by Alderman pisado.
Thank you. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman and, um,
commissioner, thank you for coming IG.
managing Deputy, um, I just want to talk about
Shackman exam. Um, so
You mentioned that when someone's put on to do not hire
list that if someone 1 of us wanted to hire them they could
not be hired. Is that correct?
If um, a candidate is on the city of Chicago's do not hire
list, uh, you would not be able to hire them.
In any, um, position, right? So that's what I was getting
into. So if you're on CTA Park District, CPS you would be
eligible to be hired by the city of Chicago.
Yes, there's not a legal, um, rule that would prevent them.
So what do you mean by legal rule? Well there's not a law
that um says that they're not um eligible to be um rehired.
So when you mean by law, what do you mean? You mean an
ordinance? Do you mean the across the Spectrum?
There's not a, there's not a um, a rule, a law, a guideline
around, um, sister agencies.
No, I know, but I'm trying to get to. Is it something that
can be fixed through an ordinance or is it law?
Like, HR law that states that you can't prohibit anyone
from. Well, I think, um, we have to address the challenges
that I spoke, um, earlier about. Um,
uh, IFR lists across all City agencies, um, again uh the
policies differ from agency, to agency, and there's not a
uniform information system that is shared across all of
the, um, agency, um, you know leads. So those are some of
the challenges to getting to 1 um IFR list and system,
right? And then just for um and I apologize if you said
this earlier. What's IFR mean again? Oh I'm sorry. Uh,
ineligible for rehire policy?
AFR. So is that the doing at higher list in the do not? Hire
Hire is more the colloquial term. Okay? So IFR. Okay, I use
the do do. I was using DNH but we use IFR. Okay, IFR. Um
and so, um,
I think 1 of my colleagues mentioned about why we're here,
right? Obviously, there's scenario that took place and
taking a look at past decisions to figure out. If there's a
way if there's a pattern there, is that something your
office is taking a look at now as to whether or not there
was a pattern based on folks ending up on that IFR list.
Actually we're um more future focused with how can we
improve the policy even more this year. So what about those
people though, that, that
Um, are waiting for that appeal.
Um,
that have that have been terminated.
Um,
that were put on the IFR List have submitted a appeal by an
in accordance with the the rules. Uh, but haven't made a
decision yet. Is that something you're looking at to
determine whether or not that person was um, correctly, put
on that list.
Um, I've answered all the appeals that have come to me. I
don't have any in Waiting. Okay? So
Of the 100 plus you average a year. Those are all those are
all responded to and decisions made on those.
Um, I I only received 21 appeal in 2024 and I responded to
every appeal. Okay, and my response time was 2 weeks
um,
they had to push back on that because I know some people
that were on that for that was before I came into the
office. Okay. I'm talking about the cases that came under
my leadership. Gotcha. Okay, yeah.
um,
so you're looking, you're looking forward, obviously,
you're looking
forward with some legislation or some policy around IFR.
Um,
When do you think you'll have?
Some type of determination with the working group, the
product, the final product. What's your goal? End of q1?
In q1. Yes, end of q1. All right, Mr. Chairman that's all I
have right now but I I've got to take a look at my notes
because uh I had forgot that this meeting was taking place.
I want to run upstairs and get my lists and see if I can
come back. If it's still time, noted noted, I appreciate
it. And also want to in case we don't see you before it
ends to commend you and alderman waguespack for your
leadership on the issue for the last number of months.
Swaggin. This for the committee in particular is something
that needs to be taken up. Well and I want to uh, thank you
for holding to your word. You had mentioned that, um, you
were going to hold a hearing on this. You saw people's
lives were impacted, um, and um, I appreciate you, uh,
having this hearing
Other questions. I think I also my apologies. Thank you.
Oh, no problem, thank you. Uh thank you commissioner. Thank
you Inspector General.
Um, good thing there was only 6 people here today because
this might have been an 8 hour meeting if we had uh 16
people. So uh, just 2 questions. Everything's pretty much
been answered. I always felt. I knew it was going on with
this apartment. I talked to you, often I'm sure nobody
calls you more than me. So, um, there's still only 2 things
I legitimately am not sure about. Um, well, I I'm sorry, I
know to answer to this but I may ask it because it didn't
come up. How many people let's just say this year. Well,
since you only been in for a year, how many people applied
for and got off the do not hire list?
Um, for 2024, there were 21 appeals and I took 6 people off
of the list, so almost 30%. Okay, so that that's pretty
good percentage. If anybody thinks they're wrong. Uh, some
people are obvious, no-brainer should be on there and other
people is could have been a bad boss or whatever. And
speaking of Bad Bosses um can we put somebody on the do not
not hire list? So, if I had an employee that worked for me
and uh, I let them go. Even though my 3 main Gail has been
with me for 14 years, so, I challenged anybody's record for
that 1. But, uh, uh, if we if we, if we let it in play Go,
can we put them on the do not here list? Can I say,
commissioner? I, I got this employee was a bad person. I
want him to do a higher list. How does that work? Can we
put them on there? Uh, you would have to write the formal,
memo detailing, the Personnel rule violation and attach the
substantiating documents. Okay.
All right. Yeah, that's about it just, you know, keep on
doing what you're doing and I know there is a process for
people. Many of people, many, many people know, either on
there and they don't challenge it and some people is a
little baffling. I've been through that in my 14 years or
or since we've had to do a higher list that had to rectify
a few things for a few people that have gotten off, you
know, through your predecessors and and through yourself,
but appreciate all you gals doing and uh we'll be seeing
you around. Thank you. Thank you chairman. Thank you
Alderman. Um I think that oh ottoman Vegas. Go ahead,
please.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman so I just wanted um so when I think
of the IFR, um I think of like from a contractual
with MBE where you're getting disbarred where it's just
been something egregious criminal, uh IFR. Um so when some
when some for um I'm sorry for being disbarred so on IFR.
IFR. That's the similar for workers. They've done something
so bad. It's egregious, perhaps, criminal Infamous, that
would allow them. That allow the city to say, you know,
what, this person's shouldn't be working for the city
anymore.
Could I clarify alderman?
actually, it's any violation of a Personnel rule, but
again, um, for
Union and career service employees, there's a period of
lengthy. Um,
Progressive discipline. It's not like I was late to work
once I'm fired, and I'm put on the IFR list, you, you just
said any, you just said, any violation, violation,
Personnel rule, right? So if you are late, what is that a
violation? That's um, that's not going to lead to a
termination 1 1. Tardy is not leading to a termination of
anybody at the city of Chicago.
um,
But if you're a non shackman, could it potentially lead to
being terminated not for Union or, um, no, I I don't, are
talking about shackman sorry shackman rather? Yeah. No, for
shackman employees, there should still be a rational reason
for the termination. Again, as I said earlier, it's not
you're not going to fire me. Hopefully, I won't get fired
because I'm a socks fan.
yeah, well, I think I think that
Well.
Based on.
Some past terminations. I think that when you take a look
at some of the, some of the things people were terminated
for
Um, it, it sounds as minor as what you just said about
someone being tardy, whether someone's away from their desk
for 30 minutes, whether someone sent a grammatical email
error,
uh, I mean these are the things that I think we're trying
to tighten up because if someone did something criminal or
did something infamous,
Then I would support someone being in the Do Not IFR.
However, if it's, um,
sending errors and emails, um, going to get coffee, um, for
30 minutes and not bringing back a cup of coffee. Um, or
any other, these other small infractions that should not
warrant an IFR. Would you agree with that?
again, um, you know, we're not trying to, uh, weaponize,
uh, a we don't want to see the weaponization of the policy
and having people terminated for, um, inconsequential
reasons.
you know, we want a policy again, that I said, has to
carefully balance, keeping Bad actors out, and not being
weaponized by Bad actors, but but I think that there's
enough history to determine what that what that entails and
And I think that if someone has committed a crime Infamous,
know, something inFAMOUS or um, try to fraud or something,
I think that would potentially warrant again, depending on
the circumstances. But if there could be some type of
of, uh,
Level that would determine whether or not whether you're on
the IFR or not because it's too subjective. I mean, when
when we terminate someone HR, asks us, if we want to put
them on to do not hire list
and,
depending,
How um, that relationship ends.
Someone could end up on the IFR list, um, and so I think
there's just too much subjectivity. So I would like to see
when you're in your working group. If there's real
discussion around what that means because when you're
disbarred from the city for Contracting, there's a list of
things that happen. So, I like to see the same thing if
possible. So that way, we know that someone's being
terminated, um, they didn't meet quite the level of IFR.
Um, and then when someone calls and says, hey, how did this
person they can talk about it, but at least it's not,
they're not, they're not stained with that IFR, because
that's something that was abused. And while we're here,
talking about it because it was abused and and
Hurt people that were trying to start a career in public
service and I think that we need to be cautious as to how
that's how that's um, um, determined around the IFR. Um and
and again, I hope you're working group, takes a look and
puts some really guardrails around how this comes out,
because it was disappointing to see that there was so much
subjectivity and abuse, um, and those Bad actors we want to
make sure they're on the IFR list, but those folks that had
small infractions or small, um, disagreements, don't end up
on that list.
Yes. And we, um,
really want to have um, again, you know, have that balance
with
Policy and I think um once we have alignment coming out of
the working group, uh we will um look to, you know, share
share and get new ideas on it. Um, just because again we
don't want to. Um, we've got to have a good balance uh,
with the policy. We don't want it weaponized and we don't
want to have a revolving door of Bad actors at the city.
Yeah, well again, IFR to me, is like a career death
penalty.
and,
That.
Should be used only when it's extreme in fractions, not on
the small infractions that were identified that that put
people in IFR. And so I I I again, I IFR is like the
a decision that is a career potentially career-ending
decision and should should be tied to something that was
just egregious, really egregious and Infamous crime. Be
Fraud and Abuse Etc, similar to what we do with
contractors, just wanted to put there. Thank you. Thank you
Alderman Vasquez, followed by Alderman spaz. Yeah, and it
was just based on, on the point, actually, a quick add
also, for the working group is tears. Right? Somebody could
be there indefinitely and depending on what the situation
was, it might not be fair for them to be there and
definitely in instances where it might be substance use
disorder or something else that thinking through based on
what the category or or um gravity of the situation, how
long they might be put on a list of something to consider
as well. Thank you. Thank you Alderman. Pat
Thank you, chairman, uh, commissioner. Can you can you deny
somebody to go on a on an IFR? So if a commissioner asked
them to be put on, or, are we as an alderman? Can you say
who? Who, who wait a minute Alderman. This is this person
was late, you know, 2 or 3 times in a year and that's why
you're letting them go. Can you say that that's not IFR
eligible or do do you have the discretion to say? Nah,
we're not going to put them on the AFR.
Um it all comes down to what's in that memo in the
substantiating documentation. If someone has been late
every day for the past year, no doubt that's, um, you know,
that's a violation of the Personnel rules violation, and
they can go on to the list, right? But if they've been
late, 3 times in a year and it's like, you know, but it
might be a reason for somebody to say, look, Mary just
didn't fit in, she wasn't a good mix for the office. I had
to let her go. That's really not IFR eligible, right? I
mean,
You you would you would protect that person against either
to the the if I see a regularities I'll point it out and
that's why I had a special session for Public Safety
because I said, you know, I wanted more detail in their
memos that were coming to DHR. Okay. Thank you.
Okay, um well I think that concludes a very good
wide-ranging conversation. Commissioner uh, Deputy General,
General, we really appreciate your time today. And more
importantly, the the ongoing work of the working group to,
uh, continue the improvements that have already been made.
So, I want to thank you and your team for the work that
you've been doing. Um, since you got into this current
position, I think clearly there's been a lot of terrific
work that's been done and more that's needed. So thank you,
we look forward to continuing this conversation and there
being no further business before the committee. Can I get a
motion to adjourn? So, moved by Alderman Vasquez, all those
in favor. Signify by saying, I all those opposed and pin of
the chair of the eyes have it. The meeting is adjourned.
Thank you all.