Oh, there we go. I think we are good.
Okay, good afternoon, everybody. The committee on ethics and
government oversight will now come to order. We have 2
items on today's agenda. First substitute ordinance,
modifying the powers and duties of the office of Inspector
General. And second a subject matter hearing.
General. And second a subject matter hearing with an update
from the Department of Human Resources.
from the Department of Human Resources regarding the draft
ineligibility for rehire.
ineligibility for rehire policy. We will begin with a roll
call to establish.
Call to establish Quorum. Please note that your yes or
present response.
present response will be deemed a. Yes, vote. When this
Quorum call is used,
Quorum call is used for a reference point on later. Items
chairman Martin is present, Vice chair Haden,
Alderwoman Lee.
Alderman. OSHA
Alderman OA becoming soon alderwoman Taylor Al
Alderman OA becoming soon alderwoman Taylor alderwoman
sabaris.
Alderman's taro.
Alderman waguespack.
Alderman, spaz here.
Alderwoman.
Alderwoman, nin.
Al Al Alderman Vasquez.
Al Al Alderman Vasquez Alderman. Reilly present Alderman
Lawson.
Okay. Um, non-voting member Alderman Gardener here, uh, uh,
with at least 7 members present, we have a quorum Alderman
Lawson.
uh,
Uh, and Haden uh, and Taylor.
Uh, and Haden uh and Taylor have requested remote
participation in this committee meeting.
participation in this committee meeting pursuant to rule
59, is there a motion to allow these 3?
59, is there a motion to allow these 3 to attend Alderman?
Reilly so moves all those in
Reilly so moves, all those in favor. Signify by saying, I
all those opposed and the opinion of the chair, the eyes
have it, these 3.
have it, these 3 members are allowed to attend remotely at
this time we will begin public, comment, this period is
for 30 minutes out of respect for everyone's time each.
for 30 minutes, out of respect for everyone's Time. Each
speaker is limited to 3 minutes of public comment. We have
1.
1 2 3 4 5 6 people.
1 2 3 4 5 6. People signed up for public comment. Uh the
first uh Brian bolay.
Mr. Bole, if you can come up and begin your public comment
at your convenience. Thank you.
oh, and noting alderwoman Nugent for purposes of
Oh, and noting alderwoman Nugent for purposes of quorum.
Council members. Thank you very much for hearing us out.
Uh, my name is Brian.
uh, my name is Brian Boyle and uh, I am I'm
Uh, my name is Brian Boyle and uh, I am. I'm a 19th, Ward
resident, but I'm here speaking today.
resident, but I'm here speaking today, as a representative
of the Union League club of Chicago, Chicago,
uh, as probably most of, you know, the Union League club of
Chicago has been involved,
Chicago has been involved uh in major public affairs
issues.
since the latter part of the 1800s.
Uh, some other National level, many things.
Uh, some other National level, many things on in a municipal
level.
uh,
Uh, it was involved in in the legislation back in the 19.
uh, it was involved in in the legislation back in the 19th
century for the
Original federal civil.
Original federal civil service, uh, and all the laws
regarding that.
regarding that in the 1920s and 30s.
regarding that in the 1920s and 30s, uh, the creation of
the Chicago crime Commission,
the Chicago crime commission. Uh, most recently, uh, the
club has been involved in advocating.
For the abolition of the death pain.
For the abolition of the death penalty and so forth. Uh,
our public affairs committee has studied this proposed.
our public affairs committee has studied this proposed
legislation at some length and, uh, is uh, asking
the uh, committee and the
the, uh, committee and the, uh, Council to uh, support and
uh, vote this legislation into law.
Uh, I want to speak briefly about the investigation
process.
uh, I want to speak briefly about the investigation process
and some of the concerns that I understand have been raised
about the uh, proposed ordinance in particular.
about the uh proposed ordinance in particular, uh, the
concerns about privilege.
concerns about privilege and uh related kinds of uh loss of
a potentially loss of uh,
What might be confidential information. This is not
what might be confidential information. This is not a new
issue in other areas.
uh, of professional life such as
Uh, of professional life such as uh, medical operations of
hospitals. Uh, in the military uh, in whether reporting
obligations generally there, a privilege remains, but the
important work remains to do the investigations and make
sure that that information is processed. And
sure that that information is processed and changes made or
you know, whatever appropriate action uh there may be this
legislation, I think.
this legislation. I think protects the privilege and uh,
there should be no particular concerns about attorney
client privilege. Obviously, the underlying information
doesn't become secret because you've spoken to a lawyer
that would be discoverable in civil.
that would be discoverable in civil litigation, uh, when
you have individuals.
you have individuals who are appearing, uh, before the
inspect
Inspector General, they are certainly have a right to their
own Council independent Council.
own Council independent Council where their interests
diverge from that of the city.
diverge from that of the city, uh it should be pretty
straightforward for that to be managed and those issues.
should be brought before a court if need be
should be brought before a court. If need be, uh, this is
essentially a matter of good governance
Good government. And at a time where, uh, the city is
probably going to be under scrutiny in terms of its
transparency and its good government practices. This is a
wonderful way for this committee to show a commitment to
transpar.
transparency and good governance. And uh, we certainly hope
that the uh, committee will recognize this as being an
important optic, as well as an important substantive area.
where the council can make a genuine difference in public.
where the council can make a genuine difference in public
perception of the law.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Mr. Bole, next up, we have
Thank you very much, Mr. Bole. Next up, we have Alisa
Kaplan this Kaplan if you can come up,
Kaplan this Kaplan if you can come up and begin your public
comment at your convenience. Thank you.
hey, do
Hi, my name is Alisa Kaplan.
Hi, my name is Alisa Kaplan and I'm speaking today on
behalf of reform for Illinois.
behalf of reform for Illinois, where a nonpartisan
organization that advocates for policies that promote
Integrity accountability and transparency in government.
We're here to
we're here to support the ordinance regarding the inspector
General's.
General's office, which provides much needed changes that
will strengthen the independence and the effectiveness of
effectiveness of the office of the Inspector General by
removing obstacles to its investigations.
This ordinance.
This ordinance, addresses 2 critical threats to effective
oversight.
oversight in Chicago, the broad use of attorney client
privilege.
privilege and response to the inspector General's, document
requests.
requests which is delayed or blocked access to records
needed for.
needed for the oig's investigations and the presence of Law
Department attorneys in certain oig interviews.
Department attorneys in certain oig interviews, which can
intimidate Witnesses and prevent them from providing
important information.
For too long Chicago's reputation for corruption.
For too long Chicago's reputation, for corruption has
tarnished. The many honest elected officials who work hard
for their constituents. We have just watched former
Alderman. Ed Burke released from federal prison, but he was
just the tip of the iceberg 40 Chicago.
just the tip of the iceberg. 40. Chicago aldermen have
served time in the last half century.
It's time to put a stop to this.
Given its history, Chicago should be a leader in ethics.
reform. Not a straggler. This ordinance will bring the
inspector General's. Office closer to National best
practice.
Practices. It is not perfect, many of us.
Practices. It is not perfect. Many of us wanted more out of
it, but it represents.
it, but it represents a hard-fought compromise between the
Law Department.
Law Department, the inspector General's office and the
ethics committee chair. We're great for grateful for all of
your effort.
your efforts which have resulted in a sensible Middle
Ground.
Ground approach and a rare opportunity for the city
council.
council to pass real substantive, ethics reform.
We've heard so much talk from our elected officials.
the need to clean up our government. We need an effective.
the need to clean up our government. We need an effective
independent Inspector, General to make that happen. We urge
the committee to act now, to advance this, or
the committee to act. Now, to advance this ordinance and
give the Inspector General. The tools it needs to do.
give the Inspector General. The tools it needs to do its
job. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Miss Kaplan. Uh, next up, toan Sims
Thank you, Miss Kaplan. Uh, next up, toan SIMs Mr. Sims, if
you can come up and begin your comment at your convenience.
uh, good afternoon committee, um,
Uh, good afternoon committee. Um, my name is Taiwan Sims and
I'm here.
I'm here today to speak about a wrongful arrest.
Well.
Well, 2 long for arrest actually.
The first.
The first will be case. Number 251208.
The first will be case number 25120869201, which took place
63.
63 2025. Um,
It actually stems from the other. The
it actually stems from the other. The first wrongful
arrest, which is 25512.
arrest, which is 25512 0458301 which took place April 16th
here at 121 North LaSalle both of these incidents.
um,
Um, 1 incident.
Which was after the first.
Which was after the first wrongful arrest, which was on 63.
2025. I entered this building after completing this.
Which is called.
Which is called a pre-trial conditioning.
which said that I could not enter this building until
Which said that I could not enter this building until the
wrongful arrest.
Was over with, I went to court on what?
Was over with, I went to court on. What was this?
May 30th.
This is the paperwork, the reason.
This is the paperwork, the reason I bought all this and the
reason I'm sitting up here and such an emotional state is
because
At the 18th of coming down here. And I became for myself
after 18 months of trying to get understand that. I come to
this building was wrongfully arrested April.
this building was wrongfully arrested, April 16th, which
would have
possibly a
Possibly a better. What was going on in my house and only
to be taken in the custody?
Held in the custody.
Held in the custody of views.
After going through that.
uh,
Uh, conceded to the conditions of the pre-trial stayed.
away from this building, for the time for in the duration,
which they said.
after going to court and having all that abs,
After going to court and having all that absolved, I come
back to this building, only to sit.
Only to speak with the officer of the lieutenant.
Only to speak with the officer of the lieutenant who what
is cursed and whatever her name is. I'm not even
is cursed and whatever her name is, I'm not even going to
read up on it.
and I have,
And I have her once again, fabricate paperwork.
and I have her once again, fabricate paperwork, utilize her
Authority as a officer to have me arrested.
I don't know what to do.
Honestly, I don't.
and since y'all talking about the o,
and since y'all talking about the oig today, um,
I don't even know how.
I don't even know how to get help from her.
Miss whisper.
miss whisper or her office because no 1 is helping me and
it's been 18 months now and it's I'm continuously coming
here.
here I'm continuously appealing to the government
That should be helping me, but there's no Aid.
That should be helping me but there's no Aid. So tell me
what do I do?
Miss W.
Miss witzburg.
Chairman.
Chairman Ethics Committee. What do I do? Because I started
with Maria Hatton
And I can.
and I can keep coming up here. Keep keep screaming and
hollering but this is fact. This is all paperwork that.
shows that I've been abused that shows now that there's a
pattern of abuse.
So, how does?
So how does how, how do I get help for it?
I'm just saying.
Thank you, Mr. Sims, next up we'll have Jeffrey coverage.
Mr. Coverage, if you can come up and begin at your
convenience,
oh, and I want to acknowledge Alderman Talya, Ferro for
purposes of quorum.
I do have you.
And and alderwoman, nin just in case.
and and alderwoman, nin, just in case I neglected,
Go ahead, good afternoon.
Go ahead, good afternoon, committee members uh and happy
best deal day.
My name is Jeffrey, covich, I'm a policy.
my name is Jeffrey, covich I'm a policy analyst for the
better government Association, as well as a resident of the
47th Ward. I work primarily on budget.
47th Ward. I work, primarily on budget and policy analysis
at the municipal level, including the BGA.
at the municipal level, including the BGA budget snapshots
and Associated briefings, with which I know.
and Associated briefings with, which I know many of you are
already familiar and over the past few years.
already familiar and over the past few years, the BGA has
produced several analyses of issues relating to the office
of the Inspector General. Both during the term of the
current Inspector General, Deborah witzburg. And also on
her predecessor as well.
Chicago's oversight regimen is very much, a product of
gradual improvements and today's ordinance is another step
in that process.
in that process, I want very much to thank the parties that
were involved.
were involved in the deliberations that brought us to the
version that's before the committee today including the
inspectors General's office.
inspectors General's office, um, the committee itself and
the Law Department in
the law department and Corporation Council, all of which,
we know have been involved in discussions.
The issues that this ordinance addresses were first.
The issues that this ordinance addresses were first raised
in this committee. Uh, both during regular quarterly hear.
in this committee uh both during regular quarterly hearings
and also in a memo submitted by Inspector General would
woodsburgh in February of this year. What we have in front
of us today is a compromise that was worked on by all the
parties.
parties that were involved and the parties that will be
affected by the Ordnance. This is the kind of work that
organizations.
organizations like the better government Association, have
long advocated for where the council is taking an active uh
deliberative role as a co-equal counterpart and partner
with the admin.
with the administrative branch,
Inspector, General oversight.
Inspector, General oversight is not a matter of a single
Administration, or
Administration or a single appointed official. It is a
long-term invest,
long-term investment in stable government and in the public
Trust.
I think all of us who work in and around Chicago,
I think all of us who work in and around Chicago's
government know, the lengthy and at times colorful,
history, that has made it hard for residents.
that has made it hard for residents to trust their public
servants.
Council has.
Council has a role to play in rebuilding that trust and
today's Orden.
today's ordinance is an important step in that process. Um,
so I want to thank again chairperson Martin for bringing
this ordinance.
this ordinance forward. Inspector General, witzburg for
highlighting the ISS,
highlighting the issues that addresses and the Corporation
Council and law.
Council and Law Department, staff for their work, with the
committee on the final version.
committee on the final version before us today, I urge a
swift passage of the ordinance in committee and at the
final vote in city council, thank you very much.
final vote in city council, thank you very much for your
time.
Thank you Mr. Covich next
Thank you, Mr. Covich next up, we'll have George Blakemore.
Mr. Blakemore, please come up and begin at your
convenience.
The games that people play.
this is,
This is a game.
And all of you all are playing this game.
and all of you all,
and all of you all are Democrats,
Corruption fraud.
Corruption, Fraud and Abuse.
The ultimate are out of control.
The Inspector General should.
The power.
She has no power.
The people are tired.
Of what's going on in the city.
Of what's going on in the city of Chicago.
The most corrupt city.
In America.
What?
What is the criteria for being the most? The amount of all
demands?
Then.
Then indicted.
Go along to get along.
at the,
These people.
These people are not ethical.
It's no checking balance.
There's no checking balance.
Now, they saying that.
Now, they saying that what's standing in her way and they
gonna compromise if the law be part
At all in it together.
Is a third.
Is a sad day, sad.
Women need a boulder.
It's corrupt.
This.
City is corrupt.
These official are.
These official are corrupt.
The federal government.
The federal government is corrupt.
The state, the County Government.
You going to get?
You going to get police?
Cremate created.
cremate created a crime and the federal government say, he
Cremate created a crime and the federal government say he
doesn't have to do anything.
Because he was a whistleblower.
It is truly a corrupt system.
Each 1 is 69. He told Mr. Bmore don't talk this way.
Each 1 is 69. He told Mr. Bmore, don't talk this way around
here. Your minutes will be up my minutes.
here. Your minutes will be up. My minutes was up quickly
more than these other 3 men, they doing something with the
computer.
computer there.
They?
They're doing something evil there.
Corrupt brought an abused, all of them.
And they all damak.
And they all Democrat.
No, check. And
No, check and bowels.
No 2 party.
No 2 party system. This is not a democracy.
It's worse than ComEd.
It's worse than comedies, China and passes Germany.
They all in it together.
Thank you, Mr. Blakemore our next and
Brian Zu, Mr. Zu, if you can come up,
Brian Zu, Mr. Zu, if you can come up and begin at your
convenience,
Good afternoon members of the committee.
My name is Brian zeru and I'm the vice president of policy.
the better government Association. The BGA is 102 year, old
Civic organization.
Focused on.
Focused on transparency, accountability and equity in
government.
government, we work with ethics boards, inspector General's
leg,
General's, legislators at the state and city level, and
many of you are already familiar with our annual budget,
snapshots and budget, briefings Focus.
snapshots and budget briefings focus on the city budget.
I'm here today to speak.
I'm here today to speak in support of aldermen. Martin's
proposed ordinance in favor of maintaining the independence
of the Inspector General,
The oig is a critical accountability measure for local
government.
government, Chicago faces, an enormous deficit of trust
between its residents and its government built up over
decades.
Decades of Highly public wrongdoing.
The Inspector General.
The Inspector General is not the sole solution but it is
very much part of the solution.
Maintaining the office's Independence and investigator.
Maintaining the office's Independence and investigatory.
Authority is a critical priority, not just for the
Inspector General.
General but for for all who come after her,
The specific ISS.
the specific issues that the inspector General's office has
raised and that the ordinance seeks to address are not
without precedent and not without Solutions.
without precedent and not without Solutions, the
association of inspectors General as well as Congress.
association of inspectors General as well as Congressional
and other states laws and administrative policies.
Provide best practice models for independent
investigations.
And in the independent legal, evaluation of the BGA.
examined, the proposed language and found no barrier to its
passage or implementation.
Separate from this matter. We continue to support.
That.
That I turn this up. There we go separate from this matter.
We continue to support and encourage independent, legal
counsel for City Council.
counsel for city council and its committees to perform.
To perform similar analyses on our elected representatives.
While this ordinance is progress, we should not forget
there's still more to do. Chicago has updated its in
Inspector, General ordinance multiple times in the past to
bring us more in line with national standards and today is
another opportunity to do so just recently we supported in
this
in this Council passed term limits for the Inspector
General supported by,
General supported by our current Inspector General. Another
crucial Orden
crucial ordinance, that helps ensure that the IG can act
without political or personal influence,
Today's subst.
Today's substitute Ordnance represents a compromise between
all the parties involved. The inspector General's office,
the law department, and the Corporation Council, and the
members of this committee, this
members of this committee. This can and should be an
example, for the state of
example for the state of Illinois, whose legislative
inspector General's. Office needs quite
inspector General's, office needs quite a handful of
reforms, all our efforts there. Continue to face
significant challenges often due to, to lack of
significant challenges often due to to lack of political
will and Leadership.
What we find?
What we find. So frustrating at the city and state level
is. We fight
we fight in Advocate tooth and nail to get to where much of
the country.
much of the country already is. We know that this is not
been a quick process, but it has been thorough and
deliberative.
deliberative and I strongly urge unanimous passage of this
matter today.
matter today and on the council floor later this week.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Thank you. Thank you Mr. Zuru at this point that concludes
our public comment. Um,
uh,
Uh, uh, let's see, our first order of business, is the rule
45?
uh, uh, let's see, our first order of business, is the rule
45 reports, which was sent out to the committee.
45 reports, which was sent out to the committee? Can I have
a motion to approve that report?
Alderwoman lie. So moves all those
Alderwoman lie, so moves all those in favor. Signify by
saying I
All those.
All those opposed in the opinion of the chair. The eyes
have it? Uh, we will now discuss the first substantive item
on the agenda.
on the agenda which is substitute ordinance. 2025
on the agenda which is substitute ordinance.
on the agenda which is substitute ordinance 2025-26.
General, and Rob Storch, former deputy in
General, and Rob Storch, former deputy Inspector General
with the Department.
Of defense and the Department of Justice.
of defense and the Department of Justice, who will be
joining us today and can speak to the substitute before we
open the floor to committee and non-committee members
before we do. So, I would like to
before we do. So I would like to, uh, just share a little
bit more background.
bit more background uh uh about where we stand right now.
Um, because
um, because a lot has been moving in recent months. Um,
Um, so to begin, uh, under our current law here, in Chicago
city employees,
Chicago, city employees, and officials have an unqualified
duty to cooperate with invest.
duty to cooperate with investigations conducted by the
office of Inspector General in
office of Inspector General, including making their
equipment Personnel, books and Records.
equipment Personnel, books and Records available to the oig
as soon as possible. Earlier this year, this was mentioned,
uh, in January of 2025 during a hearing of this committee
General, witzburg opined that unqualified. Cooperation was
not occurring and ident.
not occurring and identified several barriers to oig
conducting Timely.
conducting timely investigations. Uh when acknowledged
alderman
Alderman, OSHA for purposes of Quorum uh, myself and other
committee members asked the Inspector General to elaborate
In writing which she did. So,
In writing which she did so, which she did uh, in February
of this year.
of this year after after that, I introduced an ordinance in
February to address these unresolved issues.
February to address these unresolved issues, um, and after
5 months of meeting and negotiating with both General
witzburg, uh, as well as
witzburg, uh as well as Corporation Council, Richardson
Lowry and their respective staff.
Lowry and their respective staffs uh I have the the 3
parties have agreed to language in the substitute ordinance
that addresses these concerns by adopting best practices.
practices, as well as strengthening the
Professional Standards.
Professional Standards of the office of Inspector General
itself. Um, I want to, uh, emphasize why this important
why? This ordinance is even important.
why? This ordinance is even important, uh, to begin with
why it's here before the committee. Um, when things go
wrong in our city government, Chicagoans deserve
wrong in our city government Chicagoans deserve timely
thorough and transparent investigations. Uh
thorough and transparent investigations uh that hold people
accountable when necessary and to make this
accountable when necessary. And to make this happen, we
need each and every city Department to cooperate and
coordinate fully with our investigations that includes
providing,
providing all relevant information, uh, to the Department.
providing all relevant information, uh, to the department
and refraining from interviewing interfering, excuse me
with investigators and interviewees, um, over the weekend.
The committee received, this substitute ordinance.
The committee received, this substitute ordinance, uh, uh,
in anticipation of this meeting. And
in anticipation of this meeting and that final substitute
does 3 sets of things.
does 3 sets of things first, it clarifies the situation in
which attorneys from the Law Department can participate in.
oig interviews, including if the interviewee asks, uh, a
member of the Law Department to participate.
member of the Law Department to participate and the Law
Department agrees.
Second, the sub.
Second, The Substitute clarifies that the office of
Inspector General should.
Inspector General should receive all relevant materials,
including those? That may
Including those? That may be privileged and confidential.
However, there are types of documents that may be withheld,
if required by law and those as the substitute identifies
incl,
include, uh, documents that may pertain to pending
litigation a court order or federal investigation.
Third. And lastly The Substitute strengthens Professional
Standards.
Standards within the office of Inspector General. Finally,
I just want to reiterate that this substitute has been
agreed to by myself The Corporation Council and the
Inspector General. And I'd like to express my sinc,
Inspector General. And I'd like to express my sincere,
thanks to them as well as their staff. And finally to
Thanks to them as well as their staff and finally, to our
legislative reference Bureau for lots and lots of hard work
over the last 5 months. Uh,
over the last 5 months, uh, with that context. Uh, can I
have a motion to accept the substitute Alum, inves? So
moves, all those in favor. Signify by saying, I all those
opposed in the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it, the
substitute is now before the committee, uh, General wits.
witzburg. Uh, the floor is yours for a brief remarks. Good
afternoon, thank you chairman. Thank you members of the
committee. Um, I I will be brief here. These are issues
which many of which many of us have had an opportunity to
discuss. I, I want to start by saying I'm deeply grateful
to Chairman Martin and to our colleagues in the Department
of Law or all of the efforts in arriving.
of Law or all of the efforts in arriving at this compromise
consensus.
Solution. Which is before the committee today? I, um,
solution, which is before the committee today, I um, I view
this substitute ordinance as accomplishing the most
pressing of the red letter.
pressing of the red letter goals we have set out for here
while doing so.
while doing so in a way that has built in protections
around around concerns which I know exist.
around around concerns which I know exists um specifically
to ensure clarity.
specifically to ensure Clarity around the fact that
individual people whom we interview,
individual people whom we interview are entitled to have
their lawyers in the room when we do so,
their lawyers in the room when we do so. And to ensure that
where there are
Appropriate privilege protections between a person and their
lawyer.
their lawyer.
That that information remains REM.
That that information remains remains protected by that
privilege. I um I believe as I say that this substitute
while providing for those protections accomplishes 2 of the
things which we
the things which we've set out for here specifically that
it better enables the
better enables. The office of Inspector General to protect
the integrity and the effect.
the integrity and the effectiveness of our investigative
interviews and that it permits us broader access to City
Records so that we can effectively do our job in the
service of our mission. And so I won't take up more of the
committee's time chairman at this point, but I will be
happy to answer.
happy to answer any questions. Thank you. General want to
acknowledge Alderman, urban Urban
acknowledge Alderman, urban urban for purposes of Quorum.
We'll get to you next. I, uh, the first want to uh,
We'll get to you next. I, uh, the first want to uh uh ask
uh Mr. Stark Storch, excuse me.
ask uh, Mr. Stark Storch, excuse me to identify yourself. I
believe, you're on virtually.
I am.
Good afternoon.
Great. Um, and Mr. Mcclintok. If you could do the same,
please,
Yep. I'm here. Good afternoon as well.
Yep, I'm here. Good afternoon as well. Great. Uh thank you
both. We will now proceed.
both. We will now proceed to questions, starting with
committee members and then non-committee members.
committee members. And then non-committee members, starting
with Alderman, oshe then Alderman Talya Ferro.
Thanks chairman.
Um, is somebody here from law that?
um, is somebody here from law that could kind of uh,
I just be interested to hear like, where this started.
And where we're at today. Um, and and how we
Got to this level that level of comfort. Yeah.
got to this level that level of comfort. Yeah, we have, uh,
Mr. Hendricks from the Law Department, if you could
identify yourself, uh, and then answer the Alderman's
question. We would appreciate it.
Thanks. Thanks for the question. Uh, I'm John Hendricks
some of the managing Deputy of uh,
some of the managing Deputy of, uh, Corporation, or
managing Deputy Corporation Council for a litigation.
divisions.
Um,
I have, uh,
Worked on a lot of these issues for a long period of time.
I think, um,
the reason law, um, was
The reason law, um, was able to reach the court on this
matter. Is because
matter is because there were
Some.
Radical departures from the initial.
Radical departures from the initial, um, from the initial
prop.
proposed ordinance.
um, and we have
An accord on the terms of this.
An accord on the terms of this ordinance because of that.
Radical
radical departure.
um, for example
Um, for example, the original ordinance provided
that the duty to cooperate with the inspect.
that the duty to cooperate with the Inspector General.
Um, and to provide information to the Inspector General
required.
required suspending, the attorney client privilege.
We?
Strongly oppose that?
Strongly oppose that. Um, and interestingly enough,
even though that's language adopted, by the
Associate. Uh,
associate Association of inspectors General.
as a
As a model.
It is.
It is counter the actual practice of several cities.
It is counter the actual practice of several cities uh,
including places. Like
including places, like Atlanta, who as late as 2025
rejected.
A similar proposal.
So, let me just make that clear.
so let me just make that clear, first of all that, the
original ordinance, as
original ordinance as proposed,
was in our view, not based on National standards, it was
based on the aspirations of the single Association.
um,
and, you know,
I think that's important to recall.
I think that's important to recall, because the
Purpose initially.
Purpose initially was to allegedly bring.
The city.
The city Within.
actual, you know,
Actual, you know, best practices.
um, so
That that's the first.
That that's the first point. Um the second point is it
differs
dramatically the the sub.
dramatically The Substitute differs dramatically on how it
treats.
treats, uh,
The.
the lot of Apartments, lawyers who want to represent and
who are asked to represent city employees.
and City officials, um, under
And City officials um, under the original ordinance.
It was absolutely.
It was absolutely um, prohibited for the city.
To uh, represent.
Persons. And I
Persons and I uh, employees or or city officials.
persons and I, uh, employees or or city officials in their
official capacity,
um,
that's unacceptable.
that's unacceptable because our Charter, the corporation
council's Charter.
council's, Charter requires us to do so.
Um, so I believe that the new
Provisions, which allow us.
To.
To interview, pursuant to a request and an agreement.
to interview, pursuant to a request and an agreement as
well as to the circumstances in which we're in pending
litigation.
um,
is is a huge um,
Is is a huge um, Leap Forward.
Um,
You know, I would say.
you know, I would say that.
Like Atlanta.
Like Atlanta, New York City and Philadelphia.
the city of Chicago does recognize the need for
The city of Chicago does recognize the need for ethics
reform.
and has been,
And has been constant in this regard. I personally, before
I became a lawyer worked. My first job in in the city was
as um,
As um as a research analyst for Harold Washington.
as um, as a research analyst for Harold Washington's ethics
ordinance. The first year, it was established
so, I am, I am very
So I am, I am very familiar with ethics reform. I am
familiar with the need for ethics reform.
I think what we have here is more along the lines of
getting to best practices where there is clearly tension.
between the law, which really
Between the law, which really puts a strong emphasis on the
attorney client privilege.
attorney client privilege as a s. Sacrifice sank Doctrine.
And the desire of the Inspector General.
and the desire of the Inspector General to have that
information uh in
information uh, in an unfettered fashion.
The provisions we have.
The provisions we have agreed to do not provide the
Inspector General.
Inspector General with, um,
you know, privileged documents without consideration of of,
by the Law Department,
So from that standpoint.
so, from that standpoint, I believe it's also a huge
departure from
the previous, um,
uh, you know, ordinance that that that delivered that uh
provision.
Um,
so, I just want to
So, I just want to state that we are in support of the
substitute.
substitute under consideration because it really doesn't
inhibit in our view do and maintaining Privileges and
confidences of the city. And
confidences of the city and its employees during oig
investigations.
And is therefore consistent with Corporation council's.
Charter and ethical obligations to the city.
Moreover, we've had enormous amount.
Moreover, we've had enormous amounts of analysis, done both
inside and outside the Law Department,
inside and outside, the law department on the attorney
client privilege.
client privilege and are convinced that legally, it does
apply to entities within city government.
we believe that the 1 examples,
um,
Um, Inspector General and the BGA.
Um, Inspector General. And the BGA have Champion regarding
uh, the department.
Uh, the Department of Defense and other federal agencies.
uh, the Department of Defense and other federal agencies is
You know, perhaps.
You know, perhaps a model for those agencies but does not.
apply, uh, to Municipal governments and
That I think is uh, consistent with.
that I think is, uh, consistent with the
um, you know
Um, you know, views of other cities who've looked at this
issue.
um, I was gonna
Um, I was gonna just read you the law as it is in Atlanta.
I mean in Atlanta allows,
I mean, in Atlanta, allows oig access to documents and
Communications except
Where that in quote, that information.
Where that, in quote, that information is confidential
Andor privileged has recognized.
privileged as recognized by state law.
New York City has a similar provision uh Philadelphia.
New York City has a similar provision. Uh Philadelphia is a
is a city that uh establishes inspector General's.
is a city that uh establishes inspector General's by
executive order.
and,
and did so and says that the oig,
And did so and says that the oig is granted.
Full free and unrestricted access.
Full free and unrestricted access to information regarding
City activ.
City activities, Property Data correspondence.
City activities, Property, Data, correspondence, and all
information. Except when Pro
information, except when precluded by lawful privilege, or
duty of confidentiality.
So, I think we've heard a lot.
So, I think we've heard a lot uh in support of the first
ordinance that's being repeated.
ordinance that's being repeated here about how
The work.
The work needs to uh, bring the city.
The work needs to uh bring the city in line with national
standards. These are the national standards that have that
are operative. Not
are operative not the model national standards that.
Anybody else
else is using.
Um, and for that reason.
Um, and for that reason, I think the substitute
is sufficient.
sufficient to um satisfy the law. Departments concerns
about the protection of attorney client privilege.
I appreciate.
I appreciate all the work that's gone into this between
Clearly, it's been a long journey for you chairman. Um,
I think that's all I have. Thanks.
Test. Yeah.
regard to and uh work product as well as attorney.
regard to and uh, work product as well as attorney client
privilege.
And it's my understanding that.
Um, it's not the attorney.
But it's the person that's being interviewed.
Or it's the person that's being investigated. Um, that has
the privilege when it comes.
the privilege when it comes to attorney client privilege.
Um, so what?
Um, so what happens if
Uh, that person.
Uh, that person, uh, refuses to turn over documents.
uh, that person, uh, refuses to turn over documents, um,
that he believes
Or privy.
Uh, privileged information and and again I I believe.
Uh, privileged information and and again I I believe it. I
it's the attorneys.
I, it's the attorneys, um, a privilege when it comes down
to work product. Um, and is he required, uh, to return.
to work product. Um, and is he required, uh, to return, uh,
to, to turn over to the Inspector General.
to, to turn over to the Inspector, General, any documents
in his possession, um, with regard to, and, and accused
in his possession, um, with regard to and and accused, um,
um, City employee
Um, thank you Alderman. I want to make sure I understand
the question when you say is, is he required to turn over
documents? Do you mean to say,
documents? Do you mean to say a City attorney?
Yes, the City attorney.
So, um,
I, I'm so happy to to
I, I'm so happy to, to defer to the law Department's
thoughts here. I will say I what is
thoughts here. I will say I, what is, um, what is being
modified in this?
modified in this ordinance in the substitute, is the
modified in this ordinance in the substitute is the, um,
ability of City attorneys.
ability of City attorneys to withhold or changes. The
circumstances under which oig may access documents which
the Law Department asserts.
the Law Department asserts are privileged on behalf of the
city. Um, and that is
city. Um and that is to say it lays out a process where
pursuant to a review and a privilege log process. Um,
pursuant to a review and a privilege log process, um, oig
would be able, would would be able to
would be able would would be able to review certain of
those documents within those protections and
those documents within those protections. And so um the
duty to cooperate, the duty that is, you know, held by City
employ,
employees and officials as it stands in the ordinance is
otherwise un.
otherwise unmodified that is to say city employees and
officials have a duty to cooperate. The Substitute
ordinance is clear in noting.
ordinance is clear in noting that we're Communications
between a person.
between a person and their lawyer are otherwise protected.
those remain.
Outside the view of oig.
Okay.
Okay, and that clears that up. Um,
the oi well, not the oig but the city's
The oi, well, not the oig, but the city's Law Department. I
understand they they have a
understand. They they have a fiduciary to
Uh, to the city.
Um, is there any conflict or can they be?
Um, is there any conflict or can they be conflict? Um, if
he's representing or someone from the law department is
also representing.
also representing um, a witness or represent.
also representing, um, a witness or representing. Um, an
accused member before. Um, the oig is, is it, could there
be a conflict?
be a conflict when it comes down to privileged documents
I appreciate this question again and and, and I
I appreciate this question again and and and I I again I
won't speak for the Law Department here. I will say the Law
Department um, currently navigates many
Department um currently navigates many situations in which
it represents um various kinds of interests. So for
which it represents um, various kinds of interests. So, for
example, 1 that I have have 1 example, I have thought
about,
are situations in which a member of the Chicago Police
Department, might.
Department, might be facing disciplinary charges, where the
Law Department.
Law Department represents, the superintendent, as the
moving party in that.
moving party. In that disciplinary action, where the Law
Department might also,
Department, might also provide individual Council to that
to that office officer. If if
to that office officer. If, if they are the subject of a
lawsuit arising out of the same conduct,
lawsuit arising out of the same conduct. And so, I, I would
say again, without speaking for the, my colleagues of the
law department and I would welcome their thoughts on this
as well. Um, these are, these are of the sort of
challenges, which are, which are currently being
as well. Um, these are, these are of the sort of
challenges, which are, which are currently being navigated.
Um, by the Law Department in the way, in the way it's set
up in the way, it provides representation pursuant to its
existing duties.
existing duties and
I would add 1 thing to that. Um,
I would add 1 thing to that um, chairman Talia faroh at the
towards the bottom of page 4,
towards the bottom of page 4 at the bottom of section 2.
And I'm just going to quote the last sentence. It says, any
adverse information, communicated.
any adverse information, communicated by the city officer,
or employee to an attorney.
or employee to an attorney during such attorney client
relationship shall not be disclosed to anyone inside or
Relationship shall not be disclosed to anyone inside, or
outside the Department of Law other than attorney.
outside the Department of Law. Other than attorneys
responsible for representation of the city officer,
responsible for representation of the city officer or
employee. Unless the city officer or employee,
employee, unless the city officer or employee authorizes,
such disclosure. You see that? That's my
Such disclosure. You see that? That's my question, though.
Um,
Is.
Is that fiduciary obligation?
is that fiduciary obligation owed to the city if there's
Law Department, represent
Law Department representation, or is it owed to his client?
I think. Where, where where does that as general?
I think. Where, where? Where does that as general? Witzburg
indicated. I think it's a very fact-specific.
indicated. I think it's a very fact-specific situation, and
a lot of it comes down to is noted here in this language.
Um, if the, uh, information is adverse, um,
Um, if the, uh, information is adverse um, uh, to the city.
Um, so if you have further questions, happy to, uh, see if
uh, uh, Mr. Hendricks can come up if they
uh, uh Mr, Hendricks can come up, if they if the
information is adverse to the city.
Then that Department of Law employee.
Then that Department of Law employee would be prohibited or
required.
To turn it over. I I would ask Mr. H.
To turn it over. I I would ask Mr Hendricks to come up
because then it be, then it becomes
because then it be then it becomes, you know, adversary to
his own client. Yeah. Well I think that's where the example
of
example of, um, certain instances involving CPD
of, um, certain instances involving CPD. Come in play when
it comes to setting up fire.
it comes to setting up, firewalls in terms of individuals,
whose interests,
whose interests May diverge with the city, nevertheless
receiving rep.
receiving representation from the law department and those
attorneys not speaking with other law Department attorneys
who, uh, who are representing the city as a mun,
corporation uh Mr. Hendricks please. I mean I think
corporation, uh Mr. Hendricks please. I mean I think your
last statement is accurate in these. There are a lot of
different scenarios and many many cases.
different scenarios and many many cases may I ask if you
just uh speak into the mic a little bit more.
just uh speak into the mic a little bit more closely, sure.
so,
In many cases.
in many cases, the city is sued based on conduct.
in many cases, the city is sued based on conduct by 1 or
more of its
employees, including
the superintendent or including
um, police officers.
our job in the law department, is to represent both the
city.
and the
And the individuals sued in their official capacity.
um,
There are.
there are circumstances in which that can be a conflict.
there are circumstances in which that can be a conflict and
what we do in those circumstances is we retain
Separate Council.
Uh, for an individual.
and uh, we
And uh, we put a wall in place regarding Communications.
between those attorneys and the Law Department.
and lastly, uh, chairman uh,
Let's say we there is a circumstance.
let's say we there is a circumstance where the of course
the accused, um, the accused person, um, is required to
cooperate.
cooperate, um, by ordinance.
and,
Um, that person is asked.
Um, that person is asked to Tender certain documents that
may.
may assist in the investigation. Um,
may assist in the investigation, um, but he refuses Because
he believes that it is a privilege, um, that that he owns,
um, or that he has, uh, who makes that determination as to
whether or not, um, the privilege exists as to what he's
being asked to Tender to the YG
Under.
Under, under my reading of the sub.
Under under my reading of the substitute under this
ordinance under this ordinance. The
ordinance under this ordinance, the Law Department makes
that determination and if the inspect
that determination and if the Inspector General disagrees
with it, uh there's
with it, uh, there's a process for where we can uh, Recon
reconcile our our differences. So but Judy law Department
reconcile our, our differences. So but Judy law department
and you are representing
You're representing that person. Yeah. So how do you make a
decision that's adverse to your client?
Well, we're not, we're not going to, that's why.
Well, we're not, we're not going to, that's why we're not
allowed. So you were going to say that the documents that's
asked to be in, that's asked uh, that the oig's office is
asking to tend you were going to always.
asking to tend you were going to always um um assert the
position.
position that it's protected and so you will.
position that it's protected and so you will rule in your
client's favor. Yes. Okay. And then what happens after that
if the oig still wants it.
and,
And believes that is not protected or believe that.
And believes that is not protected or believe that it's not
work product.
Well, I, I'll say here. Um, I
Well I I'll say here. Um I I hear the concern that you are
articulating here chairman um and I I appreciate the
question I I will say a few things
it is the it is the case in our under the
It is the it is the case in our under the current rules.
It's maybe an easier.
It's maybe an easier analogy when we think about people
represented by non,
represented by non City attorneys, we sometimes have these
conversations with with attorneys representing subjects of
oig investig.
oig Investigations where there are assertions of privilege.
There's a privilege log process.
There's a privilege log process and we have conversations
about that. Um and and we have, you know, we've often find
a way to resolve those conversations 1 way or the other I
will say for purposes of the law Department's
representation I think it is worth
representation. I think it is worth noting here that that
we too are the city.
we too are the city um oig is a city Department. We are a
component of the municipal Corporation. Um,
and, and
And and as such the Law Department also has um, has duties.
and and as such the Law Department also has um, has duties
to represent us and our interests
um, and and further, the other thing I would add is that
there is a, I think,
there is a, I think a great deal of Law and regulation
about the distinct responsibilities of government attorneys
including responsibilities to, uh, you know, work to
including responsibilities to uh you know, work to root
out, misconduct and wrongdoing. And so with all
out, misconduct and wrongdoing. And so, with all of those
things kind of in the in the picture here, I um, I think
that the process that is laid out in the substitute for
resolving disputes about claims of privilege is, is a
sensible approach. And, and I think as with all components
of this substitute I, um, if it doesn't work or it's not
solving the problem, I will be back before.
solving the problem, I will be back before you all saying.
So
Great. Thank you. Thank you, inspector.
I think all, I
I think all I have to share. Thank you. Chairman any other
questions from committee members? Oh, Vasquez, excuse me,
Alderman Vasquez.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, chairman. I just want to follow up
about some things, so I'm reading.
about some things, so I'm reading about the section for
this, um,
I guess the, the privilege log.
Is that?
is that a new concept as far as when how the conversation
developed? Uh, no, because
developed? Uh, no because um, first of all, you you
developed? Uh no because um first of all you you are you
asking a general question about privilege log, generally
you're about what are use of it has been
generally you're about what are use of? It has been about
this matter. Definitely not asking our colleague, who's
sitting there, but for you, yeah, well, here's, here's my,
Overview. If if uh, Deborah wants to
Overview, if if, uh, Deborah wants to weigh and she can
about it the way.
it the way that the historically, what's going on since?
2014? Is that there has been an agreement in place.
between the law department and the oig.
uh, regarding how to treat, uh, oig requests for
Uh, regarding how to treat, uh, oig requests for emails and
other documents.
And that.
And that agreement entails.
That.
That the Law Department. Um, and in some cases the person
doing the review before the law
doing the review before the Law Department
Has a right to.
Has a right to create and must well, has a right to
withhold.
withhold certain documents, but must create a privilege log
ident.
Identifying those specifically,
so, you may have, you know, a request for
200 what?
200 what turns out to be 4,000 emails and
The review uh, identifies.
the review, uh, identifies, maybe 20 that are
The review. Uh identifies maybe 20 that are are in our
view, attorney client privilege.
Uh, what, what is the?
Uh, what what is the current protocol is that?
If?
If that hasn't gone through.
A lot of apartment review.
A lot of apartment review, initially. We've gotten a call
from the inspector.
from the Inspector General saying, we don't agree with this
privilege.
privilege, log with respect to documents for 5.
privilege, log with respect to documents for 5 and 6. Can
you Law Department? This is within the protocol that the
parties have agreed to can you review those again?
And determine whether you.
and determine whether you still think these are privileged
and we have done so and I can honestly say
That in 99%.
That in 99%, I can only think of 1 time when we, when we
didn't.
didn't turn over the documents that they wanted us to turn
over on the grounds that they were not privileged.
Only 1 time can I think of a circumstance?
Only 1 time can I think of a circumstance when we reviewed
it a second time?
it a second time and said? Now we really do think this is
privileged and here's why.
um, at that in that particular Circumstance, the uh,
Inspector General.
Um, attorney.
Um, attorney agreed with us and and Let It Go.
Um, attorney agreed with us and and let it go. If but the
protocol is even more specific,
protocol is even more specific than that, the protocol
says, in the event of a disagreement,
says, in the event of a disagreement over a document.
Dick can go to a third.
Dick can go to a third-party neutral. That is
Dick can go to a third-party neutral that is hired from
outside the city. So yeah, I saw that as well. And so I had
a couple questions related to that, so
a couple questions related to that. So um first
um,
in the event to your point. It may have been 1 time out of
a million, right? Yeah. Where there is that conflict? Is
there a documentation?
their documentation as to like a memo as to why there's a
conflict which view differently just for for transparency
purposes.
purposes because it's it's could be very fair to your point
Department.
Department law says
We don't believe this is the case, and here's why.
We don't believe this is the case and here's why. Um, just
wondering if there's any documentation,
wondering if there's any documentation related to that
event. Well, we don't have a documentation related to the 1
instead that we
uh,
decided.
decided, uh, our, you know, our rationale for with
decided, uh, our, you know, our rationale, for withholding
the document, but that's largely because I believe it
didn't have to go to a third party.
didn't have to go to a third-party, sure. It was, it was
accepted by the inspector.
accepted by the inspector General's lawyer.
Okay. Um, I okay. So I actually so if if it were
Okay, um, I okay. So I actually so if if it were to go to a
neutral party they're they're clearly would be a record. A
written record of it. Yes, I I guess the question around.
its around that and then also, um, quality assurance.
reviews, which I think are
Completely different.
Completely different matter. But in both of these, it's
referring to like a different group that helps kind of call
the balls and Strikes.
the balls and Strikes in those situations. What are
examples of those groups because I just
examples of those groups? Because I just, you know,
sometimes we think of
Y'all.
Y'all as balls and Strikes and when you guys don't get it.
Who who does it? Go to next. Yeah.
I mean, I think we would have to agree on.
I mean, I think we would have to agree on on that. I think
the the current protocol is that
the, the current protocol is that it's a decision. The 2 of
us can agree to, to, to
us can agree to to, to hire somebody to do this. Okay,
yeah. Um, I can answer that with respect to this quality
assurance piece if that's helpful. So the um,
Our current practice.
Our current practice as required by. So the the association
of inspectors general, which has been the topic of some
discussion here, we have a representative from the
association here. Um promulgates, Professional Standards,
those are the standards, um, which we are required to
comply with both by our professional obligations. And, and
by the consent degree, um, and the association of
inspectors General.
General has a peer-review process, which is
quality assurance process. Um, during the
their quality assurance process. Um, during the course of
that process representatives from other offices of
inspectors,
General other members of the association are assigned to a
review team.
They come on site.
They come on-site review, selected files, interview staff
interview, external stake.
interview, external stakeholders, and then produce written
reports. Um, on
reports, um, on any of their findings and we have, um,
historically,
historically on a voluntary basis, engaged in those peer
reviews, every 3 years, I, I think it is an entirely.
appropriate and desirable step to have those standards
strengthened in the substitute ordinance. Um, all of our
existing peer review,
existing peer-review letters are are available on our
website.
Okay, thank you. Um,
Okay, thank you. Um uh, this might be, I'm not even
so, I see all the um, language here,
So I see all the um, language here about if a client is
requesting Department.
requesting Department of Law. Uh, clients are, are there
any scenarios?
any scenarios where a client would say? I absolutely don't
want Department.
want Department of Law as part of this conversation.
What?
What does that look like? Yeah, there might be, you know,
in our experience. Yes. And and those might include
situations in which we are investigating an allegation
against a, an employee of the Department of Law, um, or or
against another, senior City official, um, including the
mayor's office. Yeah.
mayor's office. Yeah, I mean, that's part of the reason I
was kind of asking, right? I want to imagine, like, in any
workplace you want to have something that's completely.
workplace you want to have something that's completely
private with a body, like the Inspector General or HR for
example in a company, right? Where you don't want.
example in a company, right? Where you don't want anyone
else to be part of that conversation, just want to know if
that's the ability for that. Well, you know, yes, is the
answer to that?
answer to that and just to explain I think it's it's a
little bit.
little bit misunderstood here because for example,
Um, I know the inspector General's concern.
Um, I know the inspector General's, concerns and these have
been echoed with.
been echoed with you know, the BGA or that our
been echoed with, you know, the BGA or that our attendance
would have a chilling effect on the testim.
would have a chilling effect on the testimony. Um,
I,
I think that assumes a scenario that literally has never
happened. Uh, that is a scenario in which
happened. Uh that is a scenario in which a whistleblower
comes in with a complaint to the Inspector General.
and would like,
To interview.
To interview with the Inspector General, we don't even know
about that. We certainly wouldn't attend the interview so
about that. We certainly wouldn't attend the interview, so
the idea of putting a chilling effect on what that person.
is saying is really, I don't think, uh, you know, a viable
criticism. Yeah. I mean, I I, I can
criticism. Yeah, I mean, I I, I can I understand why that
would be the case, but also know the history of the city.
Well, Lauren knows, nobody's talking any lawyers and then
the feds show up. So, I, I, I, I appreciate your point. I
think that we are trying to figure out what best looks
like. Yeah. And so,
like. Yeah. And so I guess, maybe for my last question, uh,
because I tend to be competitive in that manner as it
relates to, uh, the accountability and inspector General's
across the
Across the Nation. Are we looking at? We're number 1 trying
to get better or you know, because we're just that
competitive or who would we rank as a model and a standard
to compare?
to compare ourselves to as we continue to improve and
that's open for either.
that's open for either or both actually.
My view of where this substitute Orden.
My view of where this substitute ordinance puts us is. Um
and and I would welcome.
and and I would welcome an opportunity for for either of
our experts to to weigh in here. Um, my view is that
our experts to, to weigh in here. Um, my view is that this
substitute puts us, um, on the Continuum of, um, where we
are to an ideal scenario from our perspective, this puts us
somewhere,
On that Continuum closer to an ideal. I think, you know,
On that Continuum closer to an ideal. I think, you know what
they say about a good compromise is 1 that no 1 is entirely
happy with. I
happy with I think. Um I think that the State of Affairs
laid out in the substitute is 1 that is substantially
better from the perspective of effect.
better from the perspective of effective and independent
oversight than where we are now. Um, by no means do I think
it puts Chicago on the front
think it puts Chicago on the front Leading Edge, um, but I
think it puts us in a
it puts us in a place. That is a significant and
substantive improvement from where we have been. So, who
would you say,
improvement from where we have been. So who would you say
would be Leading Edge if you named a couple cities I do,
think. And, and appreciating the point that, that the
Federal
federal rules are not binding on cities. I nonetheless
think it is.
important to look at the way this works in the federal
government and I do
federal government, and I do think that that is the place
to look for kind of how, um, for for where the water line
is in terms of how this can and should work. So federal
inspectors General. And again, I I there's some absurdity
to my talking about this here.
to my talking about this here when we have, uh, when we
have former call
former as well. Yeah, yeah. Um, but to say that that we we
know how this can work.
we we know how this can work because we we have seen it
work in the federal government and um,
And chairman, I'll defer to you on on input from the
witnesses here. But I might, I might just defer to defer to
Mr. Stow for further.
Mr. Stow for further comment, there. So Alderman, vasquez's
question. So I'll
question, so I'll defer to the alderman in terms of like to
hear from could I? Yeah that's something. And then we
absolutely like to hear from Department of Law and then
from the folks that are the subject matter experts as well.
right? I mean
There are sort of the the 2 big camps on this.
There are sort of the the 2 big camps on this are the
inspector General's, desire for more.
inspector General's, desire for more information on the
grounds that it would require.
grounds that it would require it would it would impede
their investigation not to have.
their investigation not to have it.
um, so there's an assumption that they needed further
investigation, it's not
investigation. It's not clear to me that attorney client
privilege is that advantageous?
privilege is that advantageous to their investigation but
to the extent that it is material advantageous to their
investigation. I think the Rifts of
Um, waving that privilege.
Um, and losing and, and losing the benefits.
Um, and losing and, and losing the benefits, especially in
litigation of that information. Becoming public far,
outweigh any marginal value. It might have for a factual
investigation and I can,
investigation and I can I can safely say that, you know, in
in most of the I've said in on numerous interviews under
the previous,
the previous Inspector General, um I never
under the previous Inspector General. Um, I never once made
an objection based on attorney client, privy
an objection based on attorney client privilege and, and
hopefully never have to
but the importance of maintaining it, uh, is that there is
a risk if there were
risk if there were just unfettered access that it would be
conceived as a waiver. Now, the federal agencies
Can can say it won't be a waiver?
can can say it won't be a waiver but because they're acting
under federal law a
under federal law, a federal statute.
but as it turns out,
We don't have the right to.
we don't have the right to, uh,
As the federal agencies do.
as the federal agencies do to, um, depart from the common
law of evidentiary Federal
law of evidentiary federal and state evidence of pre privy
privilege.
and so,
from our standpoint, while the city could
From our standpoint. While the city could follow the dod
and
say that, that
Say that, that all, that all information must be turned
over. Um,
you know, uh, without uh, you know, including so-called
privileged information.
privileged information and that, if you turn that over to
the Inspector, General it,
the Inspector General, it will not constitute a waiver and
will be protected. It's that second piece that the city
cannot guarantee.
cannot guarantee because we are not operating under a
federal law,
and,
and so that, that's my point and I'm sure the gentlemen
have an interesting response that this the the second point
is that we don't have sovereign.
is that we don't have sovereign immunity. So we are a
subject to a lot more litigation which
subject to a lot more litigation, which is exactly where
the
Concern is about waiver of attorney client privilege.
and,
and I would, I would note again that in
And I would, I would note again that in response back to
your original question.
the only states that have been brought to anybody's
attention, uh,
that that do have, you know, statements about attorney
client privilege and how it inter interacts with the
inspector General's investig.
inspector General's investigations are, are the, are the
states that that I've mentioned.
Atlanta New York Philadelphia.
Atlanta New York Philadelphia to some extent Albuquerque.
Um, I think there may be 1 or 2 others that I'm aware of,
and there may be others, but I I have not heard them from
any any.
any anybody? Sure. Um, and in all of those cases
any anybody. Sure. Um, and in all of those cases they
reject the idea that the inspector General should have
unfettered access to attorney client privilege.
Thank you very much and then you had other folks.
Sure. Uh, Mr.
Sure, uh, Mr. Storch, um, Mr. Mcclen.
Sure, uh, Mr. Storch, um, Mr. McClintock, do either of you
have something you would like to share.
Uh, sure, I will briefly just for the Ed.
Uh, sure, I will briefly just for the edification of the
group. You identify yourself person. I'm sorry.
group. You identify yourself person, I'm sorry. Uh, my
name's Robert Storch, uh, until January, I had the
privilege of serving as the Inspector General, uh, for the
US Department of Defense, uh, prior to that.
US Department of Defense. Uh, prior to that, I served as
the Inspector General for the national
the Inspector General for the National Security Agency. And
before that is the deputy
before that is, the Deputy Inspector General and a number
of other leadership positions at the US Department of
Justice. And before that some 2 dozen years as a federal
prosecutor
uh, working primarily
Uh, working primarily on public corruption cases. Um, so
having said all that I'm not appearing on behalf of DOD.
having said all that I'm not appearing on behalf of DOD oig
or any of the other shops where I've worked or the Federal.
Community. But merely because
Community. But merely, because I understood there was some
interest in, uh, how these issues have been dealt with, uh,
in my experience in the federal system.
in my experience in the federal system, uh, per the
question. And that, and on the privilege issue, um, uh, it
is, it is definitely true, and I think,
is, it is definitely true, and I think very much settled
law on the federal system, uh, that inspectors General are
entitled to all information that is available.
entitled to all information that is available to the
Departments and agencies, uh, that we over.
Departments and agencies, uh, that we oversee. Um, and
we believe that's critically important for the credibility.
of our oversight that we're able to determine, uh, what,
information we need to do our work. Um, just very briefly.
There was back about
there was back about a decade or more ago. Um, there was
some movement where the FBI and the Department of Justice.
Uh, when I was there,
Uh, when I was there and some other agencies as well were
seeking to assert some right to limit the information,
seeking to assert some right to limit the information that
went to the ig's based upon different,
went to the ig's based upon different uh, assertions under
various statutes basically things that would apply outside
uh the government
outside, uh, the government. Um, our position always was
and continues to be
continues to be, uh, that because we are located within the
Departments and agencies we oversee. But
Departments and agencies we oversee, but independent in
doing our oversight work. But because we're part of them,
uh, we're entitled to all that information.
And there's no wa.
and there's no waiver of any privilege or anything like
that, in
and providing it to us. Uh, that ended up uh resulting in
legislation uh, the IG.
legislation. Uh, the IG empowerment act in 26, excuse me in
uh, in 2016 that made that explicitly clear that
in, uh, in 2016 that made that explicitly, clear, that
we're entitled to all information on on,
we're entitled to all information, uh, on unless Congress
were to pass a law, that prohibits us,
Congress were to pass a law, that prohibits us, um, uh,
specifically from getting anything ever,
uh, specifically from getting anything ever passed, uh,
such a law. So, I think it's really
law. So, I think it's really, um, it's in the law, but I
think it really comes from.
think it really comes from the structure in which the
federal IG system works where our offices, um,
federal IG system works where our offices um, because of
our location within the Departments and agencies.
location within the Departments and agencies we oversee the
rules that would apply outside. Including waiver of
privilege. Don't apply to us. Uh, last thing I'll say is
the Office of Management and budget. Um issued a memorandum
back in 2021 explicitly, acknowledging our right to all
that information including information that would otherwise
be
otherwise be classified privileged confident.
Confidential or really anything.
confidential or really anything else um and that that did
not constitute a waiver um and a DOD did uh follow up with
a memorandum asserting that.
with a memorandum asserting that uh, I think that's pretty
well settled across the Federal
well settled across the federal IG system, so, hopefully
that background is helpful.
could I ask how the, um,
Could I ask how the um, you know, the the know we'll be
We'll be asking.
We'll be asking questions. Uh, Alderman, Vasquez, anything
else asked? No, I understand. Okay, it's the 1.
else asked? No, I understand. Okay, it's the 1 members ask
questions, but I appreciate the point.
questions, but I appreciate the point Alderman Vasquez.
Anything else? Yeah, no, that, that would be it. Uh, thank
you very much.
you very much Sharon, thank you. Okay. Um, any other
committee members before we go to Alderman Gardener who is
a non
committee members before we go to Alderman Gardener who is
a non-committee member
Uh, seeing none at the moment. Alderman Gardner, go ahead.
Okay. Um, good afternoon, General, what's good afternoon?
Okay. Um, good afternoon General. What's good afternoon? Um
I am going to keep out the municipal code sections in here
and I'm just going to ask a few questions. Um the oag is
the city agency or Department.
the city agency or Department authorized to investigate
employees and public officials.
employees and public officials for violations of the ethics
ordinance. Correct? Yes,
Is the oag.
Is the oig and its staff subject to the terms of the
Chicago. Ethics ordinance. Yes.
If the oig or a member.
If the oig or a member of its staff, violates a provision
of the ethics ordinance, what?
of the ethics ordinance, what is your understanding is to
who would investigate an allegation of such a violation? We
have a policy on investigations.
have a policy on investigations of allegations against
either members of The Office.
either members of the office of Inspector General staff or
against the Inspector General.
themselves that policy states that
Themselves that policy states that for allegations of
misconduct against oig employees. We have a process which
is, I think
is I think closely equivalent to an internal affairs
process where we have a separate kind of confidential
investigative chain with.
investigative chain within the office. Um and that policy
investigative chain within the office, um, and that policy
states that complaints of misconduct against the Inspector
General themselves.
General themselves are to go to the mayor's office.
Okay, so if there's a misconduct
you would investigated internally and then it would go to
the mayor's office. Is that correct? No, the ones we the
allegations which we would investigate internally pursue it
to this Internal Affairs like process.
to this Internal Affairs. Like process. It looks a little
bit like CPD Bureau of internal affairs.
bit like CPD Bureau of internal affairs, a little bit like
fire IAD. Um those would be for allegations against oig
staff that is to say
staff, that is to say Rank and file, oig employees. Um,
staff. That is to say Rank and file oig employees. Um, if
there is a that that policy says that if there is an
allegation, which we determine, we cannot investigate
allegation, which we determine we cannot investigate
appropriately within our independent standards. Then we
have a special counsel model modeled on the Federal
have a special counsel model modeled on the federal rules
around special counsel and allegations against the
individual. The Inspector General individually under that
policy go.
policy. Go to the mayor's office
okay, if a city employee or public official elected or
appointed,
appointed has a duty to report unlawful conduct under,
appointed has a duty to report unlawful conduct under 2-15
to the oig, who does the city employee or public official,
elected, or appointed report, unlawful or unethical.
unethical conduct of the oig or staff, too.
Any intakes, which we receive pursuant to the duty to
report.
or any other mechanism are handled in accordance with that
policy. So, if they are complaints against an oig employee,
we handle them in that.
we handle them in that Internal Affairs process. If they
are complaints against the Inspector General, we forward
them to the mayor's office.
The mayor's office. Okay, um, last week, you wrote
The mayor's office. Okay, um last week you wrote an a AED
for the Chicago Tribune it was well written. Thank you. Um,
and in there you stated your work must be protected from
political influence or interference. So we can root out
misconduct or mismanagement.
misconduct or mismanagement in a city government with a
prodigious history. Prodigious history of both without fair
or favor in your opinion, should all City departments
including the oig, be held to the same standard. Yes.
City Hall is improperly you.
City Hall is improperly you you stayed at City Hall has
improperly asserted.
improperly asserted attorney client privilege.
To withhold evidence in numerous investigations during your
ten.
tenure, that's very concerning and I agree with you.
Oig needs full access to City Records, to conduct their own
investig.
investigations. Why is it important to have full access?
investigations. Why is it important to have full access to
information related to an investigation?
Because that allows us to come to the most.
Because that allows us to come to the most sound and most
accurate outcomes.
do you allow full access to that information when bringing
Do you allow full access to that information when bringing
charges against the city employee?
Depending on the nature of the charges and the category.
into which that city, employer official Falls, there might
be different rules around a discovery process. A
be different rules around a discovery process, a disclosure
process. For example, the rules are different in a
department proceeding.
department proceeding against a City, Contractor than they
might be in front of a human relations board for a city
employee. And there are a number of other, um, of other
categories as well. So, um,
We Endeavor to follow each and every 1 of those.
We Endeavor to follow each and every 1 of those obligations
depending on the category. Um, the department of
depending on the category. Um, the Department of Law often
serves as as oig's representation in,
serves as as oig's representation, in those sort of
prosecutorial Pro.
prosecutorial proceedings. Um, and so we we operate with
the Council of the department.
the Council of the Department of Law. Um, and we do that in
in, uh,
Sort of while navigating.
Sort of while navigating the various confidentiality rules.
Uh,
uh, which apply to our work including things like um,
uh which apply to our work, including things like um, Bank
secrecy act protections, or
secrecy act protections or grand jury secrecy protections
or um,
or um restrictions around third-party consent Etc. Yeah,
or um restrictions around third-party consent Etc. Yeah.
And and I'm just asking because I I don't have a problem at
all.
all with you asking for full access to City Records so you
can conduct the thorough investigation. That's, um, I would
just expect and I'm sure you do as well. That you would be
held to those same standards that as far as sharing that
information.
information, especially when you're bringing charges
against somebody. Um,
is the oig office ever f.
is the oig office ever failed to refuse to disclose.
Prudent or exculpatory.
Prudent or exculpatory evidence when bringing charges to
the board of ethics.
Um,
candidly Alder.
candidly Alderman. I'm going to be cautious here about not
saying not not commenting.
saying not not commenting on any specific matter outside,
the public record, I will say that
the public record. I will say that um,
you know, I, I was a Cook County prosecutor for a long time
before I did this work and I think of our obligations in
this area at oig much the way I thought about them as a
prosecutor which is that, um, we
prosecutor, which is that, um, we follow our Discovery
obligations and if and when an issue arises which uh
impedes our ability to do so we disclose that as soon as we
learn of it and and
we learn of it and and deal with that appropriately, okay?
and, and the reason I mentioned is because recently, the
board
released an opinion where it said the board expects all.
Oh,
oig reports to advise and present the board of and with
oig reports to advise and present the board of. And with
all evidence, we emphasize the importance of the board of
ethics
Board of Ethics receiving all evidence.
Board of Ethics, receiving all evidence that supportive of
the charges, and that which tends to disprove or challenge
the basis of the charges. And that
the basis of the charges and that which tends to exculpate
the the respondent. When an oig report is transmitted to
the board,
Prior to.
Prior to coming to a final determination or recommendation,
do you?
Do you ensure transparency by sharing all relevant
information?
I will repeat my earlier answer that we
I will repeat my earlier. Answer that we comply with our
Discovery obligations. And if and when we discover
circumstance which impedes our ability to do so,
circumstance, which impedes our ability to do so we
disclose that immediately and we deal with it
appropriately, okay?
Prior to your appointment. As the Inspector General, you
were the chief investigator for Public Safety.
the chief investigative Republic. Safety section, leading
efforts to screen and revise close.
leading efforts to screen and revise clothes police. This
disciplinary cases.
Was there was there ever in a scenario? And I'm sure there
was when an officer withheld evidence, while also looking
to bring charges against an individual.
um, I I'm not
Um, I I'm not I maybe I can.
um I I'm not I maybe I can best answer the question to say
like we we all we have certainly seen situations where
there have been um discover
there have been, um, Discovery issues. I I saw that many
many times as a prosecutor, um, I I that would be a little
bit outside the scope of those specific reviews in our
Public Safety section. But I think, I, I don't maybe to the
point. I I yes. Issues. Certainly
point. I, I, yes. Issues. Certainly arise in police
investigations around Discovery. And can you think of like
Alderman Garner, uh, just briefly?
Alderman Garner, uh, just briefly, um, if with your
remaining questions, if you can to the best of your
ability, Orient them towards the, the ordinance that's
under consideration.
consideration. Um because we are always welcome in this
committee.
this committee, especially with our quarterly reports which
we
uh, here on an ongoing basis, to be able to open things up.
up, more, broadly. Uh, but as we have uh, the commissioner
of
commissioner of DHR here to speak to an item. After this, I
just want to make sure
make sure that, um, we're able to focus on the
current substitute before us as best as possible. I agree.
And we're all here for the same thing, right? We want good
government. We
government, we want accountability and that's that's all I
want. And so, the Inspector General wrote an op-ed
regarding
this meeting today and I just want to bring up a couple
points.
points regarding that know and just to be clear. I'm not
saying you can't ask more.
saying you can't ask more questions. I would just ask you
to keep them as narrowly tailored to the
to keep them as narrowly. Tailored to the substitute as
possible. Sure, that's it
Okay, in your op-ed, you said this is an effort to bring
Chicago out of the back.
Chicago out of the Backwoods of government accountability
and into line with widely accept.
and into line with widely accepted government, oversight
standards, a lack of protection for oversight in the
historically theatrically, corrupt government.
historically theatrically. Corrupt government ought, not be
1 of them Chicagoans deserve a
1 of them, Chicagoans deserve a government, that is less
corrupt and more accountable and less opaque.
corrupt and more accountable and less opaque and more
efficient, I agree.
A report was.
A report was recently released by The Board of Ethics that
stated.
say that well,
I got you.
Um,
I guess in the end.
I guess in the end, I I, I'll just say this because they'll
stay on point.
stay on point as the chairman suggested
um, we can continue to use these catchphrases but until we
hold,
hold ourselves to the same standard, we fail the residents
of the city.
of the city of Chicago. And we are being comp that we are
being compensated to serve and from and protect.
being compensated to serve and from and protect from abuse
of power. I appreciate your time.
of power. I appreciate your time and I appreciate your
efforts. I truly do. And I respect,
efforts. I truly do and I respect you, uh, I respect the
work that you do.
work that you do, and obviously there are a lot of
unanswered.
unanswered questions, um, that I think a lot of us,
unanswered questions. Um, that I think a lot of us, uh,
would like to inevitably, uh,
would like to inevitably uh, come to or answers to these
questions. Um, so I understand, uh, you're coming here and
you want full access to information
I guess I can.
I guess I can compare it to like heavy as the crown, right?
Heavy is the crown, right? You want full access but I
guess.
Heavy is the crown, right? You want full access but I guess
I think that people of the city of Chicago would want the
want the ability to know that individuals who
Uh, may be subject of an investigation.
uh may be subject of an investigation have full access to
that information, as well, just to
that information as well, just to make ensure that there's
not a thumb on the scale of an injustice.
Does that sound fair? It does. And I I sincerely app.
Does that sound fair? It does and I I sincerely appreciate
your time as well. I um, and I appreciate your thoughts
today. I will say I, um, I am not going to tell you that
nothing ever goes wrong in the work that we do. I am going
to tell you with absolute confidence.
to tell you with absolute confidence that oig has not, and
will not act in bad faith or out of ill will and that I am
sincerely committed to the same kind of internal continuous
Improvement that we ask of other City departments.
That's all we can ask. Thank you, thank you. Thank you
Alderman. Alderman waguespack
thanks chairman, uh, actually had a
Thanks chairman. Uh, I actually had a question for Mr.
Sorich sure. Please still
Sorich sure, please still up. Okay. Uh, Mr. Sorich, thank
you for your time today. Um, if you can hear me, I just
wanted to ask about Federal practices, um, and in
particular, did any of the federal
particular did any of the federal practices that you saw,
or
were part of at DOD or any other agency, um, have a
practical or direct impact? Um, on
Um, local municipalities such as Maybe.
Um, local municipalities such as maybe a contract with the
dod facility in a mun.
dod facility in a municipality.
It's, it's a great.
It's, it's a great, great question. I not to my knowledge.
I'm I'm sure that there may have been work. We did
I'm I'm sure that there may have been work, we did
obviously we did wide range of investigative and also um
auditing.
auditing and other work that would have had such impact do
dod. You know, it's the is more than half.
dod. You know, it's the is more than half the discretionary
spending in the United States now. And so there's a lot of
a lot of going on there. But I'm I I know specific.
lot of going on there. But I'm I I know specific examples
are coming to mind.
Yeah.
yeah, I was just just curious about is we're thinking of
the state affairs, State of Affairs in Washington DC right
now. Could we see um, some federal,
now. Could we see um some federal practices making more of
an intrusion or an effort?
an intrusion or an effort um to impose those Federal
practices on our own local system where, um, the federal
government would say, uh, you know, you're proposing,
To utilize.
To utilize our model as a standard. Um, so we will impose
this on you as a municipality. Uh, it's more of a broad
question but that was kind of what I was getting to that.
I see. Well, I
I see, well I guess I'd say a couple things 1. I served
until January
January as the Inspector General at the Department of
Defense. So, um, uh but having said that,
Defense. So, um, uh, but having said that, um,
Yeah.
yeah, I I think in the, the gentleman, from the Law
Department,
Department was referring to this and I defer to his and the
inspector General's expertise on local law. I mean, there's
no question we operate in the federal system under a
different set of laws. We have the IG uh act. Um, which was
amended, as I mentioned in the IG environment act to make
clear that the the hearing was entitled. All means all uh,
that the inspector General gets all. Um, but but that's
clearly under the federal system and whether that would
apply to a state or local government, I think I I couldn't
begin to apply and although I see my colleague has his hand
up. So,
up, so maybe he can.
So, Mr. Mcclintok.
Yeah, Mr. Mcclintok. Go ahead.
Yes, thank you. Um, 2 things first, I've got about a hard a
hard stop in about 40.
hard stop in about 40 minutes, just an FYI. Um so yeah um
if I can just for a moment. So so the egg been around for
about
for about 30 years, 501 C3, um,
We represent thousands of inspectors General.
We represent thousands of inspectors General in the state
and local space. So so contrary to the federal system,
um, we are
Um, we are all over the place there. There's a rules.
Um, we are all over the place there. There's a rules that,
that, that vary greatly across
that, that vary greatly Across the Nation from small to
large.
Um, Jew. Just a little bit of an observation.
Um, Jew. Just a little bit of an observation on on what I
I've heard so far. Um,
just because a certain city or subset of cities does,
just because a certain city or subset of cities does things
a certain way, it doesn't make it a best practice, it makes
it the way.
it the way it is.
Um, I would say that that the federal model has has been
the inspiration undoubtedly to the
inspiration undoubtedly to the in stock entire state and
local system. None of us existed before the 1978 IG act
Florida came.
Florida came in not too long after that in the late 80s.
Early 90s
early 90s and then a few others and then more and more. And
every year we are adding new IGS in. I say that to say that
that we in the state and local space.
that we in the state and local space may be lagging behind,
but we
But we we are generally following the same flow.
But we we are generally following the same flow that the
federal model has adopted. Um,
federal model has adopted. Um understanding that there,
there are differences and and I don't want to tie up your
time with with with the differences there.
um, that being said, I heard represented earlier that um the
egg his his argued to suspend privilege. I've I've
personally not heard that I've been on the board for 7 or 8
years. I've been the chairman of the governmental Relations
Committee for for 5 or 6. Um so I'm not so sure.
Committee for for 5 or 6, um, so I'm not so sure where that
comes from. However, I also heard that.
comes from. However, I also heard that that there are not
any other models out there.
any other models out there that, that do address that I
would, I would
Suggest taking a look at Massachusetts. Uh, General law, uh,
268a section 4C takes a little bit of a different approach.
268a section 4C takes a little bit of a different approach,
but they basically mandate that that government Council can
only represent the entity. Um, I would also suggest you
look at Louisiana revised. Statute 9614 C.
which reads no privilege established by law, shall be
which reads, no privilege, established by law, shall be
deemed waived on any record obtained by the ethics entity
or the office of Inspector General in connection with the
performance of its
performance of his duty.
So, so, there is an example that I work.
So, so there is an example that I worked under for 9 years,
um, with zero.
um, with zero litigation exposure, that I'm aware of
um, with zero litigation exposure that I'm aware of, um,
zero issues on privilege.
zero issues on privilege where we had access to attorney
client privileged information as we deemed necessary to do.
Um, we also had the the whole privilege log concept and,
and, and most of the time, matter of fact, all of the time
we were able to resolve differences of opinion. Um, initial
differences of opinion, through the the
differences of opinion through the the, the privilege law
basically, when there's Goodwill on both sides, we come to
arrange,
Arrangement. That that allows us both to do our jobs and
and not to incur any additional risk for either party.
Um, so it works. Um, I lived it and breathed it for almost a
decade. So so that is out.
decade. So so that is out there. That is not fiction. That
is a, that is a fact.
That is a, that is a fact.
Um, so there are different models that exist.
um so there are different models that exist in different
ways and and before I I see
ways. And and before I I see back uh, any any
ways. And, and before I I see back, uh, any any time you've
been gracious to to provide me on this?
been gracious to to provide me on this this extended intro,
is that?
if I could suggest 1 thing it is,
That that we all hope for a good day.
That that we all hope for a good day in government.
but in the Inspector General world, I've learned
But in the Inspector General world, I've learned that we
we, we are best off to plan for the bad day.
And there are great.
And there are great governments out there. I'm going to
assume Chicago is 1 of them. I'm not familiar with the
local, a of the land having been
local a of the land, having been the former Baltimore City
Inspector General. And then the Jefferson Parish Inspector
General with almost 15 years combined.
um, having worked on
um having worked under multiple Parish administrations, uh,
I can assure you that they do not all act with the same
degree.
degree of good faith.
and, and when this
and and when this counts,
It counts when you have someone.
It counts when you have someone with without the best faith
on the other side.
on the other side and are those moments where the inspector
General needs to have the statutory.
General needs to have the statutory support to access the
information. That's
information that's required to do the job.
that does not mean that the Department of Law does not have
Merit in its positions that it's not trying to do all the
same and write things.
same and right things. Um, these are just lessons I've
learned over a long time in this business. Um, so so I I
I'd be happy to answer any other questions that that you
may have on the a
may have on the egg and our perspective. Um, I've heard a
lot,
lot of very positive things, stated by both the Department
of Law and by by Inspector General witzburg.
of Law and, by by Inspector, General witzburg. Um, I agree
with her. This is a Continuum, it is a journey. This is an
advancement down that road.
And, and I think it is a, a positive.
And and I think it is a, a positive step for the city of
Chicago, we can always talk about.
Chicago, we can always talk about better.
Uh, all day long. But but this is an opportunity to move
that ball down the road.
that ball down the road, which, which we would be in favor
of
thank you.
All right. Thank you.
All right, thank you. Okay. Uh, Al
All right. Thank you. Okay. Uh, Alderman, Reilly moves to
pass all those in favor of passing the substitute ordinance
to signify by saying I
to signify by saying, I all those opposed, in the opinion
of the, I the chair of the
the, I the chair of the ice have it. Uh, thank you both.
Uh,
uh, uh, for coming from. Do and oig.
uh for coming from, do and oig. Uh we will now have our uh,
second and
uh, Second and final piece, uh, of of the committee in
terms of a subject matter, hearing on the updates of the
ineligibility for rehire list would like to invite up.
ineligibility for rehire list, would like to invite up. Uh,
commissioner Blakemore to speak on this.
commissioner Blakemore to speak on this item, commissioner
Uh, once you are settled, please begin.
uh, once you are settled, please begin at your convenience,
Check.
No, but if you need to go, go ahead, go ahead.
Yeah, take your time, yeah.
Life.
and commissioner, um,
And commissioner, um, before you begin, I'll just apologize
on behalf of the broad.
on behalf of the broader Council. We've been going late
today on a few committees. So we're shuffling back and
forth for purposes of quorum.
forth for purposes of Quorum. The budget committee I
believe is is if it hasn't already started.
believe is is if it hasn't already started at will
momentarily. So I believe people once
momentarily. So, I believe people once we establish Quorum,
there will come back,
there, we'll come back to the extent, they're able to do
so, a lot of overlap between the 2 committees, but um, you
know, rest assured, uh, will uh, be ensuring that any
additional documents that you haven't already shared, um,
with us, uh, that that you want to share with the committee
will uplift that. And uh, finally just want to say thank
you.
you uh, for coming. Um and letting
you, uh, for coming. Um, and letting us know where the
policy currently stands. It was an item that we were very
to hear about it the last time,
To hear about it. The last time you appeared before the
committee. Thank you for your patience today and
committee. Thank you for your patience today. And please
begin at your convenience. No, thank you for having me. Um,
back to discuss the 2025, clarifications to the cities,
ineligible for rehire policy.
Oops.
I'm just going to forward the PowerPoint here.
See.
Um, just to
um, just to um, provide some historical background to
Um just to um provide some historical background to the
evolution of the city's ineligible for rehire.
evolution of the city's ineligible for rehire policy. The
first written policy was in 2011 and then there were
subsequent updates in 209 as well.
subsequent updates in 209 as well as the update that I uh,
provided in.
provided in March of of May of 2024 and
provided in March of of May of 2024. And then we have, um,
some slight updates for 2025, that will be rolling out on
August 1st. So, I really wanted to have the chance to
present the updates to this committee before it goes.
present the updates to this committee before it goes live
on August 1st.
uh, just wanted to, um,
Uh, just wanted to um provide some clarifying background
information.
information on the role of the Department of Human
Resources. Commissioner versus an operating Department.
Commissioner, and actually, since I've served in both of
these roles, um, I really know them. Um, intimately
The DHHR.
the DHHR, uh, Commissioners charged with leading the
employment Pollock,
employment policies for the city, the Personnel policy upd,
updates, hiring plan, um, policy updates.
updates, hiring plan, um, policy updates as well as having,
uh, eeo under. Um, the commissioner for Department of, uh,
human resources in the disability office. And
human resources in the disability office, and of course,
we're charged with the, um, hiring for the city of Chicago.
Operating Department Commission.
Operating Department Commissioners are the Authority for
discipline. Uh,
discipline, uh, for Department employees.
Um, as the DHHR commissioner, I don't have authority. Uh,
to overrule a department commissioner's disciplinary.
decisions.
In specific regard.
In specific regard to the ineligible for rehire policy. The
department commissioner has the authority to place. Former
employees on the ineligible for rehire list.
The um, Commission.
the um, commissioner for human resources, the role is to
really manage the appeals process. So that's the the uh,
distinction.
just to
Just to provide you with an understanding of the timing of
the process.
the process when an employee is separated from the city of
Chicago. Um, they are provided a notification.
Chicago. Um, they are provided a notification within 24
hours uh via US.
hours, uh, via US mail.
in terms of the appeal,
In terms of the appeal review, um, I've been averaging um
year.
year to date uh a 1 week turnaround because again I
year to date uh a 1 week turnaround. Because again I take
this responsibility, uh, very seriously.
this responsibility, uh, very seriously, you know, this is
someone's life. So I prioritize providing, um, a response
back to the person.
back to the person that certified US mail or is
back to the person that certified US mail. Or is there any
other way to ensure that they do receive it?
Um, I believe it is via certified.
Um, I believe it is via certified mail to have that
Assurance. Uh, but we do rely on
Assurance. Uh but we do rely on what the employee put into
the system is there. Um,
the system is there. Um address noted, thank you sure.
Um, I'll quickly run.
Um, I'll quickly run through um the clarifications that
were put in place.
put in place um last May and then turn to the 202.
put in place um last May and then turn to the 2025
clarification.
um,
Um, an employee. Um,
would be, uh,
Would be uh, put on the ineligible for rehire. Um,
Would be uh, put on the ineligible for rehire um list. Um
for being terminated from the city of Chicago resigning or
retiring in
resigning or retiring in L of termination, resigning or
retiring under,
retiring under inquiry and the investigation substantiate
serious misconduct. Or it's discovered that the
serious misconduct or it's discovered that the former
employee had engaged in serious misconduct,
employee had engaged in serious misconduct while still
employed with the city, um, that was new.
employed with the city. Um, that was new um, a new
clarification in 2024.
in 2024, we also, um, put in, um,
A.
A ruling that departments. Must provide a written.
A ruling that departments. Must provide a written memo with
rationale of why the person was placed on the list.
because, you know, I wanted to have, you know, Clarity uh,
in terms of the personnel, viol
in terms of the Personnel violations and um, the commission
commissioner of the department should also attach
substantiating document.
substantiating documents, the progressive discipline
history or any other, uh, documents that would then.
substantiate, why the former employee was being placed on
the list.
Um, in 20.
um, in 2024, we put in um,
That.
That the former employee could make, um, an app.
that the former employee could make um, an appeal after 1
year, but we have changed that for 2025 and I'll get that
uh to that in a couple of minutes.
for 2025, for the
for 2025 for the clarifications, you know, from our um,
discussions at the, uh, Department of Human Resources.
budget hearing as well as the Ethics Committee.
budget hearing as well as the Ethics Committee, uh, hearing
that we had in February.
that we had in February, uh, really wanted to um, just add
more.
more clarity, uh, to the policy in terms of first, who in
the department can place a
the department. Can place a former employee on this list
uh, it is the department commissioner or in the
Uh, it is the department, commissioner? Or in the case of
the mayor's office. It would be the chief of staff.
the mayor's office, it would be the chief of staff. Those
would be the, um,
would be the um employees that DHR would receive.
would be the um employees that DHR would receive uh The
Memo from to put the um former employee.
Memo from to put the um former employee on the ineligible
for rehire list.
um, we we removed the
Um, we we removed the um, 1 year. Wait uh period for former
employees.
employees so they can U file an appeal at any time.
We've.
We've also added in, um, to the policy.
We've also added in, um, to the policy on non-retaliation
language. Um, the city prohibits the use of this policy for
abusive or otherwise retaliatory, Purp,
abusive or otherwise, retaliatory purposes against its
employees.
Our.
Our launch plan. Um,
I'm here today. Um, giving you the review of the um policy.
clarifications uh this morning. As I was actually with
clarifications uh this morning as I was actually with the
sister agency. So I presented the uh,
sister agency. So I presented the uh clarification to CTA
the sister agency. So I presented the, uh, clarification to
CTA, uh, cha CPS. Um, you know,
uh, cha CPS, um, you know, other sister 8 Park District. Uh
so um,
so um you know, they just um, got this policy about.
Uh, so um you know, they just um, got this policy about
10:30 this morning.
and then,
And then uh, the official launch will be August 1st.
then we will do, uh, Department training for, uh,
Commissioners in HR, deputies. Uh,
Commissioners in HR deputies, uh, in August and September,
well, that includes City Council.
will that include city council members. Uh, yes, if you'd
want your, um, uh, Chief of Staff to be, uh,
want your, um, uh, Chief of Staff to be uh, involved in
that training. We can definitely have uh, send the training
to your Chiefs of staffs. Yeah, I think let's follow up
offline about that because we all are we have a lot going
on? August.
lot going on. August is the 1 month where things are a
little quieter for us on City Hall level?
little quieter for us, on City Hall level, but I also want
to make sure that to the extent people.
to make sure that to the extent people would like to be
able to attend something that we provide them that option.
So, our, our committee can be in touch with you after the
fact after. Okay, great.
uh, so that concludes my, um, overview of the
Uh, so that concludes my, um, overview of the um, policy.
Clarifications
Terrific. Uh, questions. Yeah.
yeah, ottoman Vasquez, and
Yeah, ottoman Vasquez and Alderman Gardner.
Thank you very much. Uh, chairman. Thank you. Commissioner.
Um, I guess
I, I appreciate the language on uh non-retaliation. I think
my follow-up on.
my follow-up on that is. How would that be?
Identified. And how would it be? Enforced?
I think.
I think if an employee, um, feels that they or former
employee can, um, they can report it to, uh, DHR or, uh,
even to the IG, if they feel that, um, they
to the IG, if they feel that um, they were um, a victim of
retaliation of this.
of retaliation of this policy. Okay. Yeah. And because I
know, I mean,
a lot of this conversation has happened during a time where
we had concerns about the administration and people who
they had on the rehire list and who was making the
decisions as to, who was on that list that, um,
I guess it feels like,
I guess it feels like it's, it's
part.
Part of it. Seemed different because it wasn't a department
head, right? So um, I won't get into specifics.
head, right? So, um, I won't get into specifics. I think a
lot of folks here, understand, but yeah.
lot of folks here, understand, but, yeah, in the world
where somebody from the mayor's office was the 1 using it
in such fashion. Just trying to figure out how
fashion, just trying to figure out how that would get
enforced. If it goes to ig then it becomes
An investigation, we might find out later.
An investigation we might find out later uh any any
suggestions that you might have on how to put more teeth?
suggestions that you might have on how to put more teeth on
something like that? Would be appreciated because I think
that was the nature of a lot of the concerns that I had.
Uh, when
uh, when we were talking about this matter. Lastly,
um, how would a former employee who wanted to appeal,
communicate that to um, uh, your office? Is that formal
email?
email letter? Is that a portal? How does that work? Um,
they would they could write, um, and send a letter via US.
mail or email.
Okay. Um, and I think the, uh, last question I've got
Okay. Um, and I think the uh, last question I've got is is
related to
Uh, and, and I know you can't answer to Too Much level of
detail.
detail, but since the last time you were here, have there
been more, folks placed on the do not hire or the
ineligible for rehire list from the mayor's office.
um, I mean, I have
um, I mean I have there may be
um I mean I have there may be 1 or 2 I can't say with um
but I've
Um but I've seen just a 1 or 2. Sure. Yeah, if you could do
the chair, provide any kind of info on that or departments
just kind of, obviously no debt.
just kind of, obviously no details, because that's personal
information, but just the numbers.
information. But just the numbers of how many folks have
been put on the ineligible for rehire list. Uh, and then
break down by department and my mayor's office. I think
that would be helpful. Sure. All right. Thank you very
much. All the questions I have for Alder.
much. All the questions I have for Alderman's spaz folder
followed by sorry. It's
Alderman's spaz folder followed by sorry. It's not giving
any member. I apologize, almond. Spado Alderman wag of spec
and Alderman Gardner.
I'm the 1 talking to you. Thank you, man. Thank you, man.
Thank thanks. Thanks Sharon. Good afternoon. Commissioner
always a pleasure? Good afternoon, I noticed pretty well
but you, you brought something up that uh, made me think of
some questions. So um, if you say you want to put them
under doing a higher lessen, the mayor says they're not
going on.
Can it be? Does it? Does he Trump your Authority?
Can it be? Does it, does he Trump your Authority on that?
I'm just curious about that 1, uh, Department Commission.
Commissioners, make the decision to put a former employee.
on the do not hire list. So it would be individual,
Department. Commissioners would make that decision.
Department. Commissioners would make that decision for
employees, former employees, from their department. So, if
you're putting John Smith on their, can the mayor's office?
Say, no, we're not going to allow we don't, we're not going
to put John Smith on there. No, it's at the decision of the
department. Commissioner. Okay, not the mayor's office.
department, commissioner? Okay, not the mayor's office. And
then if somebody's on there and the mayor's office,
wants to hire them, they can't
Wants to hire them. They can't hire them until they're off
the list, correct? Yes. The appeal is.
the list, correct? Yes. The appeal is controlled by the,
uh, Department of Human Resources. Commissioner? That's it.
Simple enough. Thank you. Sure. Great. Thank you.
Simple enough, thank you, sure, great, thank you chairman.
You're welcome Alderman waguespack followed by Alderman
guard.
Gardner.
Thanks chairman. Um, commissioner.
the um,
Would.
Would so uh we've seen a couple changes.
would so uh we've seen a couple changes, you said 2024,
then we had 2025 changes
What would happen?
What would happen to somebody who throughout this time.
What would happen to somebody who throughout this time
frame? Or even sooner than that. Um,
if they had been, uh, part of
If they had been, uh, part of an investigation that wasn't
done correctly. What?
done correctly. What was retaliatory? Um, what retroactive
uh policies are in place to?
uh policies are in place to, uh, allow them to not only
substantiate, um,
anything that might have been done incorrectly, but
Anything that might have been done incorrectly, but what is
the process to then? Other than just
the process to then other than just writing a letter via US
mail or email?
uh, because sometimes
Uh, because sometimes these people don't know that they
were retaliated against. Um, what remedy do they have other
than to go to you or the oig for
Uh, resolution of their problem.
It really is. Um, writing the appeal.
It really is um, writing the appeals letter and being as
detailed as possible. Um,
detailed as possible. Um 1 of the best appeals letter that
I saw this year was somebody that had been separated
probably 10 years ago and he was able to show um how he
went through a substance.
went through a substance, um, abuse rehabilitation program.
He had
he had 10 years of clean driving record with
He had 10 years of clean driving record with progressively
higher security clearances,
higher security, clearances. Um, and so given all of that
information, you know, I removed him from the list. Yeah.
Well I'm curious.
well, I'm curious. Um, so as you know, last year when we
had several of the employees from the mayor's office uh
through Mr, Reese who were uh, Rhett
through Mr Reese, who were, uh, retaliated against for
whatever reasons. Um, I brought up at the time that, uh, a
lot of those people suffered pretty dramatic.
lot of those people, suffered pretty dramatic, um,
Job hiring issues.
job hiring issues or could have and and you know, including
including uh these false ACC
including uh, these false accusations potentially not
allowing them to be.
allowing them to be hired elsewhere. So, what do you
recommend to people who've gone through that process who
then have to?
then have to rehabilitate their professional records?
then have to rehabilitate their professional records um and
rehabil rehabilitate themselves in terms of how they're
viewed by other people.
viewed by other people when it was the city that
Retaliated against them in the wrong.
Retaliated against them in the wrong way. I mean, what what
recourse do? They then have other? It's
recourse do? They then have other to hire an attorney and
Go after the city, is there anything that clears them?
other than a note that says, yeah.
other than a note that says, yeah, we did wrong, so you're
cleared but good luck.
cleared but good luck in the job, Workforce beyond that.
Well, I can't
Legally.
Legally sure. But again, you know, um, the part that I
control is the appeals um, letter review. So what about the
other agents that may?
agents that may or may not have done the investigation? I
mean, is there anybody at all responsible or
I would think that somebody should.
I would think that somebody should be here from some of the
other bodies to say this is
other bodies to say, this is our recourse or
Are we just sort of writing off the last few years of
retaliation?
um, again, um, I can't speak on
um again um I can't speak on any specific um, cases the
part that
that DHR um is responsible for is reviewing.
that DHR um is responsible for is reviewing the appeals
letter and making um that determination okay? When you did
the um, rehire
the um rehire policy here and you redrafted it, I thought
that we had conversations about do
Um, oig. And
um, oig and I thought HR um, we're
Um oig and I thought HR, um, we're all working together. We
were okay, we did
We were okay. We did. Um, I was looking around to see. Oh,
IG is still here.
IG is still here? Uh yes. Um, we worked um, with the
is still here. Uh yes. Um, we worked um, with the inspector
General's office on the policy re draft for this.
General's office on the policy re draft for this year as
well as Department of Law. So we all 3 uh groups work
together. Okay. Maybe the IG could answer this
together, okay? Maybe the IG could answer this. Then what
we do when we have, uh,
we do when we have uh, retaliation that's been unfounded
and how does the city address that?
Maybe.
Maybe it's the Department of Law. I don't know that.
Let me come up here to say that. Um, I I think um,
Let me come up here to say that. Um I I think um I I think
that that hello again Deborah Woods.
that that hello again Deborah woodsburgh Inspector General
for the city. Uh that may be a question best answered by
the department.
the Department of Law, particularly with respect to matters
that occurred under a prior version of the policy. So I
don't want to I don't want to say too much there except to
say that um the same Rhett
say that um the same retaliation prohibitions which exists
elsewhere in the city law.
Persist.
Okay.
But I guess how unsatisfying that is, no.
But I guess how unsatisfying that is. No, it's well, it's
very unsatisfying because we saw a very clearly several
people who were retaliated against and they had to go
either, hire an attorney or look at hiring.
either, hire an attorney or look at hiring an attorney, and
the city, put the onus on them.
the city, put the onus on them, uh, and every agency here
involved, put the onus on.
involved, put the onus on them to go, basically spend money
that they probably didn't have.
money that they probably didn't have to go clear. Not only
clear their name, but
clear their name but clear this
uh,
Uh, awful work history that was imposed on them by.
Uh, awful work history. That was imposed on them by someone
in the city. So I'm I'm just having a hard time.
in the city. So I'm I'm just having a hard time thinking
how we just sort of brush that aside and
how we just sort of brush that aside. And, you know, we're
well, we got a new policy, so,
well, we got a new policy, so that's a okay. But those
people kind of have to suffer through, uh,
What is potentially?
what is potentially Decades of harm to their ability to
earn more than they might have been? Yeah. I I don't expect
you to really, I know I, I hear that. I
you to really, I know, I, I hear that. I, I just want to
say um, that
say, um, that, uh, we did, we did work with DHR in the
process of this revision. Um, oig is not the decision.
of this revision. Um, oig is not the decision maker, we're
not the pain on the policy and we are not the decision
maker with respect.
with respect to the final provisions of it that are
adopted. So
that are adopted. So I don't want to sort of um,
I don't.
I don't want to speak for either DHR or the law Department
here. Um, I'm not sure that this is strictly an oig
question but I'd be happy to look for.
but I'd be happy to look further into that and follow up
with you including through the chair. If there's more that
we can offer on that question. I just don't want to, I
don't want to sort of get over my skis.
to. I don't want to sort of get over my skis, at the
moment. I'll I'll ask DOL too. Uh,
moment. I'll I'll ask DOL too, uh, just to see what their
position is on it. Um, and I think, you know, I obviously
some of these people who are put on the list, didn't go
through the uh, invest.
through the uh, investigation that you normally would have
carried out. Um,
Um we're talking about some people from last year.
year so hopefully this new version of it.
hopefully this new version of it. Um, clarifies what people
are supposed to do and
what people are supposed to do and the process. They're
supposed to go through to to really get somebody
supposed to go through to, to really get somebody on that
list. So thank you very much. Thank you chairman.
list. So thank you very much, thank you, chairman and
almond. If I could add
I just, um, just
I just um, just and that's why we put in writing the memo.
I just um just and that's why we put in writing the memo and
adding um the uh substantiating.
and adding um, the uh, substantiating documents to show
why, what was the
was the Personnel violation and then give us the evidence.
evidence and it has to come from the chief of staff and the
mayor's office and the department of commissioner. It can't
come from any other employ.
come from any other employee.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Alvin Alderman Gardner. Hi commiss
Thank you, Alvin Alderman, Gardner. Hi commissioner, how
are you? Fine. Um, I first want to begin by just thanking
you uh, for your professionalism.
you, uh, for your professionalism. Anytime we reach out to
you, you always call us back, it's very
you, you always call us back. It's very very much
appreciated. Thank you. Um, it's it's sometimes often said
but sometimes
said, but sometimes rarely practice, but you do that. And I
appreciate that. So, um, just wanted to bring up, I know
you had mentioned, if somebody was on the do not hire list
had mentioned, if somebody was on the do not hire list, um,
you said that it was up to the commissioner of that
department, is that correct on the commissioner of the
former employees Department puts them on the list? Correct?
Yes, correct. Um,
But it, okay. So but if the mirror oversees that
commissioner and say,
and say the mayor, for example, for some reason, would want
to see that.
reason, would want to see that person. Still on the do not
hire list. I mean, can you kind of see where there would be
a conflict of interest?
uh, well the
It has.
It has to be um, documented why the person is?
it has to be um documented why the person is placed on the
list with what the violation of the Personnel rule is
the list with what the violation of the Personnel rule is
and then, uh, the substantiating document
then uh, the substantiating documents? And I think you have
to remember that 90% of
have to remember that 90% of city employees is represented
by
to remember that 90% of city employees is represented by a
union and there should be a lengthy
by a union and there should be a lengthy Progressive
discipline process before anyone is terminated from the
city of Chicago, right? So there's still 10% of employees
because you said 90,
because you said, 90 were about 90, 90 90. So 10% are not
are not represented by a union. So just say for those,
right, everyone equals.
right, everyone equals everyone matters equally right. So
for those individuals who are not represented by a union,
um,
for those individuals who are not represented by a union um
what are we left with? Like, for example,
um what are we left with? Like for example, like I'm you're
saying it's up to the commissioner, if they
you're saying it's up to the commissioner if they decide to
fire an individual of of of a particular Department.
fire an individual of of, of a particular department, but
if the mayor is the overseer, right? Of that department, or
that commissioner, right? As the CEO.
that commissioner, right? As the CEO of the city of
Chicago? Um, I would believe
believe that it would be difficult for the commissioner to
stand there if the mayor wanted or did not
stand there. If the mayor wanted or did not want somebody
on the do not hire list to sit there.
on the do not hire list to sit there and I mean, and I'm
coming with all sincerity.
coming with all sincerity, right? This would be an awkward
situation. I would believe no. I think as a commissioner
you have to uphold you. You are charged with upholding the
laws of the city of Chicago.
so, you have to
So, you have to follow these Personnel rules and the
policy.
policy, um, and that's what I do because, um,
I look at the uh, data for
I look at the uh data for whether I'm taking somebody off
of the ineligible for rehire policy. I'm not going to be
persuaded by anyone. I'm going to look at the evidence. Oh
right? No, I'm not.
right. No, I'm not. Yeah, I I I don't want you to confer
that I'm saying.
that I'm saying you. I'm just saying in the situation that
we have um um and some of the changes that you
we have um, um and some of the changes that you brought up
and I and I apologize because I did not have a chance to
read over this thoroughly. Sure. Um, are people
Quote unquote, would they be like grandfather?
quote unquote, would they be like grandfathered into this
because you just brought up an example of somebody from 10
years ago that
years ago, that was on the do not hire list. But then due
to his substance,
his substance abuse recovery and you brought him back into
the system. Um, so that this this would apply to everybody
who has ever been is that
who has ever been? Is that, is that correct, right? Um, on
August 1st when we launched this policy, um, you have the
ability to file your appeal immediately, right? You don't
have to wait 1 year. Like if you were terminated uh June
1st on August 1st, you can
File your appeal? Sure sure. But I meant like somebody
because you had brought up somebody from 10 years ago. So
say somebody from 20 years ago, 30 years ago, right. I mean
obviously that becomes a smaller number, but somebody from
15 years ago they would have this opportunity. Absolutely
you
15 years ago, they would have this opportunity. Absolutely.
You can appeal at any time. Okay. Um and I know Al
You can appeal at any time. Okay. Um, and I know Alderman
wedges back had brought up that unfortunately those same
individuals who chances are if they're still looking to get
back into the city. They're I'm guessing not living in a
life of luxury.
a life of luxury. So they would have to then hire their own
attorney and pay the
attorney, and pay these on fees in order to
Get.
Get this into operation, right? I I would imagine
get this into operation, right? I I would imagine. And
again, I can't speak to specific cases and I think that uh,
area is more for Department of Law.
uh, area is more for Department of Law versus DHR, I see.
Yep, okay.
Yep. Okay, I think it for your time and and as always, I
thank you for your work. Thank you. Thank you, Alderman.
Alderman, wages back.
Thanks chairman sorry. Uh, just 1 kind of
Thanks chairman sorry. Uh just 1 kind of broad question
here so and I apologize if you stated
here, so and I apologize if you stated it in your intro but
you mentioned you shared it with the other
but you mentioned, you shared it with the other sister
agencies. So what, um, kind of broader cooperation, do you
expect to see or hope to see with those sister agencies
with the new policy, right? I just, uh, shared it a few
hours ago with the sister agencies.
hours ago with the sister agencies and they're all in, um,
you know, different stages.
you know, different stages of their own, um, ineligible for
rehire.
rehire policy. I believe Park District's, just put in a new
policy.
policy last year. Um, so they are, um, you know, reviewing,
um, the city's policy, I think,
um, the city's policy. I think we just, um, have to
remember that.
All very separate legal entities with their own.
All very separate legal entities with their own boards and
that's that's the challenge. But I did, you know, I've
offered um, you know, to if they
offered um you know to if they want to discuss our policy
um in a more
policy, um, in a more uh, detailed way I've offered my
services to them.
services to them as well as, uh, any information on our
exper.
experiences.
And that that would include like sharing.
And that that would include like sharing information on if
somebody and say the park.
somebody and say, the park district has been put on their
list that they would.
list that they would share it with you uh, through HR.
list that they would share it with you, uh, through HR, um,
so that there's notification of some type. And, again, we
just have to, like, I've offered, um,
just have to, like I've offered um, the city's list to um,
all of the agencies. Some take it some don't because again
they're um,
they're um all separate legal entities and have different
policies, so you
different policies. So you just have to, um, you know, be
mindful of the, um, legal constraints. Okay.
mindful of the um, legal constraints. Okay. Thank you very
much. Thank you, great. I have 1 follow up question to that
which
that, which is through the chair. If you can share more
information about the nature of those conversations,
specifically
Specifically, if there are departments who have said, yes
we have in in receipt of this and are um uh doing the same
um versus ones who you've had less robust engagement.
same, um, versus ones who you've had less robust engagement
with. I believe that they're um, was an artic
with. I believe that they're, um, was an article not too
long ago about an individual who had been hired at the
city. I was placed on the
to the ability ineligible
To the ability, ineligible for a higher list, then hired by
CPS.
CPS uh some potentially inappropriate things occurred
there. Um, and so it seemed like, um, that was something
that might need some improvement, but maybe we're already
on,
on the way to doing that, given the work that you're doing.
So I think it would be helpful.
So I think it would be helpful for this committee to
understand where, where
understand, where, where is their, where their good lines
of communication with our sister agencies.
of communication, with our sister agencies where their
opportunities for improvement. Recognizing that.
opportunities for improvement. Recognizing that there are
separate entities. Can we do something to help them along
to the extent? That's needed. So, uh, appreciate the line
of questioning all the wages.
of questioning all the wages back in your leadership on
this issue generally. Um, they're being no further business
before the committee Alderman Magis.
before the committee Alderman. Waguespack moves to adjourn
all those in favor signify by saying I
all those opposed in the opinion of the chair, the
All those opposed in the opinion of the chair, the eyes
have it. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you, commissioner,
thank you.
thank you General, thank you.