Shakman Decrees

The Shakman decrees were a series of laws passed through the efforts of Michael Shakman regarding Chicago politics of the late 1960s and 70s to combat city-wide political corruption. Shakman was concerned about the policies of rewarding political loyalties with public positions and punishment for employees who did not support the winner. The three respective decrees that were finally enacted occurred, respectively, in 1972, 1979, and 1983.^[1][2][3]

Shakman worked for this goal from 1969-1983 through a series of legal battles that ended in compromises on each decree, although largely considered a victory for the anti-corruption movement.^[1][2][3]

Background

Chicago politics had long been dominated by political patronage, or the act of benefiting through position, promotion, or in any other way benefit supporters of a politician or party while punishing opponents through demotion, transfer, firing, or any other negative action. Public employees, therefore had to be careful with political allegiances; campaigning for the loser would result in punishment, whereas neutrality could have meant stagnant career advancement.^[1][2][3]

Shakman ran for a position outside of the Cook County Democratic scope and lost. He, and other plaintiffs, were particularly alarmed at how much support the incumbent Democratic candidates received from public employees and were shocked to learn that often this support was mandatory for those desiring to keep their jobs. Shakman felt that this was a violation of employee rights, free elections, and use of public funds.^[1][2][3]

Shakman filed a suit against the Democratic Organization of Cook County believing that the patronage system gave unconstitutional and illegal disadvantage to non-organized candidates.^[1][2][3]

Shakman Case

Shakman filed a class action suit claiming the Democratic Organization of Cook County was in violation of the First Amendment and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Shakman claimed that the defendants, including a number of government employees and politicians had violated the fundamental rights of fair and equal electoral process and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.^[1][2][3]

Much of the complaint stemmed from government employees being required to campaign or contribute to the political campaigns of Democratic candidates to guarantee their positions in the future. This had been a long standing practice of Democratic, and to a lesser extent Republican, politicians in Chicago at the time. Along with being a Constitutional violation, Shakman also claimed that it was a burden on taxpayers since public employees were being used to run campaigns rather than fulfill their tasks. He therefore claimed that to end the practice of political patronage would more efficiently allocate the public budget.^[1][2][3]

The case was dismissed in 1969, but overturned in 1970 leading to a long deliberation. After the reversal of the case the plaintiffs and much of the defendants were able to enter into a consent decree on most of the present issues in the complaint. The defendants agreed to much of the complaints and resolved to make amends. Stipulations of fact were next filed to resolve the remaining issues.^[1][2][3]

Decrees

The series of decrees that followed from the deliberations of this case resulted in major changes to hiring and firing proceedings for public officials. The case carried on over a decade but resulted in the three respective decrees that allowed for more openness and ideological liberty among public employees, as well as prohibiting political patronage.^[1][2][3]

1972 Decree

Following long deliberation and compromise, the two sides agreed in 1972 that firing, demoting, transferring or punishing in any way due to political motivations was unconstitutional and illegal. They agreed that this was true for most public positions within Cook County. However they agreed that there were some positions that, by nature of being politically charged positions, could be allowed to be influenced by political allegiance, such as policy making positions.^[1][2][3]

1979 Decree

After the ‘72 decree there was a long stagnation of negotiations. The defendants were successful for many years in blocking further action through a number of means. However, Shakman was able to convince the court that the politically motivated barring of individuals for the hiring process was unconstitutional and that the defendants had avoided negotiations. The court therefore decreed in 1979 that both parties were required to proceed with negotiations on the subject.^[1][2][3]

1983 Decree

The final Shakman decree asserted that any political affiliations or refusal to support a candidate could not in any way affect the hiring of an individual to a public position. There were similar exceptions, as in the 1972 decree; mainly that individuals could be barred if it was for a politically charged position.^[1][2][3]

Significance

The Shakman decrees helped to greatly reduce the power of Political Patronage among the American political system. Although it is still likely prevalent, it is certainly practiced at a much lesser extent and much more discreetly. Patronage was generally found to be unconstitutional and contrary to the belief in equal and unbiased elections, employment rights, and the allocation of public dollars. The long deliberation resulted in much more free and open politics in regards to public employees.^[1][2][3]

Criticism

The Shakman decrees did receive some amount of criticism; namely from those who believe politicians should be able to surround themselves with supporters. The most notable of this scenario was the first black mayor of Chicago, Harold Washington, who was distressed that he could not hire any supporters to his post despite the election being a heated and contested one.^[4]

Recent

The case is still technically being negotiated as the standards Shakman has required have yet to be fully met. Shakman standards are still aimed for today and compliance is often difficult. Rahm Emanuel believes that the ongoing case may soon be over, as he has stated that the government is closer than ever in negotiating a proper balance of standards to meet.^[5]

References