Commentary on Patronage

In his article on Illinois after Rutan, David Hamilton (1993) describes the steps that the state has taken to comply with the Supreme Court's prohibition of patronage hiring. Although the patronage system established under Governor James Thompson has been dismantled, there is good reason to believe, as Hamilton hints, that the sun has yet to set on patronage in Illinois. The current governor's commitment to eliminating patronage seems at best questionable. Like his predecessors, Governor Edgar has carried on the hoary traditions of Illinois' job-centered politics by keeping control of the personnel function in political hands. Once again a political operative rather than a personnel professional has been put in charge of the state's Department of Central Management Services (DCMS). In carrying out the Rutan settlement, the Edgar administration has also identified an extraordinary number of positions as exempt, thus preserving them as patronage posts. So far, at least 3,200 positions out of a total of 65,000 under the governor's control have been put in the exempt category. According to the Volcker Commission (1989), this is approximately the same number of appointments made by the President, who heads a work force almost 50 times larger. Although protests forced DCMS to abandon its attempt to put though a plan turning another 1,000 positions into term appointments (Finke, 1993), the 3,200 existing exempt positions are probably sufficient for the administration to exercise considerable control. Because many of the 3,200 political appointees will be in supervisory positions, they will be able to influence the hiring, promotion, and evaluation of rank-and-file employees. The Edgar administration is also fighting to preserve as much patronage as it can by filling hundreds of part-time and seasonal jobs on a political basis. The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) has admitted that it gets political referrals for summer jobs, but claims it is within the law because Rutan does not apply to part-time or temporary jobs. This is a dubious interpretation of the Court's ruling and Mary Lee Leahy, the attorney who won the Rutan case, has already filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all those who have been denied jobs because of their political affiliation. She charges that officials have regularly turned to Party leaders throughout the state for advice on hiring temporary highway maintainers, who handle snow removal and other maintenance on state roads and that the party officials made recommendations based on people's voting records, political contributions and other partisan factors. While the state is fighting the charges, its case has been undercut by a Republican county chairman who acknowledged to a reporter that IDOT lets us know whenever a position comes up in Saline County (McDermott, 1993). The suit against is just one of several that have been filed against the state for violating Rutan. In addition, the Edgar administration has been under fire as a result of muckraking reports in the Chicago Tribune, the Springfield State Journal Register, and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch documenting its extensive use of pinstripe patronage, including consulting and personal service contracts. Criticism of the administration for changing the state's purchasing rules has been widespread. The state is now allowed to award no-bid contracts for any purchase under $25,000. Previously, bids were required for all contracts of $5,000 or more

Political science · Transport and Economic Policies

• The Staffing Function in Illinois State Government after Rutan

  D Kirk Hamilton•Public Administration Review•1993

  Add to list

• Doing Battle with the Patronage Army

  Anne Freedman•Public Administration Review•1988

  Add to list