Is Patronage Dead?

• DOI: 10.1177/0734371X0202200101
• Author: David K. Hamilton
• Published date: 01 March 2002
• Date: 01 March 2002
• Subject Matter: Articles

ARTICLES
REVIEW OF PUBLIC PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION / Spring 2002
Hamilton / IS PATRONAGE DEAD?
Is Patronage Dead?
The Impact of Antipatronage Staffing Systems
DAVID K. HAMILTON
Roosevelt University
As a result of court cases,Illinois state government and a number of local govern-
ments in Cook County have established nonpatronage staffing systems. An analy-
sis of the impact of these staffing systems reveals that patronage has not been elim-
inated. It is still alive and well but has changed in significant ways. Although
there have been positive impacts on staffing from nonpatronage systems,they tend
to be overly centralized and bureaucratic. This causes time delays in filling
vacant positions and requires additional time and paperwork on the part of hir-
ing officials. Nonpatronage systems are not designed to attract the best and the
brightest but rather to keep patronage-oriented applicants out. The author rec-
ommends that staffing systems be designed around a public service orientation to
strike a balance between patronage and merit. Staffing such systems will
de-emphasize centralized,bureaucratic antipatronage procedures in favor of
more flexibility and accountability in the operating departments.
Chicagoisnotedintheliteratureasthelastbastionof“machine”politics.
Whereas other city political machines were falling on hard times and los-
ing power in the 1930s, Chicago’s Democratic machine was just getting a
good start.1 In 1931, the Democrats defeated the Republican mayor and built
a Democratic machine that remained unchallenged in Chicago until after the
death of Mayor Richard J. Daley in 1976. As with other political machines,
the Chicago machine was built on favors and jobs. The Chicago Democratic
machine not only controlled city government but much of the county as well.
It also controlled city and most countywide special districts. It developed a
large patronage system thatdispensed jobs notonly in governmentbutalso
controlled thousands of jobs in the private sector (Freedman, 1994b, pp. 40-
41). This patronage culture permeated the state, and Republicans used simi-
lar patronage practices in the governments they controlled. However, their
patronage practices were not as long-lived or as well organized as the Demo-
cratic machine in Cook County.2
Review of Public Personnel Administration, Vol. 22, No. 1 Spring 2002 3-26
© 2002 Sage Publications
3



rop.sagepub.com
Downloaded from
at SAGE Publications on December 8, 2012

---

4
REVIEW OF PUBLIC PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION / Spring 2002
Unlike most other large cities that had been reformed, the Chicago
machine continued to be open and blatant in its patronage practices. Most
government jobs were dispensed through patronage, and workers benefit-
ing from it were expected to contribute time and money to the Democratic
Party. Because patronage was so openly practiced and its excesses so visible,
the Chicago and Illinois state government became the focus for the legal
fight against it. Since the United States Supreme Court decision in Elrod v.
Burns in 1976, the courts have mounted an aggressive attack on patronage
practices in governments. The Elrod case banned firing in nonpolicy posi-
tions for political reasons. In Branti v. Finkel (1980), the Supreme Court
further clarified what positions were subject to patronage. Subsequent
Supreme Court cases banned patronage in virtually all aspects of the per-
sonnel function (Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 1990) and the firing
of government contractors for political reasons (O’Hare v. City of Northlake,
1996). With the exception of the Branti case, all the above were Illinois
cases. An Illinois case that the Supreme Court refused to hear was the
Shakman case (Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 1979).
That case resulted in consent decrees with the major governments in Cook
County not simply banning patronage but mandating an antipatronage
staffing system monitored by the court for a 10-year period. The issues
involved in these major Illinois patronage court cases are dealt with at
length in other writings and are not the focus of this article (Bowman,
1991; Freedman, 1988, 1994a, 1994b; Hamilton, 1992, 1993, 1999).
This article is concerned with the impact on government personnel prac-
tices and patronage from the court decisions. As the Shakman decree
required the establishment of a court-approved and monitored staffing sys-
tem, governments under its jurisdiction, particularly those of Chicago and
Cook County, are the focus of this analysis. In addition to an analysis of that
impact, this article documents how patronage continues to flourish within
the new staffing systems. Finally, recommendations are made on how
nonpatronage systems could be improved through a public service-oriented
staffing system to strike a balance between patronage and merit staffing.
Because patronage is a sensitive and litigious topic in Illinois, primary
source information is not easily obtained. Available published and unpub-
lished materials, court documents, confidential interviews with willing
government personnel and litigators involved in the Shakman case, govern-
ment reports, and newspaper articles were used. Although much of the data
from these sources is subject to organizational and personal bias, and some
of the data are anecdotal, it was possible to obtain sufficient information



rop.sagepub.com
Downloaded from
at SAGE Publications on December 8, 2012

---

Hamilton / IS PATRONAGE DEAD?
5
from all sources to provide a reasonable balance from which an informed
analysis could be made.
MANDATED CHANGES IN STAFFING SYSTEMS
A brief review of the Shakman litigation is appropriate because all but
one of the new staffing systems in this analysis were established under its
jurisdiction. Michael Shakman, an unsuccessful independent candidate
from Chicago for the 1970 Illinois Constitutional Convention, filed a law-
suit in federal court challenging the Democratic Party’s patronage system
that required government employees to contribute financially to the party
and work for the party-endorsed candidates (Shakman v. Democratic Party
of Cook County, 1970). The suitwas dismissed by the districtjudge butrein-
stated on appeal. After extensive litigation, the defendant governments
entered into an agreement in 1972, known as Shakman I, that prohibited
forcing employees to contribute financially to the political party or to
engage in political activity against their will. Shakman continued to pursue
his case to ban patronage hiring, and finally, in 1979, U.S. District Judge
Nicholas Bua declared patronage hiring unconstitutional.
After 4 additional years of litigation without arriving at a remedy, Judge
Bua enjoined further patronage hiring and established hiring guidelines
that defendant governments were to adhere to in establishing a
nonpatronage hiring system (Shakman et al. v. Democratic Organization of
Cook County et al., 1983). Although Chicago and other offices including
the Chicago Park District, Cook County Sheriff, Cook County Treasurer,
and the state’s attorney of Cook County agreed to establish a hiring system
based on the court’s guidelines, Cook County itself appealed the decision.
The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court this time reversed itself and ruled that
Michael Shakman had no standing to bring the case. The United States
Supreme Courtdid notgrantcertiorari. However, the Shakman decree con-
tinued as a major force in the staffing systems of those organizations that
had agreed to abide by the decree and had developed and implemented
staffing systems under the court-ordered guidelines. In 1988, the city asked
the court to vacate its court-supervised hiring system in light of the Seventh
CircuitCourt’s decision butwithdrew its requestbecause of the ensuing
negative publicity. It is also interesting to note that the county subsequently
became a signatory to Shakman in 1994 and established a staffing system
based on its guidelines.



rop.sagepub.com
Downloaded from
at SAGE Publications on December 8, 2012

---

6
REVIEW OF PUBLIC PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION / Spring 2002
The guidelines that formed the basis for the nonpatronage staffing sys-
tems are as follows:
• All positions, including temporary, except high-level policy-making and con-
fidential positions are covered by the Shakman provisions. In some jurisdic-
tions, specific technical positions can be excluded. The court must approve
all exempt positions. Exempt positions can be changed with court approval if
the total number of exempt positions remains constant. (In most jurisdic-
tions, the number of exempt positions was 3% to 5%. In the Chicago work-
force of approximately 38,000, less than 3% were exempted.)
• Notice of job openings with all particulars regarding the position must be
prominently displayed at each place where applications are taken for 14 days
before the closing date for the acceptance of applications. Exceptions to the
posting are for jobs filled by promotion and vacancies to be filled from the
highest ranking applicant on a competitive examination.
• Atleastonce every 6 months, the governmentmustprominently advertise
job openings in a major Chicago newspaper.
• All employees and applicants must be given a notice, which must also be
prominently displayed where applications are taken, that all positions (except
Shakman-exempt) are nonpatronage and that political influence cannot be a
factor in the hiring process.
• Each governmentmustkeep meticulous records, filing quarterly and annual
reports with the court listing people hired...