The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bua, District Judge.
The following defendants have filed motions to alter or amend the
Court's April 4, 1983 judgment in this cause: Democratic Party County
Central Committee for Cook County and its members; Edward R. Vrdolyak;
Forest Preserve District of Cook County; Richard J. Elrod; Edward J.
Rosewell; Stanley T. Kusper, Jr.; Thomas C. Hynes and George W. Dunne,
569 F. Supp. 177. For the reasons stated below, defendants' motions are
granted in part and denied in part.
Defendants' misinterpretation of the Decree does not warrant
reconsideration or amendment of the April 4 Judgment Order. First, the
injunctive provisions of the Court's judgment are neither vague nor
overbroad. The Decree does not inhibit anyone's voluntary political
activities, but rather the judgment simply provides that, for non-exempt
jobs, a person's lawful political activity, or lack of such activity, is
to have nothing to do with getting or keeping a job. Neither does the
Decree impose a civil service system as defendants contend. See Judgment
Order dated April 4, 1983, at 2 ("The Judgment goes no further than to
attempt to eliminate political considerations in the hiring of government
employees. It does not impose a civil service system nor does it
necessitate that a merit system be utilized.") Second, defendants'
argument that the Decree improperly excludes party leaders from any role
in the hiring process is without merit. Although the Decree does prohibit
the existing system by which hiring decisions are delegated to ward and
township committeemen, the Decree does not prohibit party leaders from
disseminating public information concerning job openings, referring
people to employment offices of the defendants, or even from recommending
persons about whom they have specific job related information. The Decree
simply prohibits hiring which gives political recommendations more weight
than other relevant recommendations (including recommendations of rival
political groups). Third, defendants argue that the Decree is overbroad
because it applies to "all others in active concert or participation with
defendants. . . ." Defendants' argument, however, is without merit since
the language of the Decree is taken verbatim from Rule 65(d) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendants' objections to the reporting requirements of the Decree are
similarly without merit. Given the long history of the patronage hiring
practices in issue here, the requirement that there be, for a limited
period, a report on all politically recommended hiring is an entirely
reasonable monitoring device. The Decree does not prohibit any hiring of
such persons. The Decree does, however, enable the parties to determine
if politically recommended hiring occurs to such an extent as to question
the general compliance with the provisions of the decree. This reporting
provision of the Judgment is vital for there to be adequate monitoring of
compliance with the Decree, without detailed judicial supervision of
hiring systems. The provisions are modest and reasonable requirements.
Neither are the provisions of the Decree for interim exemptions
inappropriate. The Judgment provides that the Court's jurisdiction is
retained to determine which positions should be exempt from the Decree.
Exemptions are necessary in order to ensure that prevailing candidates
are able lawfully to direct the policies of the governmental office to
which they are elected. The Decree provides for interim exemptions from
its provisions, until defendants establish which positions need
permanently to be exempted. For the County officers, the Decree provides
exemptions for private secretaries, executive heads of departments and,
in total, up to 125 additional positions. The additional positions are to
be designated by the governing board of the County, its Board of
Commissioners. This technique of dealing with exemptions for County
officers was necessitated precisely because those officers defaulted in
requesting exemptions from the decree. No County officer has ever filed a
petition for a single position to be exempt. In light of the County
officers' failure to seek exemptions, the provisions of interim
exemptions are eminently reasonable. Likewise, the Central Committee's
argument that the number of interim exemptions is too small is without
merit in light of defendants' failure to petition the Court for
additional interim exemptions.
Defendant Forest Preserve District's contention that it has been denied
an opportunity to defend itself is frivolous. Defendants' argument that
the Court erred in granting plaintiffs summary judgment on liability is
equally without merit.
Finally, three minor aspects of the Court's April 4, 1983 Judgment are
amended as follows:
In Paragraph C of the April 4, 1983 Judgment Order, the following
defendants are deleted; City of Chicago; Jane M. Byrne, individually and
as Mayor of the City of Chicago; Chicago Park District; Richard J.
Elrod, individually and as Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois; Morgan M.
Finley, individually and as Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois; Edward J. Rosewell, individually and as Treasurer of Cook
County, Illinois. These defendants have entered into separate consent
(1) In Paragraph L, line 13, of the April 4, 1983 Judgment Order, the
word "member" is deleted. Since any person who votes in an Illinois
primary is technically a "member" of a political party, it will be
sufficient to require defendants to submit affidavits of compliance which
report all direct or indirect recommendations or sponsorships from "a
political party official, employee or agent."
(2) In Paragraph M of the April 4, 1983 Judgment Order, the phrase
"years 1983 through 1992" is amended to read "years 1984 through 1992."
For all of the above reasons, defendants' motions to alter or amend
judgment are granted in part and denied in part.